Ionization in C⁶⁺+He Collisions: Singly Differential Cross-Sections

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the present article the authors show singly differential cross sections for the ionization of the He target by C^{6+} impact calculated within the framework of the WP-CCC model. The presented  electron angle and  electron ejection angle differential cross sections are in excellent agreement with the available experimental data and with other model calculations. Beside this good agreement the main result of the article is that it shows that the two-center basis  presents improvements over the single-center basis only for high electron energies. Based on the above I recommend the publication of the manuscript after addressing the following issues:

1) The reaction presented by Eq. (1) does not conserve the electric charge. The typo leading to this should be corrected.

2) It is no clear from the manuscript that when in the \alpha target channel  a continuum pseudostate is constructed what happens with the electric field of the projectile (is it considered or it is neglected). The same question stands for the \beta projectile continuum pseudostate.

3) It can be observed on Fig.2, that at high electron energies the two-center cross sections are higher than the one-center cross sections. Is there any physics behind it? The single-center calculations should also contain the contain the ECC channel (assuming that a large enough basis is used). 

4) On Figure.2 the largest discrepancies between the WP-CCC calculation are consistently appearing at high electron energies. Is it possible that these discrepancies are appearing due to the fact that at larger electron energies the convergence of the results is slower and the truncated angular basis can not properly represent high energy electrons, which usually also have a high angular momentum? The authors should comment on these discrepancies.

5) It is evident from Fig.3 that the first Born calculations fail to reproduce the experimental angular distribution of the continuum electrons. The authors should discuss the missing ingredient from the B1 model (probably the post-collision interactions) which lead to this failure...this might also point out one of the strong points of the WP-CCC model. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please see report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made appropriate additions to the presentation based on the two referee reports.