Water monomer linelists Matt Barber Jonathan Tennyson Department of Physics and Astronomy University...

10
Water monomer linelists Matt Barber Jonathan Tennyson Department of Physics and Astronomy University College London December 2009

Transcript of Water monomer linelists Matt Barber Jonathan Tennyson Department of Physics and Astronomy University...

Page 1: Water monomer linelists Matt Barber Jonathan Tennyson Department of Physics and Astronomy University College London December 2009.

Water monomer linelists

Matt BarberJonathan TennysonDepartment of Physics and AstronomyUniversity College London

December 2009

Page 2: Water monomer linelists Matt Barber Jonathan Tennyson Department of Physics and Astronomy University College London December 2009.

Monomer line list

Extended to cover 800-20000 cm-1

Now uses HITRAN 2008 The HITRAN 2008 molecular spectroscopic database

Rothman, LS; Gordon, IE; Barbe, A, et al. JQSRT 110, 533-572 (2009) with correction to 8000 – 9000 cm-1 region

Includes calculated line profile data

IUPAC group: Recommends not using Voigt profiles – introduce speed-dependent widths

Page 3: Water monomer linelists Matt Barber Jonathan Tennyson Department of Physics and Astronomy University College London December 2009.

Monomer linelists: general strategy

Augment Hitran with1. Other experimental data2. Our calculated data (BT2 linelist)Aim: to model CRDS experiments at 100 C

Page 4: Water monomer linelists Matt Barber Jonathan Tennyson Department of Physics and Astronomy University College London December 2009.

12800 12850 12900 12950 13000 13050 13100 13150 13200

0.00E+000

1.00E-026

2.00E-026

3.00E-026

4.00E-026

5.00E-026

6.00E-026

7.00E-026

8.00E-026

HITRAN (296K)

UCL (296K)

Frequency / cm-1

Inte

nst

ity /

cm m

ol-

1UCL and HITRAN spectra compared at 296K

Page 5: Water monomer linelists Matt Barber Jonathan Tennyson Department of Physics and Astronomy University College London December 2009.

12800 12850 12900 12950 13000 13050 13100 13150 13200

0.00E+000

1.00E-026

2.00E-026

3.00E-026

4.00E-026

5.00E-026

6.00E-026

7.00E-026

8.00E-026

HITRAN (368K)

UCL (368K)

Frequency /cm-1

Inte

nsi

ty/ c

m m

ol-

1UCL and HITRAN spectra compared at 368K

Page 6: Water monomer linelists Matt Barber Jonathan Tennyson Department of Physics and Astronomy University College London December 2009.

Monomer linelists: general strategy

Augment Hitran with1. Other experimental data2. Our calculated data (BT2 linelist)Aim: to model CRDS experiments at 100 C

Extensions to this strategy:1. Calculated pressure broadening parameters

(Voronin et al) added where none present.2. Special analysis of 7000 – 10000 cm-1 region.

Page 7: Water monomer linelists Matt Barber Jonathan Tennyson Department of Physics and Astronomy University College London December 2009.

5000 5100 5200 5300 5400 5500 56000.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Comparison of line lists

Frequency / cm-1

Ratio

of H

ITR

AN

08/U

CL09

Page 8: Water monomer linelists Matt Barber Jonathan Tennyson Department of Physics and Astronomy University College London December 2009.

6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500 11000

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

Frequency / cm-1

Ra

tio o

f UC

L0

9/H

ITR

AN

08

Comparison of calculated vs HITRAN intensites: near IR

Expect theory to ~2% too strong.Conclusion: HITRAN intensities 8000 - 9500 cm-1 are too weak

Page 9: Water monomer linelists Matt Barber Jonathan Tennyson Department of Physics and Astronomy University College London December 2009.

Monomer linelists: general strategy

Augment Hitran with1. Other experimental data2. Our calculated data (BT2 linelist)Aim: to model CRDS experiments at 100 C

Extensions to this strategy:1. Calculated pressure broadening parameters

(Voronin et al) added where none present.2. Special analysis of 7000 – 10000 cm-1 region. Calculated intensities used in place of HITRAN 8000 - 9500 cm -1.

Page 10: Water monomer linelists Matt Barber Jonathan Tennyson Department of Physics and Astronomy University College London December 2009.

Conclusion

Our linelists appear to make a significant difference (improvement)

Work on this now complete (?)