Data on Stark Broadening of N VI Spectral Lines
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper deals with theoretical calculations of Stark line broadening (and shifts) for N VI. Collisions with electrons, protons, helium nuclei and various boron ions are considered. Although a review of the literature for data available for the same species is missing, it is argued that the calculations can be useful for the analysis of data from white dwarfs or proton-B fusion experiments. The case for the relevance of the new calculations presented in the paper is clear and the presentation is clean and well organized. The track record of the authors gives strong confidence in the methodology.
Despite I am confident these data will be useful and the paper deserves publication, there are several deficiencies that can be easily address before the paper is accepted:
1) readers will ask what are the previous data existing for elastic collisions with charged particles for N VI. A quick overview of previous results is needed.
2) The perturbers (e-, p+, He++, and various B ions) are all mentioned together, but the ratio B/H is minuscule compared to the other species, so it should be made clear that B ions as a perturber are only relevant for B-H fusion.
3) The paper includes NO figures. One or a few figures would be super useful to give readers a glimpse of the order of magnitude effects on W and d for the different perturbers, and also on the variation of W and d with density.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Authors are encouraged to pass a spell checker on the text. I attach a pdf with some suggestions.
Author Response
1) readers will ask what are the previous data existing for elastic collisions with charged particles for N VI. A quick overview of previous results is needed.
At the end of Introduction is added:
Except the present calculations, Stark widths for four N VI spectral lines exist in Ref. \cite{Di93a}, where modified semiempirical method \cite{Di80} has been
used and for the same four lines in Ref. \cite {Di93b} were calculations have been performed using Griem's symplified semiclassical method (\cite{Griem74} Eq. 526).
These results and the comparison with present calculations, have been discussed in \cite{Di23b}.
And four references have been added:
Dimitrijevi\'c, M. S. Electron-impact widths of four- and five-times charged ion lines of astrophysical importance. {\it A\&AS} {\bf 1993}, {\it 100}, 237--241.
Dimitrijevi\'c, M.S.; Konjevi\'c, N. Stark widths of doubly- and triply-ionized atom lines. {\it J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf.} {\bf 1980}, {\it 24},~451--459 .
Dimitrijevi\'c, M.S. Stark widths of fourtly and fifthly charged ion lines. {\it Astrophys. Lett. and Communications} {\bf 1993}, {\it 28}, 385--388.
Griem, H.R. {\it Spectral line Broadening by Plasmas}; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1974.
2) The perturbers (e-, p+, He++, and various B ions) are all mentioned together, but the ratio B/H is minuscule compared to the other species, so it should be made clear that B ions as a perturber are only relevant for B-H fusion.
The last sentence of the abstract is now:
The data for e, p and He III are of particular interest for the analysis and
modelling of atmospheres of hot and dense stars, as e.g. white dwarfs, and for investigation of their spectra, and data for boron ions are
for analysis ad modelling of laser driven plasma in proton-boron fusion research.
3) The paper includes NO figures. One or a few figures would be super useful to give readers a glimpse of the order of magnitude effects on W and d for the different perturbers, and also on the variation of W and d with density.
Concerning the order of magnitude of different perturbers this was already done before. In order to clarify this we enlarged the sentence in the introduction so that it is now:
The behavior of N VI Stark widths and shifts within a spectral series has been discussed in \cite{Di23a}, {\bf where linewidths and shifts due to
different perturbers have been compared and discussed in detail.}
Concerning the behavior with perturber density it is very difficult to present in an adequate way differences in log-log scale with so many order of magnitutes
so we did what we could and added two figures demonstrating the behavior of Stark widths and shifts as a function of electron density
and at the end of "Data description"c section we added:
Dependence of Stark width of N VI 1s$^2$ $^1$S--2p$^1$P$^o$ spectral line on electron density, for $T$ = 2 000 000 K, is shown in Fig. 1 and the dependence of the shift for $T$ = 50 000 K and 2 000 000 K in Fig. 2.
One can see that the deviation from linear dependence due to Debye screening starts for lower temperature on lower densities and that the deviation
is more pronounced for the shift
4) Clarify what the units are for these quantities before or when the reader arrives at the description of
the suppl. data.
In Supplementary Material is now:
Stark widths and shifts in \AA \-\-units
5) How large are these corrections if the typical difference
is 0.01 (1%), then 0.01**2 = 0.001 (0.1%). Are these relevant in general?
only in rare cases?
The expression is general. N VI spectrum is fine and differences are small but there are cases when differences are much larger especially in the cases
where terms overlap with perturbing terms (which is not the case for N VI). For present paper this correction is not important but we put it here as a general
instruction. If reviewer thinks that this should be deleted we will delete it.
6) All misprints indicated on the annotated copy are corrected and comments included above and answered.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have detected a paper called “Stark Broadening of N VI Spectral Lines” published by the same authors in Universe magazine in 2023 and with the same topics they want me to analyze. I understand that the authors want to publish a huge amount of data that was not published in the previous publication in an on-line repository.
I won't pronounce on the scientific content since someone else did it before me and I don't intend to get into a debate.
I am fine with its publication. In any case it depends on the editorial policy of MDPI.
Author Response
We are grateful for the positive opinion of the reviewer.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper summarizes the data on Stark broadening parameters for N VI broadened by collisions with electrons, protons, alpha particles, and boron ions. The details of the calculation method are described in their papers that are already published, and they are referred to appropriately. The datasets are worthwhile for astrophysics and fusion science. The reviewer thinks the paper is worth publishing after minor revisions of the following points.
In the main manuscript:
- line 7 of section 5, analyzis and synthezis -> analysis and synthesis
In the Supplementary material:
- In S1-16 file, SINGLESTS -> SINGLETS
- In S3-18 and S7-22 files, the format of "Perturber density" is different from that of the other files. Please correct it.
- In S15-21 file, 1s2-2 -> 1s2-2p
- It would be better to add one additional space between each column to separate parameters with the minus symbol. In addition, please align the label of each column (WIDTH and SHIFT) to the data column
- The exponent is omitted in some values, but adding "E+00" would be preferable, for example, in S1-16 file, singlet 3s-3p, triplet 4s-4p.
- What is the meaning of the asterisk symbol in the higher-density data? Please explain in the "Supplementary Material" section in the main manuscript.
- Why some data is not filled in the higher-density data? Please explain in the "Supplementary Material" section in the main manuscript.
Author Response
We are very grateful to reviewer for useful comments.
Our answers are:
1. In the main manuscript:
- line 7 of section 5, analyzis and synthezis -> analysis and synthesis
Corrected, thank you
2. In the Supplementary material:
- In S1-16 file, SINGLESTS -> SINGLETS
Corrected, thank you
3 - In S3-18 and S7-22 files, the format of "Perturber density" is different from that of the other files. Please correct it.
Corrected, thank you
4 - In S15-21 file, 1s2-2 -> 1s2-2p
Corrected, thank you
5. - It would be better to add one additional space between each column to separate parameters with the minus symbol. In addition, please align the label of each column (WIDTH and SHIFT) to the data column
The space is added and the labels are aligned
6. - The exponent is omitted in some values, but adding "E+00" would be preferable, for example, in S1-16 file, singlet 3s-3p, triplet 4s-4p.
E+00 added
7. - What is the meaning of the asterisk symbol in the higher-density data? Please explain in the "Supplementary Material" section in the main manuscript.
- Why some data is not filled in the higher-density data? Please explain in the "Supplementary Material" section in the main manuscript.
In the "Supplementary Material" section we added:
For values presented in the tables we checked the validity of impact approximation calculating the value of \emph{N}\emph{V},
where \emph{V} is the collision volume and \emph{N} the perturber density. If \emph{N}\emph{V}$<$ 0.1,
the impact approximation is valid. We excluded from tables the cases when \emph{N}\emph{V}$>$ 0.5, since than the impact approximation is not valid. When the
violation of impact approximation is more or less tolerable, for 0.1$<$\emph{N}\emph{V}$\leq$0.5 we put an asterisk before the corresponding
Stark broadening parameter in order to draw attention that this value is on the limit of validity of impact approximation.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe changes are appropriate and the paper is now in good shape to be published. I thank the authors for their prompt attention to the review and fast turnaround time.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors have revised the points raised in my original report, and I am happy to recommend acceptance.