English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The Massey—Mohr (MM), Schiff (S), and Landau—Lifshitz (LL) approximations for the total elastic cross section (Q) are intercompared. All can be shown to follow from the same assumption, (i.e., the classical small‐angle deflection function, thence the Jeffreys—Born phases via the semiclassical equivalence relationship), sufficing to determine the velocity dependence of Q. Thus, for V=±C(s)/rs, Q(s)=p(s)[C(s)/hv ]2/(s—1) The coefficient p(s) is the same for the S and LL approximations; the ratio pSLL(s)/pMM(s)≥1, (<1.075); it is 1.0709 and 1.0458 for s=6 and 12, respectively.A numerical calculation for a repulsive (s=12) interaction shows that the SLL formula reproduces the partial‐wave calculated Q to within ☒%. A graphical presentation suggests the generality of this result; it also indicates the source of bias in the MM approximation. For a ``realistic'' intermolecular potential, (restricting consideration to collisions in the ``thermal'' energy range), the influence of the repulsion is only to produce undulations in Q(v); the correct value of C(6) may be obtained by velocity averaging the ``apparent'' CSLL(6)

Comparison and Appraisal of Approximation Formulas for Total Elastic Molecular Scattering Cross Sections