HI Relevant to the HI- Perturb.II paper:pages: H(2) ion intensities (system (b))………………………

J´ I(M + )/I total I total = I(H+)+I(I+)+I(HI+) H(2), system (b) I(I + ) I(H + ) I(HI + ) Lay: 0, Gr:0

I(H + )/I(HI + ) H(2), system (b) Lay: 2, Gr:2

I(M + ) H(2), system (b) I(I + ) I(H + ) I(HI + ) J´ Lay: 1, Gr:1

Comments: Slide 2: graphs for I + and H + are close to mirror images, meaning that as I + increases, H + decreases and vice versa. This suggests that, considering the two ion formation channel a) I + and b)H +, only, these are „competing in nature“, in the sense that as (a) increases (b) decreases and vice versa. Slide 2: There is some correlation between the graphs for H + and HI + : thus, both graphs show enhancements for J´= 3. Considering that the H + formation occur by the two (three) major channels: b-1) HI** +hv -> H* + Br/Br* followed by H* + hv -> H + + e- and b-2) HI** + hv -> HI# -> HI + + e- followed by HI + + hv -> H + + I -one of which (b-2) involves H + formation after HI + formation: If H + was solely formed by channel (b-2) and by assuming that H +, formed from HI +, is independent of J´ I(H + ) = C*I(HI + ); C = constant holds (first approximation) => i.e. I(H + )/I(HI + ) = C. The fact that that is not the case (see slide 3) whereas there is some correlation between the graphs for H + and HI + suggest that both channels ((b-1) and (b-2)) are involved. In conclusion:

HI + (b-2) H* I* H + (b-2) (a) (b-2)(b-1) H + (b-1) i.e. I total = I(H + (b-1)) + I(H + (b-2)) + I(HI + (b-2)) + I(I + (a)) I + (a) (b) 2hv HI**(mixed) (a), (b), hence (b)/(a) are J´-dependent; ERGO let´s check:

Assuming that I(H + ) + I(HI + ) is proportional to the rate of (b); I(H + ) + I(HI + ) = c 1 *(b) I(I + ) is proportional to the rate of (a); I(I + ) = c 2 *(a) (I(H + ) + I(HI + ) )/I(I + ) = (c 1 /c 2 ) (b)/(a) = C 1 *(b)/(a)

J´ Lay: 3, Gr:4 (I(H + ) + I(HI + ) )/I(I + )

Particularely large enhancement of channel (b) over (a) for J´= 3 but ca. independent or slightly decreasing with J´ other J´s

Now let´s check  = 1 predissociation criterias. Reviewer for our JCP paper 2013 (HCl and HBr, E vs V states) said: the SO matrix element between C1Π and t3Σ+ with dominant configurations differing by 2 spin-orbitals would be very weak. The matrix element is also very weak because the Rydberg orbital of E is 4pπ while the Rydberg orbital of C is 4sσ. On the contrary, there is a possible J+L− coupling between E1Σ+ and D1Π which is 4pσ: these two states correspond to a ”p complex”.