\\ Species Tag:        &   26002 & Name:&  $^{12}$C$_2$H$_2$
\\ Version:            &       1 & & Acetylene,
\\ Date:       & Sept. 2009      & & GS, $\nu_4$, $2\nu_4$, $\nu_5$, $2\nu_5$, $\nu_4+\nu_5$
\\ Contributor:&  S. Yu & &
\\             &  B. J. Drouin & &
\\ Lines Listed:       &    2066 & Q(300.0)=& 420.3041
\\ Freq. (GHz) $<$     &   25210 & Q(225.0)=& 282.7134
\\ Max. J:             &      90 & Q(150.0)=& 179.2419
\\ LOGSTR0=            &   -10.0 & Q(75.00)=&  89.2856
\\ LOGSTR1=            &   -10.0 & Q(37.50)=&  44.9772
\\ Isotope Corr.:      &     0.0 & Q(18.75)=&  22.8305
\\ Egy. (cm$^{-1}$) $>$&     0.0 & Q(9.375)=&  11.7671
\\ $\mu_a$ = & 0.051            & A=&
\\ $\mu_b$ = &                  & B=&  35274.9596
\\ $\mu_c$ = & 0.051            & C=&

\headend

The following states are included in this calculation: the ground state, $\nu_4$, $2\nu_4$, $\nu_5$, $2\nu_5$, $\nu_4+\nu_5$. The vibrational levels are labeled as $V_4^{l_4}V_5^{l_5}$. The vibrational designations are as the following: 00 for $0^00^0$ ($^1$${\Sigma}$$_g$$^+$); 01 for $1^10^0$ ($^1$${\Pi}$$_g$); 02 for $0^01^1$ ($^1$${\Pi}$$_u$), 03 for $2^20^0$ ($^1$${\Delta}$$_g$), 04 for $2^00^0$ ($^1$${\Sigma}$$_g$$^+$), 05 for $1^11^1$ ($^1$${\Sigma}$$_u$$^+$), 06 for $1^11^1$ ($^1$${\Delta}$$_u$); 07 for $1^11^1$ ($^1$${\Sigma}$$_u$$^-$); 08 for $0^02^0$ ($^1$${\Sigma}$$_g$$^+$); 09 for $0^02^2$ ($^1$${\Delta}$$_g$). The experimental measurements were reported by Kabbadj et al. 1991, J. Mol. Spectrosc. {\bf 150}, 535. Yu et al., 2009, Astrophys. J. 705(1), 786-790.


A vibrational transition dipole moment of 0.051 D, which was determined with an uncertainty of 20\% for the $\nu_5$-$\nu_4$ difference band by Robert et al. (2007, Mol. Phys., {\bf 105}, 2009), was used for all the transitions because dipole moments for other bands are not available. The intensities for transitions in the $\nu_5$-$\nu_4$ difference band are therefore uncertain to about 40\%. The intensities for rotational lines in other vibrational bands should be viewed with more caution since there might be systematic errors. Note that our analysis included experimental data with $J_{max}$ = 43 for the ground state ($^1$${\Sigma}$$_g$$^+$); 38 for $\nu_4$($^1$${\Pi}$$_g$); 41 for $\nu_5$($^1$${\Pi}$$_u$); 37 for  $2\nu_4$($^1$${\Delta}$$_g$); 31 for $2\nu_4$($^1$${\Sigma}$$_g$$^+$); 42 for $\nu_4+\nu_5$($^1$${\Sigma}$$_u$$^+$); 40 for $\nu_4+\nu_5$($^1$${\Delta}$$_u$); 31 for $\nu_4+\nu_5$($^1$${\Sigma}$$_u$$^-$); 31 for $2\nu_5$($^1$${\Sigma}$$_g$$^+$); 34 for $2\nu_5$($^1$${\Delta}$$_g$). Transitions up to $J$ = 40 should be predicted reliably and should be found within $0$ - $10$ times the predicted uncertainties.