论文标题
评论：基于实验数据确定液态水中电子散射的平均自由路径的替代方法
Comment on: An alternative approach for the determination of mean free paths of electron scattering in liquid water based on experimental data
论文作者
论文摘要
在最近的文章中，Schild等人。介绍他们称之为替代液体水中电子散射的平均自由路径的替代方法。这绝不是新方法基于一个非常简单的电子散射的两个通道模型，只有一个完全弹性和一个完全弹性（总损耗）通道。该参数化由弹性横截面，其角度依赖性（DC）和通过非弹性散射进行电子损失的横截面组成。通过拟合到实验数据（EALS和测量的各向异性参数）确定两个横截面（或等效的MFP）。对于各种群集模型，从头算计算弹性DC。此外，他们声称发现弹性和非弹性平均自由路径比无定形冰的短得多。我们发现，作者的方法以及其结果与文献的比较都存在许多问题。如该评论中概述的那样，弹性和非弹性平均自由路径的报道值是值得怀疑的，并且关于液态水和无定形冰中电子散射之间差异的结论无效。
In a recent article, Schild et al. present what they call an alternative approach to the determination of mean free paths of electron scattering in liquid water. This by no means new approach is based on a very simplistic two channel model of electron scattering with only one fully elastic and one fully inelastic (total loss) channel. The parameterization consists of an elastic cross section, its angular dependence (DCS), and a cross section for electron loss by inelastic scattering. The two cross sections (or the equivalent MFPs) are determined from fits to experimental data (EALs and measured anisotropy parameters). The elastic DCS is calculated ab initio for various cluster models. Furthermore, they claim to find elastic and inelastic mean free paths that are much shorter than those for amorphous ice. We find that there are a number of issues both with the approach of the authors and with the comparison of their results with the literature. As outlined in the comment, the reported values for elastic and inelastic mean free paths are questionable and conclusions regarding the difference between electron scattering in liquid water and amorphous ice are invalid.
