HBr, F1D2, v´=1 <-<- X spectrum agust,www,....June11/PPT ak.ppt agust, heima,...June11/HBr 79040_ pxp Item no (5) –n from tackled, i.e.: 5) HBr: Judging from our REMPI meeting the F(1 Delta) data all needs to be reanalysed: a) the shift curve is strange b) there is discrepancy between IR and BW data for the F state c) the V(v´=m+7), IR and BW are very strange, showing dip for J´=6 d) The BW vs J´ for H+ for V(v´=m+7) looks very different from that for Br+ e) The absolute intensity shows irregulareties and seem to vilate the Boltzmann distribution All these points raise the question wheteher the J´ assignment for the F state is correct or not.

Clear enhancements in Br+ and H+ signals

Comments As has been shown before ( ) observed shifts of peaks and shrinking of spacing between peaks for J´=5 and 6 fits with a major interactions for J´= 6 and 5 (see also Helgi´s thesis fig 3-1, p: 13, ; see next slide (page 4)). The clear enhancement, both in Br+ and H+ signals observed for J´=6 fits with analogous observation for HCl ( ; See fig. 2, p: ; see slide no. 5 below), suggesting, indeed that that peak is J´=6. Irregularities in absolute signal intensities is understandable because of altering interaction between the F and the V states. An enhanced HBr+ signal intensity for J´=6 (and J´=7) compared to that for J´=5 could be due to enhancement in HBr+ formation from the V state excitation side, which is believed to be different from that for HCl* (see: ) There is no reason to believe that the assignment above and in earlier work ( is incorrect. On the other hand the  E vs J´plot must be WRONG! * NB: This difference needs to be taken account of in the IR simulation assumption

Analogous enhancements in Cl+ signals shown for HCl: Clear enhancements in Cl+ and H+ signals

Comments Based on slide 2 above the uncertainty in evaluating IR and BW vs. J´ must be very large and BW in particular. I therefore do not think that the following plot is very relyable! Thi is consistant With Longs argument in