Stark Broadening of O I Spectral Lines
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I have reviewed the manuscript Stark Broadening of O I Spectral Lines. The study is interesting. It has the potential to make a significant contribution. I recommend this paper be published in Galaxies. However, it is important to address the comments I list below before publication.
Best regards.
Main Comments
- Uncertainties are not shown on the tables and no explanation of how they are calculated is given in the paper, while I see some text mentioning theoretical error bars in lines 104-110. All values should be documented with their corresponding uncertainties. Related to this, do all values tabulated really have that many significant figures?
- In the tables, we see the calculated values have some temperature dependence but this is not discussed. Also, in the equations shown in section 2, there is no temperature dependence.
- Related to temperature dependence, for example, in Table 1 on page 8, I see that for O I 2P-4D, O I 3P-4D, and O I 4P-4D, as temperature increases electron widths decrease unlike in the other cases (in which with temperature width increases). Why is that? It should also be explained in the paper. Same effect is there for other cases which I do not list here.
- It would be good to provide graphical representations of the tables in the paper (at least for the review but it would be good for the paper itself as well). It would help us see (ir)regularities.
- Lines 85-86: Why is a more restricted range? Is it because in Griem and Alonizan, a more restricted range is studied? If so, please indicate this in the paper.
- Lines 89-91: It is very good to discuss the differences between the different studies however, it is not clear which study considered what. So, please explain this part better. Also, please provide a citation for the TOP database and explain the implications of using this database for oscillator strengths.
- Line 112: How does this very low value you calculated compare with experimental data?
- Line 113-116: The explanation is unclear here. In any case, can you explain why there is this huge cancellation?
- Paper needs significant improvement in grammar and clarity. Some suggestions are given below as part of other comments but note that I give suggestions only for a subset of the paper for this.
- Paper needs significant improvement in grammar and clarity. Some suggestions are given below as part of other comments.
Other Comments
- Lines 1-4: Rephrase the first sentence to: « We do not know a priori chemical composition of a start. However, with more high resolution spectra becoming more abundant thanks to the development of space-born observations, atomic data including Stark broadening parameters for various spectral lines for elements in various ionisation stages are becoming more feasible. »
- Line 21: Define SN I.
- Lines 24-25: Rephrase the sentence to: « They may find applications in other topics such as fusion [1], laser produced plasma research [2], and in general, plasma science and technology. » And please add a reference for « plasma science and technology »
- Lines 37-38: « The numerous » —> « Numerous ».
- Line 51: « was » —> « is » .
- Line 52: « cover needs » —> « cover the needs ».
- Line 54: « We also wanted to compare» —> « We also compared ».
- Line 59: « mentionned » —> « mentioned »
- Line 60: delete « briefly » and the comma after « expressions ».
- Line 61: « performe » —> « performed ».
- Line 69: define « r ».
- Line 74: « FWHM(W), and shift (d) » —> « W and d » since W and d have already been defined before. Similarly in the caption of table 1, delete « full width at half intensity maximum (FWHM) and « shift » since they are already defined (i.e. just keep W and d).
- Line 75:
- « broadening by collisions » —> « broadening caused by the collisions »
- «usually the » —> « which are usually the ».
- Line 82:
- « temperatures from 2500 K up to 80 000 K» —> « temperatures ranging from 2500 K to 80 000 K»
- « for perturber » —> « for a perturber»
- Line 86: This is mentioned before, so could be deleted: « For these three calculations, the semiclassical perturbation theory has been used. »
- Line 92: « osccillator » —> « oscillator ».
- Line 96: « interpoilation » —> « interpolation»
- Line 95-96: Rephrase to: « We note that for the comparison, linear interpolation is not used, instead we made calculations for a fixed electron density of 10^17 cm^-3 ». And here, please explain the why interpolation is not used and how you motivate using a fixed electron density.
- Line 99: « given ratios » —> « given the ratios »
- Line 104: « theoreticaL » —> « theoretical ».
- Line 105-107: « within» —> « they are within ».
- Line 109: « Griem’s values » —> « Griem’s central»
- Line 110: comma after « ours ».
- Line 112: « and our -0.000188 » —> « , while ours is -0.000188 »
- Line 120:
- Delete « obtained »
- « have been » —> « are »
- « with theoretical » —> « with the theoretical »
- Line 121-122: «in general an accordance has been found » —> « in general, a good agreement between the central values obtained from the different calculations is observed».
- Line 125: « universum » —> « Universe » (starting with a capital U is sufficient).
- Line 54: Please give more details on how your results would be applicable to « for laboratory, laser produced and technological plasmas ». Explain, why for these your calculations are important.
- Table 1 caption: « for perturber » —> « for a perturber ».
Author Response
We are very grateful to Reviewer for useful comments and careful reading of our manuscript
1) Uncertainties are not shown on the tables and no explanation of how they are calculated is given in the paper, while I see some text mentioning theoretical error bars in lines 104-110. All values should be documented with their corresponding uncertainties. Related to this, do all values tabulated really have that many significant figures?
All values are calculated in the same way and in the case of the width, the uncertainties should be the same, up to 30% and this is never put for every single value in the tables. This is established using the numerous comparisons with experiments and theoretical estimations of precision of various contributions. In the case of the shift it is adopted that the error bars are the error bars of the width. So the accuracy of the shift depends on how much it is smaller in comparison with the width.
Concerning the significat figures, it is usual that semiclasical results are presented with three numbers, which facilitate comparison with different calculations as for example here in Tables 3 and 4.
We added in the text our reference from 1985 and the following:
In \citep{1985PhRvA..31..316D} the results for Stark widths of helium lines, obtained by the semiclassical perturbation theory \citep*{1969A&A.....1...91S,1969A&A.....2..322S} have been compared with critically selected experimental data for spectral lines within 13 He I multiplets and it has been found that the disagreement is within the limits of 20 percent. Since O I is more complicated we assume that the error bars in the present case are within the limits of 30 percent. In the case of the shift, due to mutual cancellations of different contributions, which decreases the accuracy, one can adopt the error bars as 30 percent of the corresponding width.
2) In the tables, we see the calculated values have some temperature dependence but this is not discussed.
See the answer 3.
2a) Also, in the equations shown in section 2, there is no temperature dependence.
If you look the Eq. (2), you can see that cross sections are functions of the velocity, which depends on the temperature.
3) Related to temperature dependence, for example, in Table 1 on page 8, I see that for O I 2P-4D, O I 3P-4D, and O I 4P-4D, as temperature increases electron widths decrease unlike in the other cases (in which with temperature width increases). Why is that? It should also be explained in the paper. Same effect is there for other cases which I do not list here.
We added the following text in the article:
Concerning the behavior of the electron-impact widths with temperature, one can see from Eq. (1) that the width is a summ of cross sections for collisions which depopulate initial and final levels of the transition from which the considered spectral line originates. The behavior of cross sections for electron – neutral atom collisions with temperature is the following: They start from zero and increase with temperature until a maximum depending on the Maxwellian distribution of electron velocities and than slowly decrease. The behavior of electron-impact line width with temperature depends on the temperature behavior of the summ of the corresponding cross sections. If the temperature is in the increasing part, the width increases with temperature, if it is in decreasing part, the width decreases. If the temperature range includes the maximum, the width will first increase and after the maximum decrease.
4) It would be good to provide graphical representations of the tables in the paper (at least for the review but it would be good for the paper itself as well). It would help us see (ir)regularities.
We explained behavior with temperature in the answer 3. To present this for every particular line in the tables ( to provide graphical representation of the tables ... at least for the review, as stated by the reviewer) is an enormous work without sense (36 lines x 2 for widths and shifts x 3 for 3 kinds of perturbers is 216 graphs) . To present some examples is trivial and published many times in the past. Instead of this, if it is absolutely necessary, we can cite 5-10 our previous works with such figures, mainly in the conference proceedings,
5) Lines 85-86: Why is a more restricted range? Is it because in Griem and Alonizan, a more restricted range is studied? If so, please indicate this in the paper.
At the end of this sentence we added a new one:
Namely, their calculations are only for temperatures ranging to 40 000 K, what is not enough for the modelling of stellar atmospheres and other purposes like laser produced and fusion plasma diagnostics and investigation.
6) Lines 89-91: It is very good to discuss the differences between the different studies however, it is not clear which study considered what. So, please explain this part better. Also, please provide a citation for the TOP database and explain the implications of using this database for oscillator strengths.
The sentence:
The main differences between the version used here \citep*{1969A&A.....1...91S,1969A&A.....2..322S, 2014Atoms...2..225S} and the version of \citet{1974slbp.book.....G} are the calculation of elastic collisions, cut-offs in integration and symmetrization of perturber velocities before and after collision. \citet{2015JApA...36..661A} used the version applied in our work, but their oscillator strengths have been taken from TOP database.
is now:
The main differences between the version used here \citep*{1969A&A.....1...91S,1969A&A.....2..322S, 2014Atoms...2..225S} and the version of Griem, presented in his book on spectral line broadening by plasmas \citep{1974slbp.book.....G} are the calculation of elastic collisions, cut-offs in integration and symmetrization of perturber velocities before and after collision. \citet{2015JApA...36..661A} used in their study on Stark broadening of neutral oxygen spectral lines the version applied in our work, but their oscillator strengths have been taken from TOP database \citep{1992RMxAA..23..107C}.
7) Line 112: How does this very low value you calculated compare with experimental data?
Unfortunately there are no experiments for such plasma conditions.
8) Line 113-116: The explanation is unclear here. In any case, can you explain why there is this huge cancellation?
We replaced the explanation:
We draw attention that in the case of the width all contributions are positive while for shift they can be positive or negative. The very small shift in comparison to the width is a sign of big mutal cancellation of particular contributions so that the resulting accuracy is not good.
And now the text is:
We draw attention that in the case of the width all cross sections entering in Eq. (1) are positive, while in the case of the line shift, contributions to the phase shift $\phi_p$ in Eq. (1) are positive for virtual transitions to perturbing levels above the considered atomic energy level and negative for perturbing levels below it. If these contributions are comparable, the shift will be much smaller than the width and the resulting accuracy is not good.
Other Comments
Lines 1-4: Rephrase the first sentence to: « We do not know a priori chemical composition of a star. However, with more high resolution spectra becoming more abundant thanks to the development of space-born observations, atomic data including Stark broadening parameters for various spectral lines for elements in various ionisation stages are becoming more feasible. »
Corrected
Line 21: Define SN I.
It is now: producing supernovae of the first type (SN I),
Lines 24-25: Rephrase the sentence to: « They may find applications in other topics such as fusion [1], laser produced plasma research [2], and in general, plasma science and technology. » And please add a reference for « plasma science and technology »
Corrected and four references added
Lines 37-38: « The numerous » —> « Numerous ».
Corrected. Thanks
Line 51: « was » —> « is » .
Corrected
Line 52: « cover needs » —> « cover the needs ».
Corrected
Line 54: « We also wanted to compare» —> « We also compared ».
Corrected. Thanks
Line 59: « mentionned » —> « mentioned »
Corrected. Thanks.
Line 60: delete « briefly » and the comma after « expressions ».
Corrected. Thanks.
Line 61: « performe » —> « performed ».
Corrected. Thank you
Line 69: define « r ».
We added: where $r$ is the distance between emitter and perturber
Line 74: « FWHM(W), and shift (d) » —> « W and d » since W and d have already been defined before. Similarly in the caption of table 1, delete « full width at half intensity maximum (FWHM) and « shift » since they are already dfined (i.e. just keep W and d).
Corrected
Line 75:
« broadening by collisions » —> « broadening caused by the collisions »
«usually the » —> « which are usually the ».
Corrected. Thanks
Line 82:
« temperatures from 2500 K up to 80 000 K» —> « temperatures ranging from 2500 K to 80 000 K»
« for perturber » —> « for a perturber»
Corrected
Line 86: This is mentioned before, so could be deleted: « For these three calculations, the semiclassical perturbation theory has been used. »
Corrected.
Line 92: « osccillator » —> « oscillator ».
Corrected. Thanks.
Line 96: « interpoilation » —> « interpolation»
Corrected. Thank you.
Line 95-96: Rephrase to: « We note that for the comparison, linear interpolation is not used, instead we made calculations for a fixed electron density of 10^17 cm^-3 ». And here, please explain the why interpolation is not used and ow you motivate using a fixed electron density.
We reformulated the sentence:
We note that for comparison it is not used linear interpolation but we made calculations for the density of 10$^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$.
Now it is:
We note that for comparison it is not used linear interpolation from our results for the density of 10$^{16}$ cm$^{-3}$, but we made calculations for the density of 10$^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$ used in \citet{1974slbp.book.....G} and \citet{2015JApA...36..661A}. Namely the linear interpolation is less accurate due to the influence of Debye shielding. This influence can be taken into account and with the correction given in \citet{1974slbp.book.....G}.
Line 99: « given ratios » —> « given the ratios »
Corrected
Line 104: « theoreticaL » —> « theoretical ».
Corrected. Thanks
Line 105-107: « within» —> « they are within ».
Corrected.
Line 109: « Griem’s values » —> « Griem’s central»
We can not accept this. Namely, here "central" means nothing. We calculated line width at half intensity maximum and shift which is the difference between the unperturbed and perturbed centers of the line and neither of them is a "central"
Line 110: comma after « ours ».
Added.
Line 112: « and our -0.000188 » —> « , while ours is -0.000188 »
Corrected
Line 120:
Delete « obtained »
« have been » —> « are »
« with theoretical » —> « with the theoretical »
Corrected. Thanks
Line 121-122: «in general an accordance has been found » —> « in general, a good agreement between the central values obtained from the different calculations is observed».
We put in the text only:
in general, a good agreement between the values obtained from the different calculations is observed
Namely, here "central" values means nothing. We calculated line width at half intensity maximum and shift which is the difference between the unperturbed and perturbed centers of the line and neither of them is a "central value"
Line 125: « universum » —> « Universe » (starting with a capital U is sufficient).
Corrected. Thanks
Line 54: Please give more details on how your results would be applicable to « for laboratory, laser produced and technological plasmas ». Explain, why for these your calculations are important.
We modified the text: ... and other uses, as e.g. for laboratory, laser produced and technological plasma,
which is now:
,,,and other uses, as e.g. for laboratory, laser produced and technological plasma, where such data are useful for example for plama diagnostics, modelling, calculation of the corresponding absorption coefficient etc.
Table 1 caption: « for perturber » —> « for a perturber ».
Corrected. Thanks
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the manuscript, the Stark broadening parameters for the astrophysically important O I and He II spectral lines are calculated. The results obtained will also be of interest for laboratory plasma physics. The calculations were performed using the semiclassical perturbation method. The authors included the results of their calculations in extensive tables. The reliability of the calculated Stark broadening parameters was determined with respect to the limit of validity of impact approximation. The authors' results are compared with other theoretical calculations.
The manuscript is well written and in my opinion can be published in its current form.
I noticed two typos:
Line 0, sahal -> Sahal
Line 104, theoreticaL -> theoretical
Author Response
We are very grateful to Reviewer 2 for his positive opinion.
I noticed two typos:
Line 0, sahal -> Sahal
Corrected. Thank you very much
Line 104, theoreticaL -> theoretical
Corrected. Thanks
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
This manuscript provides valuable Stark broadening data for 36 O I spectral lines over a wide temperature range, making it a useful resource for astrophysics and plasma physics. The work is rigorous and well structured, but it could be strengthened by adding illustrative figures, clarifying uncertainties, and expanding the astrophysical context with concrete examples. Improving the readability of tables, polishing the language, and emphasizing the novelty of the results in the conclusion would further enhance its clarity and impact. Here, I suggest a few points to improve this paper significantly-
(1) While the tables are detailed, the paper would benefit from including plots of Stark widths and shifts versus temperature for representative transitions. This would help readers quickly grasp trends and compare with previous works.
(2) The results are compared with earlier works, but the quantitative error bars or expected uncertainties of the present calculations are not explicitly stated. A discussion of error sources (oscillator strengths, cut-off parameters, approximations) would make the results more robust.
(3) Although applications are mentioned, the paper could be strengthened by highlighting specific astrophysical cases (e.g., Cepheids, metal-poor stars, SN progenitors) where these lines are particularly important, perhaps citing more recent stellar abundance studies.
(4) The discussion compares with Griem (1974) and Alonizan et al. (2015), but it would be useful also to explain why discrepancies arise (e.g., role of oscillator strength databases, integration cut-offs). This adds scientific depth.
(5) The tables are comprehensive but very dense. Adding clear legends or sample plots would make them easier to use as a practical reference.
(6) The conclusions could be expanded to emphasize the novelty: (i) a larger number of O I transitions than before, (ii) a wider temperature range, (iii) usefulness for modern space-based spectroscopy.
(7) The manuscript contains several grammatical errors and typographical mistakes. I strongly recommend that the authors carefully review the text and correct these issues. Minor improvements in English phrasing will significantly enhance readability (for example, ‘universum’ should be replaced with ‘universe’ and ‘anf’ with ‘and’). A thorough proofreading is therefore advised.
Author Response
We are grateful to Reviever 3 for useful suggestions and for his help to improve our manuscript
(1) While the tables are detailed, the paper would benefit from including plots of Stark widths and shifts versus temperature for representative transitions. This would help readers quickly grasp trends and compare with previous works.
See the answers 3 and 4 to the Reviewer 1.
(2) The results are compared with earlier works, but the quantitative error bars or expected uncertainties of the present calculations are not explicitly stated. A discussion of error sources (oscillator strengths, cut-off parameters, approximations) would make the results more robust.
See the answer 1 to the Reviewer 1.
(3) Although applications are mentioned, the paper could be strengthened by highlighting specific astrophysical cases (e.g., Cepheids, metal-poor stars, SN progenitors) where these lines are particularly important, perhaps citing more recent stellar abundance studies.
We modified the second paragraph of the Introduction:
Oxygen belongs to the C-N-O peak in the distribution of abundances of chemical elements, so that data for its spectral lines are particularly important. For example neutral oxygen spectral lines are used in a study of chemical abundance variations in the globular cluster M4 (NGC 6121) \citep{2024MNRAS.52712120N}, for oxygen abundance analysis in A-type stars $\gamma$ Gem (HD 41705), o Peg (HD 214994), $\theta$ Vir (HD 114330), and $\nu$ Cap (HD 193432) \citep{2023MNRAS.526.3386R}, in 17 spectroscopic binary stars in 15 young open clusters \citep{2024MNRAS.527.6211R}, for seven very and extremely metal-poor stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud \citep{2024MNRAS.528.1065O}, and O I (7773 Å) line is observed in the spectrum of V1405 Cas \citep{2023ApJ...958..156T}.
Which is now:
Oxygen belongs to the C-N-O peak in the distribution of abundances of chemical elements, so that data for its spectral lines are particularly important. For example neutral oxygen spectral lines are used in a study of chemical abundance variations in the globular cluster M4 (NGC 6121) \citep{2024MNRAS.52712120N}, for oxygen abundance analysis in A-type stars $\gamma$ Gem (HD 41705), o Peg (HD 214994), $\theta$ Vir (HD 114330), and $\nu$ Cap (HD 193432) \citep{2023MNRAS.526.3386R}, in 17 spectroscopic binary stars in 15 young open clusters \citep{2024MNRAS.527.6211R}, for seven very and extremely metal-poor stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud \citep{2024MNRAS.528.1065O}, for 311 metal poor stars \citep{ 2025AJ....169..172M}, Cepheid variables \citep{2013MNRAS.432..769T}, for investigation of oxygen rich supernova remnants \citep{ 2025A&A...700A.223K}, supernovas \citep{ 2025A&A...694A.260D, 2025ApJ...980...37A}, SN2023ufx and its progenitor \citep{ 2025ApJ...982...12R}, and O I (7773 Å) line is observed in the spectrum of V1405 Cas \citep{2023ApJ...958..156T}.
(4) The discussion compares with Griem (1974) and Alonizan et al. (2015), but it would be useful also to explain why discrepancies arise (e.g., role of oscillator strength databases, integration cut-offs). This adds scientific depth.
The corresponding paragraph:
We can see that for the widths (Table 3), in the case of \citet{1974slbp.book.....G}, the agreement is very good for lower temperatures except for the 1303.5 \AA \-\- line where it is on the limit of theoretical error bars. For higher temperatures, the agreement is not so good but within the theoretical error bars. In the case of \citet{2015JApA...36..661A}, practically there is no difference between the lowest and highest temperature. The ratios are very close both for collisions with electron and protons, or in the case of 7775.5 \AA \-\- transition, they are within the theoretical error bars.
is now:
We can see that for the widths (Table 3), in the case of \citet{1974slbp.book.....G}, the agreement is very good for lower temperatures except for the 1303.5 \AA \-\- line where it is on the limit of theoretical error bars. For higher temperatures, the agreement is not so good but within the theoretical error bars. These differences arise due to different method of the calculation of elastic collisions, different cut-offs in integration and symmetrization of perturber velocities before and after collision. In the case of \citet{2015JApA...36..661A}, practically there is no difference between the lowest and highest temperature. The ratios are very close both for collisions with electron and protons, or in the case of 7775.5 \AA \-\- transition, they are within the theoretical error bars. Here, the differences arise only due to different methods for calculation of oscillator strengths. In this paper, the Coulomb approximation \citep{1949RSPTA.242..101B, 1968ApJS...16..175O} has been used, while \citet{2015JApA...36..661A} use oscillator strengths from the TOP database \citep{1992RMxAA..23..107C}, calculated employing close coupling non relativistic R-matrix method \citep{1992RMxAA..23...19S,1987JPhB...20.6379B}. One can see that in spite of differences in oscillator strengths the final results are very close.
(5) The tables are comprehensive but very dense. Adding clear legends or sample plots would make them easier to use as a practical reference.
In order to add a „clear legend“ we replaced:
„Same as in table 1 but for broadening caused by the collisions with ionized helium (He II).“
with the repetition of the detailed legend of Table 1, adapted to the content of Table 2, so that now the Table caption is:
Stark broadening parameters, $W$ and $d$, for spectral lines of neutral oxygen (O I), broadened by the collisions with He II ions, are presented. Wavelengths, calculated from the used atomic energy levels, and parameter \emph{C} \citep{1984JQSRT..31..301D} are also given. Dividing \emph{C} with the FWHM, one obtains the maximal pertuber density for which the line may be considered isolated. Results are presented for a perturber density of 10$^{16}$ cm$^{-3}$ and temperatures ranging from 2 500 K to 80 000 K. A positive shift is towards the red part of the spectrum.
In order to make the Table 2 less dense, we reorganized it so that now it is more readable.
(6) The conclusions could be expanded to emphasize the novelty: (i) a larger number of O I transitions than before, (ii) a wider temperature range, (iii) usefulness for modern space-based spectroscopy.
After the first sentence in the Conclusions we added:
We note that in previous calculations number of considered transitions is smaller (23 in \citet{1974slbp.book.....G}, 4 in \citet{1996PhyS...54..608B} and 9 in \citet{2015JApA...36..661A}, while here, it is 36. Moreover, in the mentioned articles, the temperature range is from 5 000 K to 40 000 K while here, it is from 2 500 K to 80 000 K, so that the obtained data cover the needs of modern space-based spectroscopy.
(7) The manuscript contains several grammatical errors and typographical mistakes. I strongly recommend that the authors carefully review the text and correct these issues. Minor improvements in English phrasing will significantly enhance readability (for example, ‘universum’ should be replaced with ‘universe’ and ‘anf’ with ‘and’). A thorough proofreading is therefore advised.
We carefully reviewed the text and corrected the errors.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thanks a lot for the updated paper. I am happy to accept it after the minor (language) corrections listed below, and the references to be added for my comment 4 (copied below).
Best regards.
- 4) It would be good to provide graphical representations of the tables in the paper (at least for the review but it would be good for the paper itself as well). It would help us see (ir)regularities.
- We explained behavior with temperature in the answer 3. To present this for every particular line in the tables ( to provide graphical representation of the tables ... at least for the review, as stated by the reviewer) is an enormous work without sense (36 lines x 2 for widths and shifts x 3 for 3 kinds of perturbers is 216 graphs) . To present some examples is trivial and published many times in the past. Instead of this, if it is absolutely necessary, we can cite 5-10 our previous works with such figures, mainly in the conference proceedings,"
- Yes, it would be good to cite one or two of your previous works.
- We explained behavior with temperature in the answer 3. To present this for every particular line in the tables ( to provide graphical representation of the tables ... at least for the review, as stated by the reviewer) is an enormous work without sense (36 lines x 2 for widths and shifts x 3 for 3 kinds of perturbers is 216 graphs) . To present some examples is trivial and published many times in the past. Instead of this, if it is absolutely necessary, we can cite 5-10 our previous works with such figures, mainly in the conference proceedings,"
- Referring to the updated paper lines:
- line 66: « The connexion between these two systems is time dependent potential. » —> « The connexion between these two systems is obtained using a time dependent potential. »
- lines 78-79: « where r is the distance between emitter and perturber, » —> « where r is the distance between the emitter and the perturber, »
- Line 82: « that line width W is an integral over the summ of cross « —> « that the line width W is an integral over the sum of cross »
- Line 84: « Namely such processes decrease the lifetime of optical electron » —> « Namely, such processes decrease the lifetime of the optical electron »
- Line 88: « \omega is angular frequency» —> «\omega is the angular frequency »
- Line 90: « where E_i, E_f are the energies of initial and final atomic energy level, respectively.» —> « where E_i and E_f are the energies of the initial and final atomic energy levels, respectively. »
- Line 111: « summ » —> « sum »
- Line 112: « initial » —> « the initial »
- Line 116: « than » —> « then »
- Line 118: « decreasing» —> « the decreasing »
- Lines 123–124: « Namely, their calculations are only for temperatures ranging to 40 000K, what is not enough for the modelling of stellar » —> « Namely, their calculations cover temperatures only up to 40 000K, which is not enough for the modelling of stellar »
- Lines 129: « plasmas [29] are » —> « »plasmas [29], are »
- Lines 136: « We note that for comparison it is not used linear interpolation » —> « We note that for the comparison we did not used linear interpolation »
- Lines 139–140: « This influence can be taken into account and with the correction given in \citet{1974slbp.book…..G}. » —> « This influence can be taken into account using the correction given in \citet{1974slbp.book…..G}. »
- Lines 149–150:
- « of the calculation of electric collisions » —> « for calculating elastic collisions »
- « different cut-offs in integration » —> « different integration cut-offs »
- « and symmetrisation of perturber » —> « and the symmetrisation of perturber »
- Line 154: « for calculation » —> « for the calculation »
- Line 167: « perturbing » —> « the perturbing »
- Line 168: « is not good » —> « will be poor »
Author Response
We are very grateful to Reviewer for valuable corrections and remarks which improved considerably our manuscript, and for his care for our article.
- It would be good to provide graphical representations of the tables in the paper (at least for the review but it would be good for the paper itself as well). It would help us see (ir)regularities.
- We explained behavior with temperature in the answer 3. To present this for every particular line in the tables ( to provide graphical representation of the tables ... at least for the review, as stated by the reviewer) is an enormous work without sense (36 lines x 2 for widths and shifts x 3 for 3 kinds of perturbers is 216 graphs) . To present some examples is trivial and published many times in the past. Instead of this, if it is absolutely necessary, we can cite 5-10 our previous works with such figures, mainly in the conference proceedings,"
Yes, it would be good to cite one or two of your previous works.
We added two references:
M S Dimitrijević, M Christova and S Sahal-Bréchot: Stark broadening of visible Ar I
spectral lines, Phys. Scr. 75 (2007) 809–819
M S Dimitrijević, M Christova and S Sahal-Bréchot: Stark broadening of B I spectral lines, MNRAS 509, 3203–3208 (2022)
Comments on the Quality of English Language
- Referring to the updated paper lines:
- line 66: « The connexion between these two systems is time dependent potential. » —> « The connexion between these two systems is obtained using a time dependent potential. »
Corrected, thanks
- lines 78-79: « where r is the distance between emitter and perturber, » —> « where r is the distance between the emitter and the perturber, »
Corrected, thanks
- Line 82: « that line width W is an integral over the summ of cross « —> « that the line width W is an integral over the sum of cross »
Corrected, thanks
- Line 84: « Namely such processes decrease the lifetime of optical electron » —> « Namely, such processes decrease the lifetime of the optical electron »
Corrected, thanks
- Line 88: « \omega is angular frequency» —> «\omega is the angular frequency »
Corrected, thanks
- Line 90: « where E_i, E_f are the energies of initial and final atomic energy level, respectively.» —> « where E_i and E_f are the energies of the initial and final atomic energy levels, respectively. »
Corrected, thanks
- Line 111: « summ » —> « sum »
Corrected, thanks
- Line 112: « initial » —> « the initial »
Corrected, thanks
- Line 116: « than » —> « then »
Corrected, thanks
- Line 118: « decreasing» —> « the decreasing »
Corrected, thanks
- Lines 123–124: « Namely, their calculations are only for temperatures ranging to 40 000K, what is not enough for the modelling of stellar » —> « Namely, their calculations cover temperatures only up to 40 000K, which is not enough for the modelling of stellar »
Corected, thanks
- Lines 129: « plasmas [29] are » —> « »plasmas [29], are »
Corrected, thanks
- Lines 136: « We note that for comparison it is not used linear interpolation » —> « We note that for the comparison we did not used linear interpolation »
Corrected, thanks
- Lines 139–140: « This influence can be taken into account and with the correction given in \citet{1974slbp.book…..G}. » —> « This influence can be taken into account using the correction given in \citet{1974slbp.book…..G}. »
Corrected, thanks
- Lines 149–150:
- « of the calculation of electric collisions » —> « for calculating elastic collisions »
Corrected, thanks
- « different cut-offs in integration » —> « different integration cut-offs »
Corrected, thanks
- « and symmetrisation of perturber » —> « and the symmetrisation of perturber »
Corrected, thanks
- Line 154: « for calculation » —> « for the calculation »
Corrected, thanks
- Line 167: « perturbing » —> « the perturbing »
Corrected, thanks
- Line 168: « is not good » —> « will be poor »
Corrected, thanks
