1: \documentclass{aastex}
2:
3: \usepackage{emulateapj5}
4:
5: \usepackage{graphicx,xspace}
6: \newcommand\etal{{et al.}\xspace}
7: \newcommand\apec{{\sc apec}\xspace}
8: \newcommand\aped{{\sc aped}\xspace}
9: \newcommand\spex{{\sc spex}\xspace}
10: \newcommand\chandra{{\it Chandra}\xspace}
11: \newcommand\xmm{{\it XMM-Newton}\xspace}
12: \newcommand{\NH}{\mbox{${\rm N}_{\rm H}$}} % Defines NH
13:
14: \begin{document}
15:
16: \title{Collisional Plasma Models with APEC/APED: Emission Line
17: Diagnostics of Hydrogen-like and Helium-like Ions}
18:
19: \author{Randall K. Smith, Nancy S. Brickhouse}
20: \affil{High Energy Astrophysics Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center
21: for Astrophysics, \\
22: 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138; rsmith@hea-cfa.harvard.edu,
23: nbrickhouse@hea-cfa.harvard.edu}
24:
25: \author{Duane A. Liedahl}
26: \affil{Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Department of Physics
27: and Advanced Technologies\\ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory \\
28: P.O. Box 808, L-41, Livermore, CA 94550; duane@leo.llnl.gov. }
29:
30: \author{John C. Raymond}
31: \affil{Solar and Space Physics Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center
32: for Astrophysics, \\ 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138;
33: jraymond@cfa.harvard.edu}
34:
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37: New X-ray observatories (\chandra and \xmm) are providing a wealth of
38: high-resolution X-ray spectra in which hydrogen- and helium-like ions
39: are usually strong features. We present results from a new
40: collisional-radiative plasma code, the Astrophysical Plasma Emission
41: Code (\apec), which uses atomic data in the companion Astrophysical
42: Plasma Emission Database (\aped) to calculate spectral models for hot
43: plasmas. \aped contains the requisite atomic data such as collisional
44: and radiative rates, recombination cross sections, dielectronic
45: recombination rates, and satellite line wavelengths. We compare the
46: \apec results to other plasma codes for hydrogen- and helium-like
47: diagnostics, and test the sensitivity of our results to the number of
48: levels included in the models. We find that dielectronic
49: recombination with hydrogen-like ions into high ($n=6-10$) principal
50: quantum numbers affects some helium-like line ratios from low-lying
51: ($n=2$) transitions.
52: \end{abstract}
53: \keywords{atomic data --- atomic processes --- plasmas --- radiation
54: mechanisms: thermal --- Xrays: general}
55:
56: \received{\underline{ }}
57: \revised{\underline{ }}
58: \accepted{\underline{ }}
59:
60: \section{Introduction}
61:
62: Modeling emission from an optically-thin collisionally-ionized hot
63: plasma has been an on-going problem in astrophysics (Cox \& Tucker
64: 1969; Cox \& Daltabuit 1971; Mewe 1972; Landini \& Monsignori Fossi
65: 1972; Raymond \& Smith 1977; Brickhouse, Raymond \& Smith 1995). Over
66: time, the codes used in these papers have been updated or completely
67: rewritten; current versions are the \spex code (Kaastra, Mewe \&
68: Nieuwenhuijzen 1996) and the {\sc chianti}\ code (Dere \etal 1997; Landi
69: \etal 1999). The frequently used {\sc mekal}\ (Mewe-Kaastra-Liedahl) code
70: (Kaastra 1992, Liedahl, Osterheld, \& Goldstein 1995) embedded in
71: XSPEC (Arnaud 1996) uses data that are now in the \spex code; its
72: results are similar to \spex. We describe here a new plasma emission
73: code \apec (Atomic Plasma Emission Code) along with the Atomic Plasma
74: Emission Database (\aped).
75:
76: Our primary goal is to create plasma emission models that can be used
77: to analyze data from the high resolution X-ray spectrometers on the
78: \chandra and \xmm telescopes. Due to limitations on computer speed,
79: memory size, and the available atomic data, early plasma codes
80: included only the strongest emission lines from each ion, and
81: ``bundled'' nearby lines, reporting only their summed emission at a
82: single wavelength. In addition, the data were stored in the code
83: itself, and could not be easily separated and studied. In contrast,
84: we have strictly separated the atomic data from the code, storing the
85: atomic data in FITS format files, which collectively form \aped. We
86: have endeavored to maintain the data in \aped as close as possible to
87: the original form, for simplicity and ease in error checking. In
88: addition, \aped contains error estimates for many wavelengths; errors
89: on other values in the database are in progress.
90:
91: Currently, \aped contains data for well over a million lines, although
92: many of these are too weak to be observed individually. An \apec
93: calculation done at low electron density (1 cm$^{-3}$), with cosmic
94: abundances (Anders \& Grevesse 1989) contains over 32,000 unique lines
95: whose peak emissivities at temperatures between $10^4-10^9$\,K exceed
96: $10^{-20}$\,photons cm$^3$\,s$^{-1}$. Although the literature of
97: theoretical calculations for observable atomic transitions is far from
98: complete, multiple calculations for some important rates do exist.
99: \aped contains all the different datasets we have collected ({\it
100: e.g.}\ the entire {\sc chianti}\ v2.0 database (Landi \etal 1999), as
101: well as the data referred to in this paper) to allow easy comparison
102: of different rates, and of the effect of different assumptions on the
103: emissivities of selected lines. In a subsequent paper, we plan to
104: present a complete overview of the data in \aped and the emissivity
105: tables over the X-ray range. Here we discuss what effect changing the
106: underlying atomic data has on hydrogen-like (H-like) and helium-like
107: (He-like) oxygen ions.
108:
109: \section{Method}
110:
111: \apec calculates both line and continuum emissivities for a hot,
112: optically-thin plasma which is in collisional ionization equilibrium.
113: Although \apec can calculate the ionization balance directly (and thus
114: handle non-equilibrium conditions), \aped does not yet contain all the
115: necessary ionization/recombination rates, so we use tabulated values
116: for the ionization balance in thermal collisional equilibrium. We
117: primarily use the ionization balance calculated by Mazzotta \etal
118: (1998; hereafter MM98) because it is a recent compilation that
119: self-consistently treats all the astrophysically relevant ions. \aped
120: itself contains recombination (radiative and dielectronic) rate
121: coefficients for oxygen. We combined these with the ionization rates
122: from MM98) to create our own self-consistent ionization balance for
123: these ions and found some small differences ($< 25$\%; see
124: Figure~\ref{fig:LineRatio}(b)). We do plan to include in \apec/\aped
125: a self-consistent calculation of the ionization balance and level
126: population in the future.
127:
128: Since the term ``emissivity'' has a number of definitions, we give our
129: definition explicitly. Similar to the terminology of Raymond \& Smith
130: (1977) (but in photon instead of energy units), the emissivity of a
131: spectral line is the total number of radiative transitions per unit
132: volume, divided by the product of the electron density $n_e$\ and the
133: hydrogen (neutrals and protons) density $n_H$ in the astrophysical
134: plasma. The line emissivity therefore has units of photons
135: cm$^3$\,s$^{-1}$. Since the number of photons emitted is actually
136: proportional to the density of the ions involved, this definition
137: implicitly requires an elemental abundance and ionization balance for
138: the relevant ion to be specified.
139:
140: For a given electron temperature $T$\ and electron density $n_e$, the
141: level populations for each ion are calculated from the collisional
142: (de-)excitation rate coefficients, the radiative transition rates, and
143: the radiative and dielectronic recombination rate coefficients.
144: Excitation-autoionization processes have not yet been included in
145: \aped, but these are not significant for the H- and He-like ions in
146: the equilibrium plasmas discussed here. For the H- and He-like
147: isosequences, we have data for all singly-excited levels up to
148: principal quantum number $n=5$\ with the exception of \ion{O}{7},
149: where we have data up to $n=10$.
150:
151: For the He-like ion \ion{O}{7}, the collisional excitation rate
152: coefficients are from Sampson, Goett \& Clark (1983), Kato \& Nakazaki
153: (1989), and Zhang \& Sampson (1987) for the levels up to $n=5$, and
154: from HULLAC (Bar-Shalom, Klapisch, \& Oreg 1988; Klapisch \etal 1977)
155: calculations for $n=6-10$. The radiative transition rates for $n \le
156: 5$\ are from TOPbase (Fernley, Taylor \& Seaton 1987), Derevianko \&
157: Johnson (1997), Lin, Johnson, \& Dalgarno (1977), and from the NIST
158: database\footnote{http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/AtData/main\_asd};
159: for $n > 5$, the rates are again from HULLAC. The wavelengths are
160: taken from Drake (1988). For the H-like ion \ion{O}{8}, we use the
161: collisional rate coefficients from Sampson, Goett \& Clark (1983). We
162: have also compared with scaled values from Kisielius, Berrington \&
163: Norrington (1996), but find few significant differences in the
164: low-temperature region where the data overlap. The radiative
165: transition rates are again from TOPbase and Shapiro \& Breit (1959)
166: for the two-photon ($1s2s {}^1$S$_0\rightarrow1s^2\,{}^1$S$_0$) rate.
167: The wavelengths are from Ericsson (1977). For both ions, we use the
168: dielectronic recombination (DR) rate coefficients and satellite line
169: wavelengths from Vainstein \& Safronova (1978, 1980) for $n \le 3$.
170: For $n=4,5$\ we used data from Safronova, Vasilyev \& Smith
171: (2001). Dielectronic recombination of \ion{O}{8} into levels $n=6-10$\
172: of \ion{O}{7} are from Safronova (2001, private communication).
173: Radiative recombination is calculated using the Milne relation and the
174: photoionization cross-sections of Verner \& Yakovlev (1995) for the
175: ground states and Clark, Cowan, \& Bobrowicz (1986) for the
176: recombination to excited states.
177:
178: \section{Results}
179:
180: We choose these oxygen ions for our comparisons since they are
181: relatively simple and have strong emission lines in many astrophysical
182: plasmas. We will concentrate on two line ratios: for H-like ions,
183: Ly$\beta$(16.020\AA)/Ly$\alpha$(18.987\AA), and for He-like ions, the
184: frequently used $G \equiv (F+I)/R$\ ratio, where $F$\ (22.098\AA) is
185: the forbidden transition $1s2s\ {}^3\hbox{S}_1\rightarrow 1s^2\
186: {}^1\hbox{S}_0$, $I$\ (21.804\AA, 21.801\AA) is the sum of the two
187: intercombination transitions $1s2p\ {}^3\hbox{P}_{1,2}\rightarrow
188: 1s^2\ {}^1\hbox{S}_0$, and $R$\ (21.602\AA) is the resonance
189: transition $1s2p\ {}^1\hbox{P}_1\rightarrow 1s^2\ {}^1\hbox{S}_0$.
190: Figure~\ref{fig:LineRatio}(a) shows the H-like Ly$\beta$/Ly$\alpha$\
191: line ratio from \apec (with the MM98 ionization balance), \spex 1.1,
192: and Raymond-Smith. The {\sc mekal}\ results track those of \spex 1.1, and so
193: are not independently considered. We also did a ``pure-\apec''
194: calculation where the ionization balance was found using recombination
195: rate coefficients taken from \aped. However, this did not affect the
196: \ion{O}{8} Ly$\beta$/Ly$\alpha$\ ratio and so it is not shown.
197: Figure~\ref{fig:LineRatio}(b) shows the He-like G ratio from the same
198: calculations plus those of Bautista \& Kallman (2000) and the
199: pure-\apec calculation. The difference between the \apec+MM98 and the
200: pure-\apec calculation for \ion{O}{7}, and the lack of a change in
201: \ion{O}{8}, can be understood in terms of the excitation mechanisms
202: for the lines, as will be discussed below.
203:
204: \begin{figure*}[t]
205: \includegraphics[totalheight=2.2in]{fig1.ps}
206: \includegraphics[totalheight=2.2in]{fig2.ps}
207: \caption{(a) \protect{\ion{O}{8}}\ Ly$\beta$/Ly$\alpha$\ ratio [photon
208: units] as a function of temperature for a low electron density plasma
209: in collisional ionization equilibrium. At the temperatures plotted,
210: each line emissivity is $\gtrsim 10^{-18}$\,ph cm$^3$s$^{-1}$, or
211: about 1/500th of the peak emissivity. The dot-dashed horizontal line
212: marks the Bethe ratio. The arrow at $3.16\times10^6$\,K marks the
213: temperature of maximum total line emission. (b) The
214: \protect{\ion{O}{7}} G ratio [photon units], as a function of electron
215: temperature for the same plasma codes plus data from Bautista \&
216: Kallman (2000) and a pure-\aped calculation, including the ionization
217: balance. For the temperature range shown, the F+I and R line
218: emissivities exceed $10^{-18}$\,ph cm$^3$s$^{-1}$. The arrow at
219: $2\times10^6$\,K again marks the temperature of maximum total line
220: emission.\label{fig:LineRatio}}
221: \end{figure*}
222:
223: Figure~\ref{fig:LineRatio}\ demonstrates two important points. First,
224: near the peak emissivity of the emission lines, the code predictions
225: agree to within 25\%. Second, substantial disagreements (exceeding
226: 50\%) exist even for these simple ions when they are not near peak
227: emissivity. Of course, comparing three theoretical models against
228: each other does not provide an accurate estimate of the model error.
229: For one limiting case, we can compare with analytic results. In
230: Figure~\ref{fig:LineRatio}(a), the Bethe limit of 0.14 [photon units]
231: (Burgess \& Tully 1978) is also plotted; this is the ratio of the
232: electron collisional excitation rates in the high temperature limit,
233: taking into account the branching ratio of Ly$\beta$\ from the $3p$\
234: level. In the H-like case, this limit should be a good estimate of
235: the Ly$\beta$/Ly$\alpha$\ ratio since collisional excitation is the
236: dominant method of populating excited levels. We calculate that
237: cascades from collisional excitation to higher levels as well as
238: radiative recombination contribute only $\sim 10$\% of the direct rate
239: to each line, somewhat more for Ly$\beta$\ than Ly$\alpha$. Since
240: dielectronic recombination cannot occur onto bare ions, it is not an
241: issue. The agreement between the \apec result and the Bethe limit is
242: thus reassuring; as expected, \apec is slightly larger due to cascades
243: and radiative recombination. This also explains why changing the
244: ionization balance (the pure-\apec case in
245: Figure~\ref{fig:LineRatio}(a)) does not affect the \ion{O}{8}
246: Ly$\beta$/Ly$\alpha$\ ratio. Both lines are primarily populated by
247: direct collisions of electrons with \ion{O}{8}, so small changes in
248: the \ion{O}{8} abundance cancel.
249:
250: Some \chandra and \xmm measurements of the \ion{O}{8}
251: Ly$\beta$/Ly$\alpha$\ ratio from astrophysical plasmas already exist.
252: The \chandra HETG observation of the RS CVn star II~Peg obtained a
253: value of $0.201 \pm 0.015$\ for this ratio (Huenemoerder 2000, private
254: communication). In addition, both \chandra HETG and \xmm RGS
255: observations of the oxygen-rich SNR E0102 have been made, and although
256: the extended nature of the source makes the analysis more difficult,
257: the \ion{O}{8} Ly$\beta$/Ly$\alpha$\ ratio is measurable. The
258: \chandra HETG obtained $0.138 \pm 0.016$ (Davis \etal 2001), while the
259: \xmm RGS1 and RGS2 instruments obtained $0.225 \pm 0.02$\ (Rasmussen
260: \etal 2001). The discrepancy between these results is not yet
261: understood. In addition, some laboratory measurements with the LLNL
262: EBIT of oxygen Ly$\beta$/Ly$\alpha$\ have been made. They find a
263: range of values from 0.16 to 0.24 for electron energies above 1 keV
264: (Gendreau 2001, private communication).
265:
266: Although the Bethe limit of 0.14 for the Ly$\beta$/Ly$\alpha$\ ratio
267: is a good estimate if collisional excitation dominates the \ion{O}{8}
268: excitation, other effects could change the observed value. Line
269: blending, especially of \ion{Fe}{18}\ and \ion{Fe}{19}\ lines with O
270: Ly$\beta$, can increase the apparent Ly$\beta$\ emission. Pure
271: radiative recombination also leads to a larger value of
272: Ly$\beta$/Ly$\alpha$ in H-like ions, similarly to the well-known
273: effects on line ratios for He-like ions in photoionized plasmas
274: (Porquet \& Dubau 2000; Bautista \& Kallman 2000). However, tests
275: with \apec show that a plasma has to be nearly pure O$^{8+}$\ for this
276: to occur in a hot ($T > 5\times10^6$\,K) plasma. Charge exchange into
277: excited levels has been suggested by Rasmussen \etal (2001) as a
278: possible way of increasing the ratio in E0102, but this requires
279: mixing of neutral material directly into highly ionized regions;
280: furthermore, it is difficult to imagine how this could be occurring in
281: II~Peg. Finally, resonance scattering could also cause a change in
282: the observed ratio, with the size and direction of the effect
283: dependent on the spatial configuration of the plasma (e.g. Wood \&
284: Raymond 2000).
285:
286: Of course, the Bethe limit is only applicable if the upper levels of
287: both emission lines are populated by direct excitation from the ground
288: state, and depopulated by radiative transitions. In the He-like
289: \ion{O}{7}\ system, other processes are more important than direct
290: excitation at high temperatures for populating the $1s2s\
291: {}^3\hbox{S}_1$\ level (see Figure~\ref{fig:ExcRate}(b)). The
292: differences in the \ion{O}{7}\ G ratio among the codes at high
293: temperature appear to be largely due to differences in the
294: dielectronic recombination rates. Figure~\ref{fig:ExcRate} shows the
295: level population mechanisms for the $1s2p\ {}^1\hbox{P}_1$\ level
296: (which forms the resonance line) and the \ion{O}{7}\ $1s2s\
297: {}^3\hbox{S}_1$\ level (which decays to the ground state as the
298: forbidden line). The total excitation rates for these levels are
299: equivalent to the line emissivities, since radiative decay to the
300: ground state is the primary de-excitation process at low electron
301: density for both levels. In Figure~\ref{fig:ExcRate}(a), we see that
302: direct excitation dominates all other mechanisms for populating the
303: $1s2p\ {}^1\hbox{P}_1$\ level. However, Figure~\ref{fig:ExcRate}(b)
304: shows that for the $1s2s\ {}^3\hbox{S}_1$\ level, direct excitation is
305: important only at low temperatures. At the peak emissivity, the main
306: excitation mechanism is cascades from higher levels. These higher
307: levels are primarily populated by dielectronic recombination, which we
308: have checked by comparing the computed rates for all the processes.
309: As a result, the Bethe limit cannot be used as a check on the
310: high-temperature limits of this He-like line ratio. This can also
311: explain the difference between the \apec+MM98 and pure-\apec
312: calculations shown in Figure~\ref{fig:LineRatio}(b). As a result of
313: the different recombination rates ($\sim 30$\% variation), at
314: temperatures above $2\times10^6$\,K, the pure-\apec code has a
315: slightly larger \ion{O}{7} population and slightly smaller \ion{O}{8}
316: population. Thus the resonance line R emissivity (which is
317: proportional to the \ion{O}{7} abundance) is increased, while the F+I
318: emission, due largely to dielectronic recombination from \ion{O}{8},
319: is reduced. This leads overall to a small decrease in the G ratio.
320:
321: \begin{figure*}
322: \includegraphics[totalheight=2.2in]{fig3.ps}
323: \includegraphics[totalheight=2.2in]{fig4.ps}
324: \caption{(a) Excitation to the $1s2p\ {}^1\hbox{P}_1$\ level as a
325: function of electron temperature, with the ionization balance from
326: MM98 for \protect{\ion{O}{7}}\ included. The total (effective) rate
327: coefficient is shown, as well as the contributions from direct
328: electronic collisions, radiative (RR) and dielectronic (DR)
329: transitions, and cascades. The dominant process at all temperatures
330: is electron collisions. (b) Same, for excitation to the $1s2s\
331: {}^3\hbox{S}_1$\ level. However, in this case electron collisions are
332: significant only at low temperatures. From the temperature of peak
333: emissivity and beyond, cascades from higher levels dominate.
334: \label{fig:ExcRate}}
335: \end{figure*}
336:
337: For the H- and He-like isosequences of ions with significant cosmic
338: abundances (C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Al, Si, S, Ar, Ca, Fe, and Ni) \aped
339: includes atomic calculations for principal quantum numbers $n \le 5$.
340: We have tested the adequacy of this model by running \apec repeatedly
341: using only the $n \le 2$, $n \le 3$, and the $n \le 4$\ levels of
342: \ion{O}{7}, and find that, above the temperature of peak emissivity,
343: our results are not convergent. We therefore obtained data for $n \le
344: 10$ for \ion{O}{7}; the collisional excitation rate coefficients and
345: radiative rates are from HULLAC and the DR satellite line data are
346: from Safronova (2001, private communication). The \ion{O}{7} G ratio
347: for each model, with $n \le 2, 4, 6, 8,$\ and 10 is shown in
348: Figure~\ref{fig:ratio}. Clearly, the convergence including all $n \le
349: 4$\ is inadequate. By including all levels up to $n=10$\ we converge
350: to within the 10\%-20\% accuracy of the underlying atomic data. In
351: the case of the $R=F/I$\ ratio, which is sensitive to the electron
352: density for $n_e \gtrsim 3\times10^9$\,cm$^{-3}$, fewer levels are
353: required to reach convergence at $T=10^6$\,K, as can be seen in
354: Figure~\ref{fig:ratio}(b). At higher temperatures, such as
355: $T=6\times10^6$\,K, the spread among models is slightly larger, but
356: including only levels with $n \le 5$\ is still adequate.
357:
358: \begin{figure*}
359: \includegraphics[totalheight=2.2in]{fig5.ps}
360: \includegraphics[totalheight=2.2in]{fig6.ps}
361: \caption{(a) The \protect{\ion{O}{7}} $G$\ ratio at low electron
362: density as a function of temperature (using the MM98 ionization
363: balance), for five different atomic models which include levels with
364: the primary quantum number less than or equal to 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10.
365: By including levels up to n=10, the result has converged at high
366: temperatures to the accuracy of the underlying atomic data. (b) The
367: \protect{\ion{O}{7}}\ $R$\ ratio at $T = 10^6$\,K as a function of
368: electron density $n_e$, for the same five models.
369: \label{fig:ratio}}
370: \end{figure*}
371:
372: \section{Conclusions}
373:
374: This is the first in a sequence of papers on the new collection of
375: atomic data \aped and collisional plasma code \apec. By separating
376: the code and data we can more easily test the convergence of our
377: models and compare atomic data from different sources. We have shown
378: that, for \ion{O}{8}, using newer atomic data leads to substantially
379: different results in the high-temperature limit for the
380: Ly$\beta$/Ly$\alpha$\ ratio, which agrees with some recent EBIT
381: measurements. In addition, for He-like ions, high-$n$\ dielectronic
382: recombination from the H-like ion can significantly affect the
383: low-$n$\ line ratio G. Careful treatment of recombination to
384: individual levels and cascades is necessary for other diagnostic line
385: ratios; {\it e.g.} neon-like \ion{Fe}{17}\ (Liedahl 2000). The
386: methods described in this paper can be used to test the importance of
387: such detailed treatment. Furthermore, in cases where recombination and
388: cascades contribute significantly to the level population, the
389: accuracy of the ionization balance, not explicitly considered in this
390: paper, will contribute to the total uncertainty in the model line
391: ratio.
392:
393: We thank Priyamvada Desai, Richard Edgar, Kate Kirby, Brendan
394: McLaughlin, and Ulyana Safronova for their assistance over the course
395: of creating \apec/\aped. We gratefully acknowlege support from NASA
396: grant NAG5-3559 and the Chandra X-ray Center. Work at LLNL was
397: performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by
398: University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under
399: Contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.
400:
401: \begin{references}
402: \reference{Abundances}
403: Anders,~E. \& Grevesse,~N. 1989, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53, 197
404:
405: \reference{XSPEC}
406: Arnaud, K.A., 1996, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V,
407: eds. Jacoby G. and Barnes J., p17, ASP Conf. Series volume 101.
408:
409: \reference{HULLAC1}
410: Bar-Shalom,~A., Klapisch,~M., \& Oreg,~J.\ 1988, \pra, 38, 1773
411:
412: \reference{BK00}
413: Bautista,~M.~A., Kallman,~T.~R. 2000, \apj, 544, 581
414:
415: \reference{BRS95}
416: Brickhouse,~N.~S., Raymond,~J.~C., \& Smith, B.~W. 1995, \apjs, 97, 551
417:
418: \reference{BT78}
419: Burgess,~A. \& Tully,~J.~T. 1978, JPhysB, 11, 4271
420:
421: \reference{ExcitedPhotoIoniz}
422: Clark,~R.~E.~H., Cowan,~R.~D., \& Bobrowicz,~F.~W. 1986, ADNDT, 34, 415
423:
424: \reference{CoxTucker}
425: Cox,~D.~P. \& Tucker,~W.~H. 1969, \apj, 157, 1157
426:
427: \reference{CoxDaltabuit}
428: Cox,~D.~P., Daltabuit,~E. 1971, \apj, 167, 113
429:
430: \reference{E0102}
431: Davis,~D.~S., Flanagan,~K.~A., Houck,~J.~C., Canizares,~C.~R.,
432: Allen,~G.~E., Schulz,~N.~S., Dewey,~D. \& Schattenburg,~M.~L. 2001,
433: ``Young Supernova Remnants: Eleventh Astrophysics Conf.,''
434: eds. S. S. Holt and U. Hwang (New York: American Institute of
435: Physics), p. 230
436:
437: \reference{Chianti}
438: Dere,~K.~P., Landi,~E., Mason,~H.~E., Monsignori Fossi,~B.~C., \&
439: Young,~P.~R. 1997, \aaps, 125, 149
440:
441: \reference{He-like_TwoPhot}
442: Derevianko, A. \& Johnson, W.~R. 1997, Phys. Rev. A, 56, 1288
443:
444: \reference{He-like-wavelengths}
445: Drake, G. W. 1988, Can. J. Phys. 66, 586
446:
447: \reference{H-like-wavelengths}
448: Ericsson, G. W. 1977, J.Phys.Chem.Ref.Data, 6, 3
449:
450: \reference{He-likeTOPbase}
451: Fernley,~J.~A., Taylor,~K.~T., \& Seaton,~M.~J. 1987, J.Phys B, 20, 6457
452:
453: %\reference{EBIT}
454: %Gendreau,~K. \etal 2001, ApJ, in preparation
455:
456: \reference{Mekal1}
457: Kaastra,~J.~S. 1992, ``An X-Ray Spectral Code for Optically Thin
458: Plasmas'' (Internal SRON-Leiden Report, updated version 2.0)
459:
460: \reference{SPEX}
461: Kaastra,~J.~S., Mewe,~R., \& Nieuwenhuijzen,~H. 1996, ``UV and X-ray
462: Spectroscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas''
463: eds. K. Yamashita and T. Watanabe. (Tokyo : Universal Academy Press), p.411
464:
465: \reference{Kato}
466: Kato,~T. \& Nakazaki,~S. 1989, ADNDT, 42, 313
467:
468: \reference{H-likeEC}
469: Kisielius,~R., Berrington,~K.~A. \& Norrington,~P.~H. 1996, \aaps, 118, 157
470:
471: \reference{HULLAC2}
472: Klapisch,~M., Schwab,~J.~L., Fraenkel,~J.~S., \& Oreg,~J.\ 1977,
473: J.\ Opt.\ Soc.\ Am., 61, 148
474:
475: \reference{Chianti2.0}
476: Landi,~E., Landini,~M., Dere,~K.~P., Young,~P.~R. \&
477: Mason,~H.~E. 1999, \aaps, 135, 339
478:
479: \reference{LMF}
480: Landini,~M. \& Monsignori Fossi,~B.~C. 1972, \aaps, 7, 291
481:
482: \reference{Liedahl1}
483: Liedahl,~D.~A. 2000, ``Atomic Data Needs for X-ray Astronomy''
484: eds. M. Bautista, T. Kallman, and A. Pradhan
485: (http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/atomic), p. 151
486:
487: \reference{Mekal2}
488: Liedahl,~D.~A., Osterheld,~A.~L. \& Goldstein,~W.~H. 1995, ApJL, 438,
489: 115
490:
491: \reference{He-like-I-A_value}
492: Lin,~C.~D., Johnson,~W.~R., \& Dalgarno,~A 1977, Phys. Rev. A, 15, 154
493:
494: \reference{Mazzotta}
495: Mazzotta,~P., Mazzitelli,~G., Colafrancesco,~S., Vittorio,~N. 1998,
496: \aaps, 133, 403
497:
498: \reference{Mewe}
499: Mewe,~R. 1972, Solar Phys., 22, 459
500:
501: \reference{RelBrems}
502: Nozawa,~S., Itoh,~N. \& Kohyama,~Y. 1998, \apj, 507, 530
503:
504: \reference{TwoPhot}
505: Nussbaumer,~H. \& Schmutz,~W. 1984, \aap, 138, 495
506:
507: \reference{PD00}
508: Porquet,~D. \& Dubau,~J. 2000, \aaps, 143, 495
509:
510: \reference{XMM-E0102}
511: Rasmussen,~A.~P., Behar,~E., Kahn,~S.~M., den Herder,~J.~W., \& van
512: der Heyden,~K.\ 2001, \aap, 365, L231
513:
514: \reference{RS77}
515: Raymond,~J.~C. \& Smith,~B. 1977, \apj, 35, 419
516:
517: \reference{SVS}
518: Safronova,~U.~I., Vasilyev,~A.~A., \& Smith,~R.~K. 2001, CaJPh, 78,
519: 1055
520:
521: \reference{SGC}
522: Sampson,~D.~H., Goett,~S.~J. \& Clark, R.~E.~H. 1983, ADNDT, 29, 467
523:
524: \reference{Savin}
525: Savin,~D. 1999, \apj, 523, 855
526:
527: \reference{H-two-photon}
528: Shapiro \& Breit 1959, Phys. Rev., 113, 179
529:
530: \reference{DR1}
531: Vainstein,~L.~A. \& Safronova,~U.~I 1978, ADNDT 21, 49
532:
533: \reference{DR2}
534: Vainstein,~L.~A. \& Safronova,~U.~I. 1980, ADNDT 25, 311
535:
536: \reference{GSphotoioniz}
537: Verner,~D.~A. \& Yakovlev,~D.~G. 1995, \aaps, 109, 125
538:
539: \reference{WoodRaymond}
540: Wood, K. \& Raymond, J. 2000, ApJ, 540, 563
541:
542: \reference{ZhangSampson}
543: Zhang,~H \& Sampson,~D 1987, ApJS, 63, 487
544:
545: \end{references}
546:
547: \end{document}
548: