Figure 1

Hugoniot data and predictions for (a) sapphire and (b) LiF. Data from this study (solid circles) are shown along with predictions from SESAME [20] (solid lines), qEOS [21] (dotted lines), and the modified qEOS [22] (dashed-dotted lines). In (a) the fit to the data from Erskine [9] (diamonds), given by $U_{\mathrm{s}}=8.74+0.96U_{\mathrm{p}}$, is shown as a dashed line. In (b) a best linear fit to the data from Al’tshuler et al. (diamonds) and Kormer et al. [15] (triangles), given by $U_{\mathrm{s}}=5.18+1.31U_{\mathrm{p}}$, is shown by the dashed line. Insets show the target dimensions and sample shock velocity profiles for the steady shock wave (where time is measured from the start of the laser pulse), along with the raw shock velocity data used to determine the EOS points.Reuse & Permissions

Figure 2

Shock reflectivity as a function of shock speed in sapphire and LiF as determined from a decaying shock wave. Pressure values are calculated from the SESAME table. Error bars are shown for two typical points on each data set. The inset shows a portion of the VISAR image before and after shock breakout for the decaying shock in sapphire.Reuse & Permissions

Figure 3

Reflectivity data plotted versus $T$ are shown with the best fit results (dotted lines) for $\tau$ and $E_g(\rho )$ from the semiconductor model. For sapphire, the average $E_g$ over the observed range is $\sim 2\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$ while $\tau =1.9{\tau }_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}}$. For LiF, the average $E_g$ is $\sim 3.5\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}$ over the observed range, while $\tau =0.9{\tau }_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}}$.Reuse & Permissions