The collision between atomic oxygen and its first positive ion plays a major role in Earth's F region ionosphere. An accurate corresponding collision frequency model is necessary to quantitatively understand the ionosphere. However, the widely used classic Banks theoretical model typically provides a collision frequency that is 30% lower than the expectation from ionospheric observations. Accordingly, the classic collision frequency is often adjusted by multiplying it by a constant known as the Burnside factor. This correction‐factor model adopted the classic model as its basis due to a misunderstanding that the classic model was based on a laboratory experiment; that is, the correction factor was originally meant to compensate for laboratory contamination. In this study, a collision frequency model is constructed based on the laboratory experiment, and the resultant laboratory‐based model is found to be consistent with ionospheric observations. In this construction, the impact of laboratory contamination is determined to be small (7%) and is mostly canceled by a misinterpretation regarding the conventional definitions of energy. Thus, the 30% difference is mainly caused by a theoretical error in the classic model itself. This error is energy‐dependent and corrected by the later wide‐energy theoretical model. Thus, the classic model cannot be corrected by a temperature‐independent constant and should be replaced by the later model.

中文翻译：

---

电离层温度下的原子氧离子中性碰撞频率模型

原子氧与其第一个正离子之间的碰撞在地球的F区电离层中起着重要作用。为了定量地了解电离层，必须有一个准确的相应碰撞频率模型。但是，广泛使用的经典Banks理论模型通常提供的碰撞频率比电离层观测的期望值低30％。因此，经典碰撞频率通常是通过将其乘以称为Burnside因子的常数来调整的。由于对经典模型是基于实验室实验的误解，因此该校正因子模型采用经典模型作为基础。也就是说，校正因子原本是为了补偿实验室污染。在这个研究中，根据实验室实验构建了一个碰撞频率模型，发现基于实验室的结果模型与电离层观测结果一致。在这种结构中，实验室污染的影响被确定为很小（7％），并且由于对常规能源定义的误解而被大部分抵消。因此，30％的差异主要是由经典模型本身的理论误差引起的。该误差与能量有关，并由后来的宽能理论模型纠正。因此，经典模型无法通过与温度无关的常数进行校正，而应由以后的模型代替。实验室污染的影响被确定为很小（7％），并且由于对常规能源定义的误解而被大部分抵消。因此，30％的差异主要是由经典模型本身的理论误差引起的。该误差与能量有关，并由后来的宽能理论模型纠正。因此，经典模型无法通过与温度无关的常数进行校正，而应由以后的模型代替。实验室污染的影响被确定为很小（7％），并且由于对常规能源定义的误解而被大部分抵消。因此，30％的差异主要是由经典模型本身的理论误差引起的。该误差与能量有关，并由后来的宽能理论模型纠正。因此，经典模型无法通过与温度无关的常数进行校正，而应由以后的模型代替。