Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Disentangling the influence of excitation energy and compound nucleus angular momentum on fission fragment angular momentum

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Fission fragments inherit part of their angular momentum from the spin of the compound nucleus that splits, not from the excitation energy of the fissioning system.

desk verdict Solid, honest experimental paper with 16 new PI-ICR IYR values; the CN-spin conclusion is plausible but the cross-technique comparison leaves the door ajar. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04340 v4 pith:Q3GRGD5E submitted 2024-12-05 nucl-ex nucl-th

Simone Cannarozzo , Stephan Pomp , Andreas Solders , Ali Al-Adili , Zhihao Gao , Mattias Lantz , Heikki Penttilä , Anu Kankainen
show 9 more authors
Iain Moore Tommi Eronen Jouni Ruotsalainen Zhuang Ge Arthur Jaries Maxime Mougeot Andrea Raggio Ville Virtanen Marek Stryjczyk
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-exnucl-th
keywords fissionfragmentangularmomentumisomericyieldratiocompoundnucleusspinalpha-inducedthorium-232photo-fissionmetastableisomersnuclear
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the angular momentum carried by fission fragments is partly inherited from the compound nucleus before fission, not generated entirely during the splitting itself. It compares newly measured isomeric yield ratios from 28 MeV $\alpha$-induced fission of thorium-232 with literature values from thermal-neutron fission of uranium-233 and uranium-235. The $\alpha$-induced reaction creates compound nuclei with average spin $7.7\,\hbar$, versus $2.6\,\hbar$ and $3.6\,\hbar$ for the thermal-neutron cases, and the high-spin isomeric states are systematically more populated. Surveying photo-fission data across excitation energies shows no energy effect, so the paper attributes the difference to compound-nucleus spin alone and estimates that this spin contributes at least about $1\,\hbar$ to fragment angular momentum.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing observable is the isomeric yield ratio, $\mathrm{IYR}=Y_{\mathrm{hs}}/(Y_{\mathrm{hs}}+Y_{\mathrm{ls}})$, the relative population of a high-spin long-lived metastable state and its low-spin partner in a fission product. Because a larger fragment angular momentum favours de-excitation into the high-spin isomer, the IYR acts as a proxy for fragment spin. The argument runs on a three-way comparison: new IYR values from the $\alpha$-induced reaction, literature IYR values from thermal-neutron fission, and literature IYR values from photo-fission as a function of photon energy. The photo-fission leg varies excitation energy at nearly constant compound-nucleus spin, and its flatness makes it possible to assign the $\alpha$-versus-thermal difference to spin; the normalisation $\Delta\mathrm{IYR}/\Delta J=0.032(1)\,\hbar^{-1}$ then carries the quantitative claim. The calculated compound-nucleus spin distributions, with averages $7.7\,\hbar$ for the $\alpha$-induced reaction and $2.6\,\hbar$/$3.6\,\hbar$ for the neutron reactions, define the spin lever arm.

What would settle it

A measurement that would settle the claim is a same-technique ion-counting determination of isomeric yield ratios for thermal-neutron fission of $^{233}$U and $^{235}$U; if those values came out close to the $\alpha$-induced values, or if a high-precision photo-fission study showed a nonzero slope $\Delta\mathrm{IYR}/\Delta E$, the conclusion that compound-nucleus spin alone drives the difference would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the higher isomeric yield ratios observed in 28 MeV $\alpha$-induced fission of $^{232}$Th compared with thermal-neutron fission of $^{233}$U and $^{235}$U are caused by the higher average spin of the compound nucleus, not by its higher excitation energy. The measured weighted-mean differences are $\Delta\mathrm{IYR}=0.135(8)$ relative to $^{235}$U and $0.156(6)$ relative to $^{233}$U; normalising by the spin difference gives $\Delta\mathrm{IYR}/\Delta J=0.032(1)\,\hbar^{-1}$. Photo-fission literature data show a slope $\Delta\mathrm{IYR}/\Delta E=0.0001(5)\,\mathrm{MeV}^{-1}$, i.e. no dependence on excitation energy. The paper concludes that compound-nucleus spin alone explains the difference, so fragment angular momentum comes only partly from the fission process itself and is partly inherited from the compound nucleus; a lower-limit estimate puts the inherited contribution at about $1\,\hbar$ per fragment, corresponding to more than 40% of the extra $4{-}5\,\hbar$ of compound-nucleus spin in the $\alpha$-induced reaction.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that pre-scission neutron emission does not, on average, change the spin of the fissioning nucleus, so that the calculated compound-nucleus spin distribution with average $7.7\,\hbar$ applies to the nuclei that actually fission after emitting zero, one, or two neutrons.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At least about $1\,\hbar$ of fragment angular momentum comes from the compound nucleus for the studied fission products, and at least about $2\,\hbar$ of the extra $4{-}5\,\hbar$ of compound-nucleus spin is transferred to the fragments.
  • Models that generate fragment spin entirely from post-scission torques or from pre-scission relative motion will need to include a direct compound-nucleus-spin contribution to reproduce these data.
  • Within the paper's reading, the flat photo-fission slope implies that additional excitation energy alone does not, on average, raise fragment spin, consistent with statistical neutrons carrying away little angular momentum.
  • A dedicated ion-counting measurement of thermal-neutron induced fission of $^{233}$U and $^{235}$U with the same technique would provide a direct test of the claimed spin effect.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported normalisation $\Delta\mathrm{IYR}/\Delta J$ could be folded with detailed de-excitation calculations for each isomer to produce a per-product map of how much compound-nucleus spin reaches the fragments, something the paper only estimates globally.
  • If the hinted mass dependence is real, evaluated fission yields used in reactor applications may need separate spin-transfer corrections for different fragment mass regions rather than a single offset.
  • Discrepancies among historical isomeric-yield-ratio measurements taken at different beam energies may partly be spin effects rather than energy effects, so reanalysing old data with model spin distributions could expose the same signal without new experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports 17 isomeric yield ratios (IYR) for fission products from 28 MeV alpha-induced fission of 232Th, measured with the Phase-Imaging Ion-Cyclotron-Resonance (PI-ICR) technique at IGISOL/JYFLTRAP. The new IYR values are compared with literature data from thermal-neutron-induced fission of 233U and 235U. The authors find a statistically significant increase in IYR for the alpha-induced reaction, with weighted-mean differences 0.135(8) and 0.156(6) relative to the two thermal reactions. They use literature photo-fission IYR as a function of photon energy to argue that the IYR are independent of compound-nucleus excitation energy, and conclude that the observed difference must be due to the higher compound-nucleus spin (7.7 hbar vs 2.6 and 3.6 hbar), implying that compound-nucleus angular momentum contributes to fission-fragment angular momentum.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides experimental evidence that compound-nucleus spin influences fission-fragment angular momentum, with a lower-limit estimate of about 1 hbar of additional fragment spin, and it would constrain current models of fission-fragment spin generation (e.g., FREYA and the approaches of Refs. [24,25]). The experimental strengths are real: PI-ICR direct ion counting avoids many correction steps of gamma-spectroscopy, and the paper gives a careful treatment of decay losses, detector efficiency, and spot tails, with uncertainties enlarged when counting methods disagree. The authors are also transparent about the main limitations, explicitly noting the lack of a same-technique comparison and calling for a PI-ICR measurement of thermal-neutron-induced fission IYR. The paper is therefore a useful and honest contribution, but the headline conclusion is stronger than the current evidence supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [Paragraph after Fig. 4 and Ref. [41]] The central comparison in Fig. 4 mixes IYR values obtained with PI-ICR (this work) with gamma-spectroscopy/radiochemical literature values. The mutual consistency of the two thermal-neutron datasets, with a difference of 0.02(1) for a 1 hbar spin change, does not test for a constant offset between PI-ICR and gamma-spectroscopy. The dismissal of the only existing alpha-induced gamma-spectroscopy point, 133Te from Ref. [41], is plausible but is not a calibration. The authors should either provide a same-technique comparison for at least one isotope, add a systematic uncertainty for a possible method-dependent offset, or explicitly weaken the conclusion that the observed IYR increase is physical.
  2. [Fig. 5 and following paragraph] The photo-fission null result is overinterpreted. The reported average slope is 0.0001(5) MeV^-1, so the 1-sigma uncertainty is five times the central value; over a 20 MeV excitation-energy range this leaves an uncertainty of about 0.01 in IYR. The observed thermal-neutron difference corresponding to 1 hbar is 0.02-0.03, so an excitation-energy effect of the same order as the claimed spin effect cannot be ruled out by these data. The statement that the different IYR 'must be explained by the different CN spin alone' is stronger than the evidence supports; the authors should report a quantitative upper limit on d(IYR)/dE* and phrase the conclusion accordingly.
  3. [After Table II and Fig. 2] The assumption that pre-scission neutron emission does not change the average spin of the fissioning system is load-bearing for the normalization. Table II shows that only 24% of fissions are first-chance, while 35% and 40% occur after one and two neutron emissions. If neutrons systematically remove angular momentum, the effective average spin for the alpha-induced reaction would be lower than 7.7 hbar, changing the denominator in Delta_IYR/Delta_J = 0.032(1) hbar^-1 and the lower-limit estimate of about 2 hbar. A sensitivity estimate using TALYS spin distributions after each neutron-emission chance, or at least a quoted uncertainty on Delta_J, is needed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and body] The abstract gives average CN spins of 7.5, 2.5, and 3.5 hbar, while the body and Fig. 2 give 7.7, 2.6, and 3.6 hbar; these values should be unified.
  2. [Statistical tests] The Wilcoxon signed-rank test gives p = 6.25e-2 for the 233U comparison; calling this a 'strong trend' is misleading since it is not significant at the 5% level, and the wording should be adjusted to reflect the weighted-mean significance separately.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption and averaging] The procedure for averaging the EXFOR literature values is not described; it should be stated whether the average is weighted by quoted uncertainties and how correlated systematic uncertainties among EXFOR entries are treated.
  4. [Measurement details] For the PI-ICR spot tails, the paper says the uncertainty was increased when counting methods differed, but it does not say how often this occurred or how large the additional uncertainty was; a brief quantification would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the IYR data are measured, the CN spin distributions are independent model inputs, and the cited IYR-to-spin calibration comes from external literature.

full rationale

The paper's central observational claim is a set of 17 isomeric yield ratios measured with PI-ICR at IGISOL/JYFLTRAP. These are directly counted ion ratios, not quantities derived from the paper's conclusion. The comparison IYR values for thermal-neutron and photo-induced fission are taken from the EXFOR literature, and the photo-fission excitation-energy trend is also an independent literature compilation. The compound-nucleus spin distributions for the three reactions are calculated with TALYS and GEF using default parameters; they are not fitted to the measured IYR values. The calibration linking IYR to fission-fragment angular momentum is explicitly attributed to independent early work (Vandenbosch and Huizenga, Refs. [26,27]), not to the present authors. The decay and transport corrections are iterative but converge to the observed count ratio, and they do not impose the final physics conclusion. The paper's assumptions about pre-scission neutrons not removing spin are stated physical assumptions, not disguised inputs to a fit. Self-citations appear only for the PI-ICR measurement technique and for the detailed correction procedure (e.g., Ref. [51]), which is methodological support rather than a load-bearing physical premise. The admitted caveat that 'the difference in measurement methodology may explain some of the observed differences' is a legitimate validity concern about cross-technique comparison, but it is an alternative explanation, not circular reasoning. No equation or derived quantity is equivalent by construction to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The appropriate finding is therefore no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to the IYR data in the main comparison; the CN spin distributions come from TALYS default parameters and the IYR-to-spin relation from cited literature, which are listed as axioms. The TALYS-based estimate of 1 hbar additional spin is a model calculation whose derivation is not shown.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Pre-scission neutrons do not, on average, change the spin of the fissioning system.
    Invoked after Table II to map the calculated initial CN spin distributions onto the actual fissioning nuclei; if false, the average spin difference between reactions shrinks.
  • domain assumption The calculated CN spin distributions represent the angular momenta of the nuclei that actually fission.
    Same paragraph as the previous axiom; the comparison relies on these distributions being the effective fissioning spins, including after multi-chance fission.
  • domain assumption IYR is a positive monotonic proxy for fission fragment angular momentum.
    The paper states 'the assumption of a positive correlation between the FFs spin and the population of high-spin isomeric states', citing Refs [26,27]. The central inference from IYR differences to FF spin differences rests on this.
  • domain assumption Photo-fission data at different incident photon energies, pooled across different fissioning systems, can test CN excitation-energy dependence while CN spin is unchanged.
    Figure 5 compilation from EXFOR mixes systems; the null slope 0.0001(5) MeV^-1 is interpreted as no energy dependence. The pooling and the power of the null result are assumptions.
  • domain assumption Statistical neutrons carry away negligible angular momentum.
    The paper uses this common assumption to infer that the photo-fission null result implies FF spin is independent of excitation energy; it notes Stetcu et al. [53] recently questioned this for post-scission neutrons.
  • domain assumption TALYS optical model with default parameters gives valid CN spin distributions.
    Average spins 2.6, 3.6, 7.7 hbar are model outputs; no uncertainty from model choice is propagated into Delta IYR / Delta J.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disentangling the influence of excitation energy and compound nucleus angular momentum on fission fragment angular momentum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q3GRGD5E

@misc{pith2026241204340,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disentangling the influence of excitation energy and compound nucleus angular momentum on fission fragment angular momentum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q3GRGD5E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04340}
}
abstract

The origin of the large angular momenta observed for fission fragments is still a question under discussion. To address this, we study isomeric yield ratios (IYR), i.e. the relative population of two or more long-lived metastable states with different spins, of fission products. We report on IYR of 17 isotopes produced in the 28 MeV $\alpha$-induced fission of $^{232}$Th at the IGISOL facility of the University of Jyv\"askyl\"a. The fissioning nuclei in this reaction are $^{233,234,235}$U*. We compare our data to IYR from thermal neutron-induced fission of $^{233}$U and $^{235}$U, and we observe statistically significant larger IYR in the $^{232}$Th($\alpha$,f) reaction, where the average compound nucleus (CN) spin is 7.5 $\hbar$, than in $^{233,235}$U(n$_{th}$,f), with average spins 2.5 and 3.5 $\hbar$, respectively. To assess the influence of the excitation energy, we study literature data of IYR from photon-induced fission reactions, and find that the IYR are independent of the CN excitation energy. We conclude that the different IYR must be explained by the different CN spin alone. This implies that the FF angular momentum only partly comes from the fission process itself, and is in addition influenced by the angular momentum present in the CN.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04340 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. PI-ICR images produced during the experimental campaign. Identified nuclei are marked in the plots. A number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Relative formation probabilities of CN angular mo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Weighted average value of experimental IYR in lit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. PI-ICR image (left) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Isomeric yield ratios from photo-fission for the isotopes in this study. The IYR are extracted from EXFOR [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [41]

    Sears, A

    C. Sears, A. Mattera, E. McCutchan, A. Sonzogni, D. Brown, and D. Potemkin, Nuclear Data Sheets 173, 118 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Hahn and F

    O. Hahn and F. Strassmann, Naturwissenschaften 27, 11 (1939)

    1939

  3. [2]

    A. N. Andreyev, K. Nishio, and K.-H. Schmidt, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 016301 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Schmidt and B

    K.-H. Schmidt and B. Jurado, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 10.1088/1361-6633/aacfa7 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aacfa7 2018

  5. [4]

    J. B. Wilhelmy, E. Cheifetz, R. C. Jared, S. G. Thomp- son, H. R. Bowman, and J. O. Rasmussen, Phys. Rev. C 5, 2041 (1972)

    1972

  6. [5]

    J. N. Wilson, D. Thisse, M. Lebois, N. Jovanˇ cevi´ c, D. Gjestvang, R. Canavan, M. Rudigier, D. ´Etasse, R.- B. Gerst, L. Gaudefroy, E. Adamska, P. Adsley, A. Al- gora, M. Babo, K. Belvedere, J. Benito, G. Benzoni, A. Blazhev, A. Boso, S. Bottoni, M. Bunce, R. Chakma, N. Cieplicka-Ory´ nczak, S. Courtin, M. L. Cort´ es, P. Davies, C. Delafosse, M. Fallot...

    2021

  7. [6]

    Randrup and R

    J. Randrup and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. Letters 127, 062502 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Marevi´ c, N

    P. Marevi´ c, N. Schunck, J. Randrup, and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C 104, L021601 (2021)

    2021

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    Vogt and J

    R. Vogt and J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. C 103, 014610 (2021)

    2021

  2. [9]

    Bulgac, Phys

    A. Bulgac, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014624 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    Scamps and G

    G. Scamps and G. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. C 108, 034616 (2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    Rasmussen, W

    J. Rasmussen, W. N¨ orenberg, and H. Mang, Nuclear Physics A 136, 465 (1969)

    1969

  5. [12]

    L. G. Moretto, G. F. Peaslee, and G. J. Wozniak, Nuclear Physics A 502, 453 (1989)

    1989

  6. [13]

    Bulgac, I

    A. Bulgac, I. Abdurrahman, K. Godbey, and I. Stetcu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 022501 (2022)

    2022

  7. [14]

    Døssing, S

    T. Døssing, S. ˚Aberg, M. Albertsson, B. G. Carlsson, and J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034615 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

    M. M. Hoffman, Phys. Rev. 133, B714 (1964)

    1964

  9. [16]

    Randrup, Phys

    J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. C 108, 064606 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    B. D. Wilkins, E. P. Steinberg, and R. R. Chasman, Phys. Rev. C 14, 1832 (1976)

    1976

  11. [18]

    G. F. Bertsch, T. Kawano, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 99, 034603 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    N. P. Giha, S. Marin, J. A. Baker, I. E. Hernandez, K. J. Kelly, M. Devlin, J. M. O’Donnell, R. Vogt, J. Randrup, P. Talou, I. Stetcu, A. E. Lovell, O. Litaize, O. Serot, A. Chebboubi, C.-Y. Wu, S. D. Clarke, and S. A. Pozzi, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014612 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    Gjestvang, J

    D. Gjestvang, J. N. Wilson, A. Al-Adili, S. Siem, Z. Gao, J. Randrup, D. Thisse, M. Lebois, N. Jo- vanˇ cevi´ c, R. Canavan, M. Rudigier, D. ´Etasse, R.-B. Gerst, E. Adamska, P. Adsley, A. Algora, C. Belvedere, J. Benito, G. Benzoni, A. Blazhev, A. Boso, S. Bot- toni, M. Bunce...

    2023

  14. [21]

    L. Qi, M. Lebois, J. N. Wilson, A. Chatillon, S. Courtin, G. Fruet, G. Georgiev, D. G. Jenkins, B. Laurent, L. Le Meur, A. Maj, P. Marini, I. Matea, L. Morris, V. Nanal, P. Napiorkowski, A. Oberstedt, S. Oberstedt, C. Schmitt, O. Serot, M. Stanoiu, and B. Wasilewska, Phys. Rev...

    2018

  15. [22]

    Laborie, R

    J.-M. Laborie, R. Billnert, G. B´ elier, A. Oberstedt, S. Oberstedt, and J. Taieb, Phys. Rev. C 98, 054604 7 (2018)

    2018

  16. [23]

    D. C. Aumann, W. G¨ uckel, E. Nirschl, and H. Zeising, Phys. Rev. C 16, 254 (1977)

    1977

  17. [24]

    Kawano, A

    T. Kawano, A. E. Lovell, S. Okumura, H. Sasaki, I. Stetcu, and P. Talou, Phys. Rev. C107, 044608 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    Bulgac, I

    A. Bulgac, I. Abdurrahman, S. Jin, K. Godbey, N. Schunck, and I. Stetcu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 142502 (2021)

    2021

  19. [26]

    Vandenbosch and J

    R. Vandenbosch and J. R. Huizenga, Phys. Rev. 120, 1313 (1960)

    1960

  20. [27]

    J. R. Huizenga and R. Vandenbosch, Phys. Rev. 120, 1305 (1960)

    1960

  21. [28]

    H. Naik, T. Datta, S. P. Dange, P. K. Pujari, S. Prakash, and M. V. Ramaniah, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atomic Nuclei 331, 335 (1988)

    1988

  22. [29]

    H. Naik, S. Dange, R. Singh, and T. Datta, Nuclear Physics A 587, 273 (1995)

    1995

  23. [30]

    H. Naik, R. Singh, S. Dange, and W. Jang, Applied Ra- diation and Isotopes 208, 111304 (2024)

    2024

  24. [31]

    Rakopoulos, M

    V. Rakopoulos, M. Lantz, A. Solders, A. Al-Adili, A. Mattera, L. Canete, T. Eronen, D. Gorelov, A. Joki- nen, A. Kankainen, V. S. Kolhinen, I. D. Moore, D. A. Nesterenko, H. Penttil¨ a, I. Pohjalainen, S. Rinta-Antila, V. Simutkin, M. Vil´ en, A. Voss, and S. Pomp, Phys. Rev. ...

    2018

  25. [32]

    Rakopoulos, M

    V. Rakopoulos, M. Lantz, S. Pomp, A. Solders, A. Al- Adili, L. Canete, T. Eronen, A. Jokinen, A. Kankainen, A. Mattera, I. Moore, D. Nesterenko, M. Reponen, S. Rinta-Antila, A. De Roubin, M. Vil´ en, M. ¨Osterlund, and H. Penttil¨ a, Phys. Rev. C 99, 10.1103/Phys- RevC.99.0146...

    2019 doi

  26. [33]

    Al-Adili, V

    A. Al-Adili, V. Rakopoulos, and A. Solders, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 61 (2019)

    2019

  27. [34]

    Z. Gao, A. Solders, A. Al-Adili, S. Cannarozzo, M. Lantz, S. Pomp, and H. Sj¨ ostrand, Phys. Rev. C 109, 064626 (2024)

    2024

  28. [35]

    Kondev, M

    F. Kondev, M. Wang, W. Huang, S. Naimi, and G. Audi, Chinese Physics C 45, 030001 (2021)

    2021

  29. [36]

    version available at http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensarchivals/ (2024), http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensarchivals/ [Accessed: (21/02/24)]

    National Nuclear Data Center, From ENSDF database as of 02/21, 2024. version available at http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensarchivals/ (2024), http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensarchivals/ [Accessed: (21/02/24)]

    2024

  30. [37]

    Otuka, E

    N. Otuka, E. Dupont, V. Semkova, B. Pritychenko, A. Blokhin, M. Aikawa, S. Babykina, M. Bossant, G. Chen, S. Dunaeva, R. Forrest, T. Fukahori, N. Fu- rutachi, S. Ganesan, Z. Ge, O. Gritzay, M. Herman, S. Hlavaˇ c, K. Kat¯ o, B. Lalremruata, Y. Lee, A. Mak- inaga, K. Matsumoto,...

    2014

  31. [38]

    Koning, Arjan, Hilaire, Stephane, and Goriely, Stephane, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 131 (2023)

    2023

  32. [39]

    Schmidt, B

    K.-H. Schmidt, B. Jurado, C. Amouroux, and C. Schmitt, Nuclear Data Sheets 131, 107 (2016), special Issue on Nuclear Reaction Data

    2016

  33. [40]

    The IYR for 133Te reported in Ref

    with only one measurement for 131Te and 133Te [41]. The IYR for 133Te reported in Ref. [41] differs signifi- cantly from our result. This is likely due to limitations in their measurement method, which requires significant corrections based on fission yields and decay data. We...

    2020

  34. [42]

    Datta, S

    T. Datta, S. M. Sahakundu, S. P. Dange, N. Chakravarty, R. Guin, and S. Prakash, Phys. Rev. C 28, 1206 (1983)

    1983

  35. [43]

    Eliseev, K

    S. Eliseev, K. Blaum, M. Block, C. Droese, M. Gon- charov, E. Minaya Ramirez, D. A. Nesterenko, Y. N. Novikov, and L. Schweikhard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 082501 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Moore, T

    I. Moore, T. Eronen, D. Gorelov, J. Hakala, A. Joki- nen, A. Kankainen, V. Kolhinen, J. Koponen, H. Pent- til¨ a, I. Pohjalainen, M. Reponen, J. Rissanen, A. Saasta- moinen, S. Rinta-Antila, V. Sonnenschein, and J. ¨Ayst¨ o, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 317, 208 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    Z. Gao, A. Solders, A. Al-Adili, O. Beliuskina, T. Ero- nen, A. Kankainen, M. Lantz, I. Moore, D. Nesterenko, H. Penttil¨ a, S. Pomp, and H. Sj¨ ostrand, Eur. Phys. J. A 59 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Z. Gao, A. Solders, A. Al-Adili, S. Cannarozzo, M. Lantz, S. Pomp, O. Beliuskina, T. Eronen, S. Geldhof, A. Kankainen, I. D. Moore, D. Nesterenko, and H. Pent- til¨ a (IGISOL Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C108, 054613 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Penttil¨ a, V.-V

    H. Penttil¨ a, V.-V. Elomaa, T. Eronen, J. Hakala, A. Joki- nen, A. Kankainen, I. Moore, S. Rahaman, S. Rinta- Antila, J. Rissanen, V. Rubchenya, A. Saastamoinen, C. Weber, and J. ¨Ayst¨ o, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 1 – 11 (2012), cited by: 21

    2012

  40. [48]

    Nieminen, J

    A. Nieminen, J. Huikari, A. Jokinen, J. ¨Ayst¨ o, P. Camp- bell, and E. Cochrane, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 469, 244 (2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    Eronen, V

    T. Eronen, V. Kolhinen, V.-V. Elomaa, D. Gorelov, U. Hager, J. Hakala, A. Jokinen, A. Kankainen, P. Kar- vonen, S. Kopecky, I. Moore, H. Penttil¨ a, S. Rahaman, S. Rinta-Antila, J. Rissanen, A. Saastamoinen, J. Sz- erypo, C. Weber, and J. ¨Ayst¨ o, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 1 – 21 (...

    2012

  42. [50]

    Savard, S

    G. Savard, S. Becker, G. Bollen, H.-J. Kluge, R. Moore, T. Otto, L. Schweikhard, H. Stolzenberg, and U. Wiess, Physics Letters A 158, 247 (1991)

    1991

  43. [51]

    D. A. Nesterenko, T. Eronen, Z. Ge, A. Kankainen, and M. Vilen, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 302 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Cannarozzo, Isomeric yield ratio studies in nuclear re- actions and alpha-particle induced fission of Thorium, Li- centiate thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala (2023)

    S. Cannarozzo, Isomeric yield ratio studies in nuclear re- actions and alpha-particle induced fission of Thorium, Li- centiate thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    P. J. Huber, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 35, 73 (1964)

    1964

  46. [54]

    Stetcu, A

    I. Stetcu, A. E. Lovell, P. Talou, T. Kawano, S. Marin, S. A. Pozzi, and A. Bulgac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 222502 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.