Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 49 references

Precision mass measurements around ${}^{84}$Mo rule out ZrNb cycle formation in the rapid proton-capture process at type I X-ray bursts

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Precision 84Mo mass rules out the ZrNb cycle in X-ray burst rp-process.

desk verdict First masses of 84Mo and 88Ru, plus a 17x improvement on 83Nb, settle the ZrNb cycle question with S_alpha(84Mo)=1.434(83) MeV; the experiment is solid and the conclusion robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12639 v2 pith:2CTQRUK3 submitted 2025-04-17 nucl-ex astro-ph.HEnucl-th

S. Kimura , M. Wada , C.Y. Fu , N. Fukuda , Y. Hirayama , D.S. Hou , S. Iimura , H. Ishiyama
show 22 more authors
Y. Ito S. Kubono K. Kusaka S. Michimasa H. Miyatake S. Nishimura T. Niwase V. Phong M. Rosenbusch H. Schatz P. Schury Y. Shimizu H. Suzuki A. Takamine H. Takeda Y. Togano Y.X. Watanabe W.D. Xian Y. Yanagisawa T.T. Yeung M. Yoshimoto S. Zha
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-exastro-ph.HEnucl-th
keywords rp-processtypeIX-rayburstsmassmeasurementmulti-reflectiontime-of-flightspectrographalpha-separationenergy84MoZrNbcyclenuclearastrophysics
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 tries to settle whether the rapid proton-capture process in type I X-ray bursts is halted near mass 84 by a closed reaction loop called the ZrNb cycle. It reports first-ever mass measurements of $^{84}$Mo, $^{88}$Ru, and the isomeric state of $^{78}$Y, plus improved masses for $^{79}$Y and $^{83}$Nb, using a multi-reflection time-of-flight mass spectrograph. The central result is an $\alpha$-separation energy of $S_\alpha(^{84}\mathrm{Mo}) = 1.434(83)$ MeV, which leaves the predicted cycle energetically unable to form. If this is right, the rp-process is not cut off at $A=84$, and X-ray burst ashes in the $A=80$–$90$ region can be predicted with much smaller mass-driven uncertainties.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $\alpha$-separation energy of $^{84}$Mo, computed from measured mass differences. The machinery that produces those differences is the multi-reflection time-of-flight mass spectrograph (MRTOF-MS), which sorts ions by how long they take to travel a fixed flight path; the single-reference method converts measured time-of-flight ratios into mass excesses, and a combined $\beta$-TOF detector identifies which nuclear state produced a peak. The cycle question reduces to the sign and magnitude of $S_\alpha(^{84}\mathrm{Mo})$: a value near zero or negative would let $^{84}$Mo emit an $\alpha$ particle and close the ZrNb loop, while the measured $1.434(83)$ MeV leaves the loop energetically open.

What would settle it

Beta-decay tagging of the $^{84}$Mo time-of-flight peak, the same method used in this paper to identify the $^{78}$Y isomer, would reveal whether the peak is the ground state; if an unresolved isomer sits under it, the quoted $S_\alpha(^{84}\mathrm{Mo})$ is not the ground-state value and the ZrNb-cycle conclusion does not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery, on its own terms, is that $^{84}$Mo is bound against $\alpha$ emission. Combining the new mass excess ME($^{84}$Mo) = $-54\,137(22)$ keV with the measured $^{80}$Zr mass yields $S_\alpha(^{84}\mathrm{Mo}) = 1.434(83)$ MeV, the first experimental value for this quantity and a replacement for the FRDM92 prediction of $-0.58$ MeV that had motivated the ZrNb cycle. With $S_\alpha$ this high, the $(p,\alpha)$ channel cannot dominate proton capture on $^{83}$Nb, so the ZrNb cycle does not form under realistic X-ray burst conditions. The same masses eliminate the low-$S_p(^{83}\mathrm{Nb})$ scenarios that made $^{82}$Zr a waiting point; burst simulations with the new values reduce the $A=82$ and $A=83$ ash-abundance uncertainties at the $3\sigma$ level to about 8% each. The paper also reports first evidence of a pronounced island of low $S_\alpha$ in neutron-deficient Mo isotopes, and proposes a corrected $^{79}$Y mass excess of $-57\,984(13)$ keV, 181 keV more bound than the previous value.

Load-bearing premise

The $^{84}$Mo peak in the $A/q=42$ time-of-flight spectrum is assumed to be the ground state; if that peak hides an isomeric state, the quoted $S_\alpha$ would not be the ground-state value and the ZrNb-cycle conclusion would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With $S_\alpha(^{84}\mathrm{Mo}) = 1.434(83)$ MeV, the ZrNb cycle cannot form in realistic X-ray burst conditions, so the rp-process is not terminated near mass 84.
  • Because the cycle is closed, the production of light p-nuclei in the $A=92$–$98$ range is no longer blocked at $A\sim84$ by a ZrNb bottleneck.
  • The new masses remove the low-$S_p(^{83}\mathrm{Nb})$ scenario that made $^{82}$Zr a waiting point; the $A=82$ and $A=83$ ash-abundance uncertainties drop to about 8% each at the $3\sigma$ level.
  • First mass determinations for $^{88}$Ru, $^{84}$Mo, and the isomeric state of $^{78}$Y, together with a 17-fold improvement in the $^{83}$Nb mass precision, anchor nuclear mass models near the proton drip line.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: applying the same beta-decay tagging used for $^{78}$Y to the $^{84}$Mo peak would settle the ground-state assignment directly, since the paper gives no state identification for $^{84}$Mo.
  • The low-$S_\alpha$ island in neutron-deficient Mo isotopes, now anchored experimentally, could affect other explosive nucleosynthesis environments where alpha photodisintegration shapes abundances, even though it is not deep enough to form a ZrNb cycle in X-ray bursts.
  • The removal of the $^{82}$Zr waiting point changes the predicted composition of the accreted neutron-star crust, so the improved masses may indirectly tighten comparisons with crust-cooling observations in quasi-persistent X-ray transients.
  • The 181 keV shift in $^{79}$Y relative to the previous measurement could be tested by a dedicated $^{79}$Y isomer search; if an unresolved isomer explains the shift, the ground-state mass would be even more bound.
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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This letter reports multi-reflection time-of-flight mass measurements of the proton-rich nuclides 79Y, 83Nb, 84Mo, 88Ru, and the isomeric state of 78Y at the RIKEN SLOWRI/CRISMASS setup. Combining the newly measured 84Mo mass excess with the previously measured 80Zr mass yields S_alpha(84Mo) = 1.434(83) MeV, far above the FRDM92 value of -0.58 MeV that had motivated the proposed ZrNb cycle. The authors therefore conclude that the ZrNb cycle does not form under type I X-ray burst conditions, and they show with a one-zone X-ray burst model that the new masses remove the large final-abundance uncertainties at A = 82 and 83 and eliminate the previously suggested 82Zr waiting-point behavior.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper resolves a long-standing uncertainty in the rp-process termination region near A = 84 and provides the first experimental mass determinations of 84Mo, 88Ru, and the 78Y isomer, while improving the 83Nb mass precision by a factor of 17. The derivation of S_alpha from the measured masses is direct and contains no fitted parameters, and the cross-checks on 84Zr, 83Y, 78Sr, and 38ArH all agree with AME20 within 1 sigma, giving confidence in the measurement systematics. The conclusion is also robust to the one plausible ambiguity in the paper, namely the absence of an explicit ground-state assignment for the 84Mo peak: an unresolved isomeric component would have a higher mass excess, making the true ground-state S_alpha even larger and moving the system further away from cycle-enabling conditions. The simulation-based prediction of a suppressed A = 82 abundance peak is a clear, falsifiable consequence of the new mass values.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, paragraph on Fig. 3] The quoted value S_alpha(84Mo) = 1.434(83) MeV should be accompanied by the explicit defining equation, S_alpha(84Mo) = ME(80Zr) + ME(4He) - ME(84Mo), together with the adopted ME(80Zr) value and its uncertainty, so that readers can reproduce the result and the error propagation without referring to Fig. 1 and the cited LEBIT paper.
  2. [Section 3, paragraph on Fig. 3 and the concluding paragraph] The word 'unambiguously' is slightly stronger than the supporting text: the 84Mo TOF peak is assumed to be the ground state, and no state assignment is demonstrated as was done for the 78Y isomer. Because an unresolved isomer would only increase the ground-state S_alpha, the conclusion is unaffected, but this argument should be stated explicitly in the manuscript.
  3. [Section 3, paragraph on the 79Y discrepancy] The proposed new 79Y mass excess rests on the hypothesis of an unknown short-lived isomer in 79Y, which is not directly observed. Since 79Y is not used in the S_alpha(84Mo) derivation, the authors should state explicitly that the ZrNb-cycle conclusion does not depend on the 79Y reinterpretation, to avoid leaving the impression that the central claim relies on this single discrepant point.
  4. [Section 2, description of Fig. 2(f)] The measured half-life of 2.8(+2.4/-1.3) s attributed to the 78Y isomer has a large statistical uncertainty; stating the prior expectation of 5.8(6) s and the reduced chi-square of the fit in the same sentence would make the state assignment easier to evaluate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the S_alpha(84Mo) value follows directly from independently measured masses, and the ZrNb cycle conclusion is an inference from that external input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is experimental and non-circular. The mass excesses are extracted from MRTOF time-of-flight ratios relative to AME20 reference masses (Table I), with the analysis method cited to prior instrumental papers that are not load-bearing for the physics conclusion. The key quantity, S_alpha(84Mo), is a standard mass combination: it uses the 84Mo mass measured in this work and the 80Zr mass measured independently by LEBIT (ref [25]), together with the well-known alpha particle mass. No fitted parameter is used to produce S_alpha. The earlier FRDM92 prediction of S_alpha = -0.58 MeV, which motivated the ZrNb cycle, is an independent theoretical input; the paper's measurement contradicts it. The X-ray burst simulation treats the measured masses as fixed inputs and propagates their uncertainties, rather than tuning anything to achieve the quoted abundance reduction. Self-citations appear only for the MRTOF/CRISMASS setup and analysis procedures (e.g., refs [30,32,39,42,43]), which are methodological and do not supply the central physical claim. The comparison with AME20 values for known species (84Zr, 78Sr, 38Ar1H) validates the measurement system against external benchmarks. The possible ground-state ambiguity for the 84Mo peak is a systematic concern, not a circularity: it would only increase the true ground-state S_alpha, strengthening the paper's conclusion. No circular step, fitted input disguised as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on AME20 reference masses, ground-state peak assignments, the MRTOF mass-ratio calibration, and the 80Zr mass from LEBIT in the S_alpha calculation. No free parameters are fitted to the target result and no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AME20 reference masses used in the single-reference method are correct.
    All masses are computed from m_X = rho^2 * m_ref using AME20 values; errors in the references propagate directly into the reported mass excesses.
  • domain assumption The TOF peaks for 84Mo, 83Nb, and 79Y correspond to ground states (no unresolved isomeric contamination).
    Only the 78Y peak was beta-tagged to identify the isomeric state; an unrecognized isomer, especially in 84Mo, would change S_alpha and could weaken the ZrNb cycle conclusion.
  • domain assumption The MRTOF mass-ratio equation m_X = rho^2 * m_ref and the t0 calibration are unbiased.
    The t0 = 220(30) ns offset is calibrated using the 84Nb2+/39K+ pair, and the quoted systematic uncertainties are negligible (about 1e-8 relative).
  • domain assumption The 80Zr mass from LEBIT, used to compute S_alpha(84Mo), is accurate.
    S_alpha(84Mo) = M(80Zr) + M(4He) - M(84Mo); the 80 keV uncertainty in the 80Zr mass dominates the quoted 83 keV uncertainty.
  • domain assumption A positive S_alpha of 1.434 MeV is sufficient to suppress the alpha-emission channel so the ZrNb cycle cannot form in realistic X-ray bursts.
    The paper does not present a new Hauser-Feshbach alpha-width calculation; it infers the cycle exclusion directly from the measured S_alpha, which is far above the negative value that motivated the cycle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precision mass measurements around ${}^{84}$Mo rule out ZrNb cycle formation in the rapid proton-capture process at type I X-ray bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2CTQRUK3

@misc{pith2026250412639,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precision mass measurements around $^84$Mo rule out ZrNb cycle formation in the rapid proton-capture process at type I X-ray bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2CTQRUK3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12639}
}
abstract

The rapid proton-capture ($rp$-) process is one of the primary, explosive thermonuclear burning processes that drive type I X-ray bursts. A possible termination of the $rp$-process at around ${}^{84}$Mo was previously suggested by the formation of a ZrNb cycle. We report here precision mass measurements at around ${}^{84}$Mo, which have concluded the possibility of the cycle. The experiment was conducted using the multi-reflection time-of-flight spectrograph at RIKEN RI Beam Factory, and the masses of ${}^{79}$Y, ${}^{83}$Nb, ${}^{84}$Mo, ${}^{88}$Ru, and an isomer in ${}^{78}$Y were measured. For ${}^{84}$Mo, and ${}^{88}$Ru, and the isomeric state of ${}^{78}$Y, their masses are experimentally determined for the first time with uncertainties of $\delta m \approx 20~{\rm keV/c^2}$. The mass precision of ${}^{79}$Y and ${}^{83}$Nb is improved to $13~{\rm keV/c^2}$ and $9.6~{\rm keV/c^2}$, respectively. The new $\alpha$-separation energy of ${}^{84}$Mo, 1.434(83) MeV, unambiguously rules out the possibility of forming the ZrNb cycle. The X-ray burst simulation with the new masses shows that our measurements effectively remove the large final abundance uncertainties in the $A=80-90$ mass region. The new mass values improve the prediction power for the composition of the nuclear ashes in X-ray bursts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12639 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Nuclear chart in the region of interest. The uncer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) – (e): The observed time-of-flight spectra. The red-colored lines indicate the fit results. The enlarged, partial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Abundance plot of the simulated X-ray burst ash. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Parikh, J

    A. Parikh, J. Jos´ e, G. Sala, and C. Iliadis, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics69, 225 (2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Meisel, A

    Z. Meisel, A. Deibel, L. Keek, P. Shternin, and J. Elfritz, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics45, 093001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    D. K. Galloway and L. Keek, Thermonuclear x-ray bursts, inTiming Neutron Stars: Pulsations, Oscillations and Explosions, edited by T. M. Belloni, M. M´ endez, and C. Zhang (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Hei- delberg, 2021) pp. 209–262

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Schatz, A

    H. Schatz, A. Aprahamian, V. Barnard, L. Bildsten, A. Cumming, M. Ouellette, T. Rauscher, F.-K. Thiele- mann, and M. Wiescher, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 3471 (2001)

    2001

  5. [5]

    Jos´ e, F

    J. Jos´ e, F. Moreno, A. Parikh, and C. Iliadis, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series189, 204 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Zamfir, A

    M. Zamfir, A. Cumming, and D. K. Galloway, The As- trophysical Journal749, 69 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Meisel, G

    Z. Meisel, G. Merz, and S. Medvid, The Astrophysical Journal872, 84 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    ¨Ozel and P

    F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics54, 401 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Xie, B.-A

    W.-J. Xie, B.-A. Li, and N.-B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D110, 043025 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    N. N. Weinberg, L. Bildsten, and H. Schatz, The Astro- physical Journal639, 1018 (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    Herrera, Y., Sala, G., and Jos´ e, J., A&A678, A156 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Parikh, J

    A. Parikh, J. Jos´ e, F. Moreno, and C. Iliadis, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series178, 110 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    R. H. Cyburt, A. M. Amthor, A. Heger, E. Johnson, L. Keek, Z. Meisel, H. Schatz, and K. Smith, The Astro- physical Journal830, 55 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    van Wormer, J

    L. van Wormer, J. G¨ orres, C. Iliadis, M. Wiescher, and F.-K. Thielemann, Astrophysical Journal432, 326 (1994)

    1994

  7. [15]

    Schatz, A

    H. Schatz, A. Aprahamian, J. G¨ orres, M. Wiescher, T. Rauscher, J. Rembges, F.-K. Thielemann, B. Pfeif- fer, P. M¨ oller, K.-L. Kratz, H. Herndl, B. Brown, and H. Rebel, Physics Reports294, 167 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    Block, D

    M. Block, D. Ackermann, K. Blaum, A. Chaudhuri, Z. Di, S. Eliseev, R. Ferrer, D. Habs, F. Herfurth, F. P. Heßberger, S. Hofmann, H.-J. Kluge, G. Maero, A. Mart´ ın, G. Marx, M. Mazzocco, M. Mukherjee, J. B. Neumayr, W. R. Plaß, W. Quint, S. Rahaman, C. Rauth, D. Rodr´ ıguez, C...

    2006

  9. [17]

    Elomaa, G

    V.-V. Elomaa, G. K. Vorobjev, A. Kankainen, L. Batist, S. Eliseev, T. Eronen, J. Hakala, A. Jokinen, I. D. Moore, Y. N. Novikov, H. Penttil¨ a, A. Popov, S. Rahaman, J. Rissanen, A. Saastamoinen, H. Schatz, D. M. Seliv- erstov, C. Weber, and J. ¨Ayst¨ o, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 2...

    2009

  10. [18]

    Kankainen, V.-V

    A. Kankainen, V.-V. Elomaa, T. Eronen, D. Gorelov, J. Hakala, A. Jokinen, T. Kessler, V. S. Kolhinen, I. D. Moore, S. Rahaman, M. Reponen, J. Rissanen, A. Saas- tamoinen, C. Weber, and J. ¨Ayst¨ o, Phys. Rev. C82, 034311 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Haettner, D

    E. Haettner, D. Ackermann, G. Audi, K. Blaum, M. Block, S. Eliseev, T. Fleckenstein, F. Herfurth, F. P. Heßberger, S. Hofmann, J. Ketelaer, J. Ketter, H.-J. Kluge, G. Marx, M. Mazzocco, Y. N. Novikov, W. R. Plaß, S. Rahaman, T. Rauscher, D. Rodr´ ıguez, H. Schatz, C. Scheidenb...

    2011

  12. [20]

    Due to its shorter measurement time of 200µs [20], this dif- ference could be accounted for if an unknown, short-lived isomeric state in 79Y exists

    and is 181 keV heavier than the present result. Due to its shorter measurement time of 200µs [20], this dif- ference could be accounted for if an unknown, short-lived isomeric state in 79Y exists. Thus, we propose the new mass excess value of 79Y: ME =−57984(13) keV. As dis- 1...

  13. [21]

    Y. Xing, K. Li, Y. Zhang, X. Zhou, M. Wang, Y. Litvi- nov, K. Blaum, S. Wanajo, S. Kubono, G. Mart´ ınez- Pinedo, A. Sieverding, R. Chen, P. Shuai, C. Fu, X. Yan, W. Huang, X. Xu, X. Tang, H. Xu, T. Bao, X. Chen, B. Gao, J. He, Y. Lam, H. Li, J. Liu, X. Ma, R. Mao, M. Si, M. S...

    2018

  14. [22]

    Y. M. Xing, C. X. Yuan, M. Wang, Y. H. Zhang, X. H. Zhou, Y. A. Litvinov, K. Blaum, H. S. Xu, T. Bao, R. J. Chen, C. Y. Fu, B. S. Gao, W. W. Ge, J. J. He, W. J. Huang, T. Liao, J. G. Li, H. F. Li, S. Litvinov, S. Naimi, P. Shuai, M. Z. Sun, Q. Wang, X. Xu, F. R. Xu, T. Yamaguc...

    2023

  15. [23]

    C. M. Ireland, F. M. Maier, G. Bollen, S. E. Camp- bell, X. Chen, H. Erington, N. D. Gamage, M. J. Guti´ errez, C. Izzo, E. Leistenschneider, E. M. Lykiar- dopoulou, R. Orford, W. S. Porter, D. Puentes, M. Red- shaw, R. Ringle, S. Rogers, S. Schwarz, L. Stackable, C. S. Sumith...

    2025

  16. [24]

    Moller, J

    P. Moller, J. Nix, W. Myers, and W. Swiatecki, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables59, 185 (1995)

    1995

  17. [25]

    M. Wang, G. Audi, A. Wapstra, F. Kondev, M. Mac- Cormick, X. Xu, and B. Pfeiffer, Chinese Physics C36, 1603 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Hamakeret al., Nature Physics17, 1408 (2021)

    A. Hamakeret al., Nature Physics17, 1408 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    M. Wang, Y. H. Zhang, X. Zhou, X. H. Zhou, H. S. Xu, M. L. Liu, J. G. Li, Y. F. Niu, W. J. Huang, Q. Yuan, S. Zhang, F. R. Xu, Y. A. Litvinov, K. Blaum, Z. Meisel, R. F. Casten, R. B. Cakirli, R. J. Chen, H. Y. Deng, C. Y. Fu, W. W. Ge, H. F. Li, T. Liao, S. A. Litvinov, P. Sh...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Y. P. Wang, Y. K. Wang, F. F. Xu, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 232501 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Schatz, International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 251, 293 (2006)

    H. Schatz, International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 251, 293 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    Schatz, International Journal of Mass Spectroscopy 349–350, 181 (2013)

    H. Schatz, International Journal of Mass Spectroscopy 349–350, 181 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Schury, M

    P. Schury, M. Wada, Y. Ito, F. Arai, S. Naimi, T. Sonoda, H. Wollnik, V. Shchepunov, C. Smorra, and C. Yuan, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 335, 39 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Takamine, M

    A. Takamine, M. Rosenbusch, M. Wada, P. Schury, J. Moon, T. Sonoda, T. M. Kojima, I. Katayama, Y. X. Watanabe, H. Ueno, and H. Ishiyama, RIKEN Accel. Prog. Rep.52, 139 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Rosenbusch, M

    M. Rosenbusch, M. Wada, S. Chen, A. Takamine, S. Iimura, D. Hou, W. Xian, S. Yan, P. Schury, Y. Hi- rayama, Y. Ito, H. Ishiyama, S. Kimura, T. Kojima, J. Lee, J. Liu, S. Michimasa, H. Miyatake, J. Moon, M. Mukai, S. Naimi, S. Nishimura, T. Niwase, T. Son- oda, Y. Watanabe, and...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Iimura, M

    S. Iimura, M. Rosenbusch, A. Takamine, Y. Tsunoda, M. Wada, S. Chen, D. S. Hou, W. Xian, H. Ishiyama, S. Yan, P. Schury, H. Crawford, P. Doornenbal, Y. Hi- rayama, Y. Ito, S. Kimura, T. Koiwai, T. M. Kojima, H. Koura, J. Lee, J. Liu, S. Michimasa, H. Miyatake, J. Y. Moon, S. N...

    2023

  27. [35]

    T. Kubo, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms204, 97 (2003), 14th International Conference on Electromagnetic Isotope Separators and Techniques Related to their Applications

    2003

  28. [36]

    T. Kubo, D. Kameda, H. Suzuki, N. Fukuda, H. Takeda, Y. Yanagisawa, M. Ohtake, K. Kusaka, K. Yoshida, N. Inabe, T. Ohnishi, A. Yoshida, K. Tanaka, and Y. Mi- zoi, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2012, 03C003 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Y. Yano, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms261, 1009 (2007), the Application of Accel- erators in Research and Industry

    2007

  30. [38]

    Y. Ito, P. Schury, M. Wada, S. Naimi, C. Smorra, T. Son- oda, H. Mita, A. Takamine, K. Okada, A. Ozawa, and H. Wollnik, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms317, 544 (2013), xVIth International Con- ference on...

    2013

  31. [39]

    Niwase, W

    T. Niwase, W. Xian, M. Wada, M. Rosenbusch, S. Chen, A. Takamine, J. Liu, S. Iimura, D. Hou, S. Yan, H. Ishiyama, H. Miyatake, S. Nishimura, D. Kaji, K. Mo- rimoto, Y. Hirayama, Y. X. Watanabe, S. Kimura, P. Schury, and H. Wollnik, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Phys...

    2023

  32. [40]

    Kimura, M

    S. Kimura, M. Wada, H. Haba, H. Ishiyama, S. Ishizawa, Y. Ito, T. Niwase, M. Rosenbusch, P. Schury, and A. Takamine, Phys. Rev. C110, 045810 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Y. Ito, P. Schury, M. Wada, S. Naimi, T. Sonoda, H. Mita, F. Arai, A. Takamine, K. Okada, A. Ozawa, and H. Wollnik, Phys. Rev. C88, 011306 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Schury, Y

    P. Schury, Y. Ito, M. Rosenbusch, H. Miyatake, M. Wada, and H. Wollnik, International Journal of Mass Spectrom- etry433, 40 (2018). 7

    2018

  35. [43]

    Kimura, Y

    S. Kimura, Y. Ito, D. Kaji, P. Schury, M. Wada, H. Haba, T. Hashimoto, Y. Hirayama, M. MacCormick, H. Miy- atake, J. Y. Moon, K. Morimoto, M. Mukai, I. Mur- ray, A. Ozawa, M. Rosenbusch, H. Schatz, A. Takamine, T. Tanaka, Y. X. Watanabe, and H. Wollnik, JPS Conf. Proc.35, 0110...

    2021

  36. [44]

    Kimura, Y

    S. Kimura, Y. Ito, D. Kaji, P. Schury, M. Wada, H. Haba, T. Hashimoto, Y. Hirayama, M. MacCormick, H. Miy- atake, J. Moon, K. Morimoto, M. Mukai, I. Murray, A. Ozawa, M. Rosenbusch, H. Schatz, A. Takamine, T. Tanaka, Y. Watanabe, and H. Wollnik, International Journal of Mass S...

    2018

  37. [45]

    Huang, M

    W. Huang, M. Wang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chinese Physics C45, 030002 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    M. Wang, W. Huang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chinese Physics C45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Uusitalo, D

    J. Uusitalo, D. Seweryniak, P. F. Mantica, J. Rikovska, D. S. Brenner, M. Huhta, J. Greene, J. J. Ressler, B. Tomlin, C. N. Davids, C. J. Lister, and W. B. Walters, Phys. Rev. C57, 2259 (1998)

    1998

  40. [48]

    M¨ oller, A

    P. M¨ oller, A. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables109-110, 1 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    Koning, Arjan, Hilaire, Stephane, and Goriely, Stephane, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 131 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.