Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Competition between the neutron-proton pair break-ups delineating the level structure of 202Po

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read 202Po's level scheme is extended to 27ℏ and 8 MeV with 57 new transitions, and the unobserved 8+→6+ energy is fixed at 9.0(5) keV.

desk verdict A careful experimental level-scheme paper with a genuinely new 9.0(5) keV inference; the shell-model 'explanation' of a missing E2 should be read as speculative. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10237 v1 pith:PL43GYAN submitted 2025-05-15 nucl-ex nucl-th

Sahab Singh , D. Choudhury , B. Maheshwari , R. Roy , K. Yadav , R. Palit , B. Das , P. Dey
show 13 more authors
A. Kundu Md. S. R. Laskar D. Negi V. Malik S. Jadhav B. S. Naidu A. V. Thomas D. L. Balabanski A. Dhal S. Bhattacharya A. K. Singh S. Bhattacharyya S. Nag
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-exnucl-th PACS 21.10.-k23.20.Lv25.70.-z27.80.+w
keywords 202Pohigh-spinlevelschemegamma-rayspectroscopyisomericstatesM1sequencesshellmodelPBPOPinteractionE2decayhindrance
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 reports a high-spin gamma-ray spectroscopy study of $^{202}$Po that extends the level scheme to about 8 MeV excitation energy and angular momentum $27\,\hbar$, adding 57 new transitions. It fixes the energy of the unobserved $8^+\to 6^+$ isomer decay at 9.0(5) keV by finding two parallel decays from a newly placed $7^-$ state, and it identifies three new sequences of $M1$ transitions. Large-scale shell-model calculations with the PBPOP interaction reproduce the positive-parity structure and trace the missing $E2$ decay of the $12^+$ isomer to a near-zero wave-function overlap with the $10^+$ state. The result matters because $^{202}$Po sits at $N=118$, where competing neutron and proton pair break-ups decide which states live as isomers.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a coincidence-based level scheme built from $\gamma\gamma$ and $\gamma\gamma\gamma$ data, with DCO ratios and integrated polarization asymmetries assigning spins, parities, and electric or magnetic character to each transition. The load-bearing identity is the energy loop $502.5 + 9.0 = 511.5$ keV that locates the unobserved $8^+\to 6^+$ transition at 9.0(5) keV. The interpretive mechanism is the PBPOP surface-delta interaction in a $Z>82$, $N<126$ valence space: average orbital occupancies show which states are proton-driven and which are neutron-driven, and the change from $\pi h_{9/2}$ purity at $8^+$ to $\nu i_{13/2}$ dominance at $12^+$ suppresses the $E2$ matrix element between them.

What would settle it

Measure the multipolarities of the 195.4, 211.3, and 267.5 keV transitions with higher statistics DCO/IPDCO or conversion-electron spectroscopy; a non-dipole assignment for any of them would lower the 27$\hbar$ spin. Independently, detect the 9.0 keV $8^+\to 6^+$ transition directly with low-energy photon or conversion-electron detectors; a measured energy different from 9.0(5) keV would break the parallel-loop placement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the level scheme of $^{202}$Po is both larger and different from what was previously known: 57 new gamma-ray transitions, revised placements for 8 known transitions and new multipolarities for 4 of them, three new $M1$ sequences above the $16^+$ and $15^-$ states, and an energy of 9.0(5) keV for the fully converted $8^+\to 6^+$ transition, deduced from the energy loop formed by the parallel 502.5 keV ($7^-\to 8^+$) and 511.5 keV ($7^-\to 6^+$) transitions. The accompanying PBPOP shell-model calculation shows that the $8^+$ isomer is nearly pure $\pi h_{9/2}^2$, while the $12^+$ isomer is dominated by $\nu i_{13/2}$; the two wave functions have almost no overlap under the $E2$ operator, which explains why the $12^+$ state decays by $E1$ rather than by an $E2$ to the $10^+$ state. This configurational-change mechanism is the paper's answer to the long-standing anomaly of the missing $12^+\to 10^+$ decay in $^{202}$Po.

Load-bearing premise

The extension to 27$\hbar$ depends on the 195.4, 211.3, and 267.5 keV transitions being stretched dipoles, but their multipolarities could not be determined; if any is a quadrupole the implied spins would drop, and the shell-model explanation also assumes no neutron excitations above $N=126$, which the authors note suppresses high-spin energies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 9.0(5) keV $8^+\to 6^+$ energy resolves the absolute excitation energy of every level above the $6^+$ state, so all previously known and newly added high-spin levels in $^{202}$Po are now anchored to the ground state.
  • The three new $M1$ sequences above the $16^+$ and $15^-$ states provide band-like structures whose lifetimes can be measured; the shell model already predicts decreasing $B(M1)$ values along the $24^+\to 23^+\to 22^+\to 21^+$ chain.
  • The near-zero calculated $B(E2;12^+\to 10^+)$ explains the experimentally missing $E2$ decay, and makes $N=118$ a documented case where the $12^+$ isomer decays by $E1$ because of changed nucleonic configurations rather than by an $E2$.
  • The shell model predicts a low $B(E2;20^+\to 18^+)$, so the $20^+$ state may be isomeric; a lifetime analysis can test this prediction.
  • The revised placements above the $16^+$ state supersede earlier tentative assignments, so future compilations and isomer studies of $^{202}$Po should use the present scheme as the reference.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 27$\hbar$ assignment holds, the highest observed state at 7898.5 keV would sit near the limit of what fusion-evaporation populates in this mass region; a natural next test is to search for feeding from above and to measure the lifetimes of the $25$, $26$, and $27$ levels.
  • The parallel-loop method that pins a fully converted transition at 9.0 keV could be applied to other even-even Po and Pb isotopes where the $8^+\to 6^+$ decay is unobserved, turning inferred gaps into measured ones.
  • The paper does not claim these $M1$ sequences are shears bands; if future angular-correlation measurements find increasing $B(M1)$ and decreasing transition energies with spin, a shears interpretation would become viable.
  • The shell model's systematic suppression of high-spin energies suggests that including neutron excitations above $N=126$ would shift the calculated states upward; comparing the present results with such extended-space calculations would quantify the missing core-polarization effect.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a high-spin gamma-ray spectroscopy study of 202Po using the 195Pt(12C,5n) fusion-evaporation reaction at two beam energies with a 16-clover HPGe array. The authors report an extended level scheme reaching roughly 8 MeV and J=27ℏ, with 57 newly assigned transitions, revised placements of 8 previously known transitions, and new multipolarity determinations from DCO and IPDCO measurements. A central experimental result is the determination of the unobserved 8+→6+ transition energy as 9.0(5) keV using parallel 502.5- and 511.5-keV decays from the 2203.2-keV 7− state, which removes the earlier uncertainty in the excitation energies of all levels above the 6+ state. Three new M1 sequences are proposed, and the results are compared with PBPOP shell-model calculations. The paper claims that the calculations reproduce the level structure and explain the missing E2 decay of the 12+ isomeric state by a configuration-change mechanism.

Significance. The experimental part of this work is a substantial and credible contribution to the spectroscopy of the transitional N=118 nucleus 202Po. The 9.0(5)-keV energy inference is elegant and well supported by coincidence data, and the systematic DCO/IPDCO analysis provides useful multipolarity information for many weak transitions. The paper is also careful in several places: it identifies the 600.5/55.5-keV ordering ambiguity, states when multipolarities could not be determined, and notes the suppression of calculated high-spin energies. The shell-model comparison is useful for interpreting configuration changes, but the central theoretical claim about the missing 12+→10+ E2 decay is overstated because the experimental non-observation is not sensitive to B(E2) at the relevant transition energy.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V and Abstract] The claim that PBPOP 'explained the missing E2 decay of the 12+ isomeric state' is not supported by the data. Table I places the 10+ state at 3044.2 keV and the 12+ state at 3049.5 keV, a spacing of only 5.3(6) keV. An E2 transition of this energy would be almost fully internally converted and is not observable with the present HPGe setup, so the absence of a 12+→10+ gamma ray carries essentially no information about B(E2). No conversion-electron measurement, lifetime limit, or intensity-balance constraint is presented. The near-zero calculated B(E2) should be presented as a prediction, not as an explanation of an observed decay branch.
  2. [Sec. V, Table V] Table V shows that the PBPOP calculation gives B(M1) values of 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, and 0.0 μN² for the newly identified negative-parity M1 transitions 18−→17−, 19−→18−, 20−→19−, and 21−→20−, respectively. These are the same transitions that define the main new negative-parity M1 sequence, with relative intensities 8.2, 3.7, 1.4, and 1.1 in Table I. The text notes this discrepancy but does not quantify it or explain how the model can simultaneously 'explain the overall level scheme' and predict zero strength for a prominent measured cascade. This inconsistency needs a substantive discussion or a softening of the theoretical claims.
  3. [Sec. IV.C, Table I, Abstract] The extension of the level scheme to J=27ℏ rests on the 195.4-, 211.3-, and 267.5-keV transitions being stretched dipoles. Their DCO ratios, 0.51(9), 0.58(9), and 0.52(6), are consistent with stretched dipole character, but no IPDCO information is available, and the text states that the multipolarities of these transitions could not be determined. A non-dipole admixture or an unstretched assignment would change the spin sequence. The abstract and conclusions should therefore state explicitly that the 25ℏ–27ℏ assignments are tentative and based on DCO-only evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III] The sentence reporting the DCO calibration values reads 'about 0.5(1.0) and 1.0(2.0) for pure dipole and quadrupole transitions'; the parenthetical notation is implausible as written and should be corrected to the intended uncertainties, e.g., 0.5(1) and 1.0(2), with a clarifying statement about the gating selection.
  2. [Fig. 1] The level scheme is very dense, and the spin labels, especially for the parallel and yrare sequences, are difficult to read in the printed version. Consider presenting the scheme in separate panels or with a larger font for level energies and spin assignments.
  3. [Table I] The multipolarity column embeds footnote letters such as 'f E2' and 'g M1', which is confusing. It would be clearer to place the gating-transition footnotes as standard table footnotes separate from the multipolarity entries.
  4. [Sec. IV.B] The text acknowledges that the ordering of the 600.5-keV and unobserved 55.5-keV transitions is uncertain and that an alternative level at 2282.7 keV cannot be discarded. This ambiguity should be indicated graphically in Fig. 1 with dashed levels/transitions so that readers can immediately see which part of the scheme is not uniquely determined.
  5. [Sec. V] The statement that the first 10+ state 'has more contributions from the proton orbitals' is vague; it would be more informative to quote the average occupancies from Table II, which show that the 10+ state has <Lp> = 8.415 and <Ln> = 2.211, whereas the 12+ state is essentially purely neutron dominated.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central experimental level scheme is self-contained; only a minor theory-assisted spin assignment feeds back into the shell-model comparison.

  1. other [Sec. IV, Table I footnote b; Sec. V, Fig. 9(b) discussion]
    "The shell-model calculations in the present work, discussed in Sec. V, suggest Jπ=5− as the lowest negative-parity state in 202Po. Therefore, we assign a tentative Jπ=(7−) to the 2345.2-keV level which de-excites via the 479.4-keV γ ray. ... The calculations also suggest a cluster of 7− states, as tentatively proposed in the experimental level scheme, shown in Fig. 9(b)."

    The 2345.2-keV level's tentative (7−) assignment is not derived independently from the data: it is chosen with assistance from the same PBPOP shell-model calculations that are later presented as reproducing the negative-parity cluster containing that state. The agreement at this specific point is therefore partly imported from the model being validated rather than being an independent experimental check. The circularity is localized and explicitly labeled tentative; it does not affect the high-spin extension, the 57 new transitions, or the 9.0(5) keV 8+→6+ energy difference derived from the parallel 502.5/511.5 keV decays.

full rationale

The paper's principal experimental claims are not circular. The extended level scheme is constructed from measured γγ coincidence relationships, RDCO ratios, and IPDCO asymmetries, with no parameter fitted to the quantities claimed as results. The unobserved 8+→6+ energy of 9.0(5) keV is obtained by energy conservation from two measured parallel transitions sharing a common initial state, not by fitting. The shell-model 'explanation' of the missing 12+→10+ E2 is a computed near-zero B(E2) from PBPOP wave functions, not a parameter adjusted to reproduce that absence; its weakness is experimental observability, not circularity. The PBPOP interaction is taken from an external fit (Ref. [56]) and is additionally benchmarked against 201,203Po, so the central shell-model comparison has independent content. The only self-referential element is the tentative (7−) assignment at 2345.2 keV, where the same model is used to choose a spin-parity and then cited as agreement; this is minor, transparent, and non-load-bearing. Self-citations such as Ref. [44] are experimental measurements used as comparisons, and Ref. [21] is motivational, not load-bearing. Overall, the derivation chain for the main results is self-contained, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the paper reports empirical levels and standard shell-model inputs.

free parameters (4)
  • PBPOP single-particle energies = 14 values; e.g. πh9/2 = -4.53318 MeV, νi13/2 = -9.09742 MeV (Sec. V)
    Empirically fitted in Poppelier and Glaudemans (1988), Ref. [56]; used as inputs to the shell model calculation. Not fitted to 202Po data, but they set the level ordering in the theoretical comparison.
  • Effective charges (e_p, e_n) = 1.5e, 0.5e
    Standard choices in Table IV for B(E2) calculations; not fitted here.
  • Gyromagnetic ratios (g_l, g_s) = protons 1, 5.585; neutrons 0, -3.826
    Standard free-nucleon values used for B(M1) in Table V.
  • Geometry calibration a0, a1 = a0=+0.993(5), a1=-5.6(7)x10^-5 keV^-1
    Fitted to 152Eu and 133Ba source data for polarization asymmetry; a calibration parameter, not a physics parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Observed gamma-gamma coincidence relationships and relative intensities uniquely determine the placement of transitions in the level scheme.
    Standard assumption of the method; used throughout Sec. IV to construct Fig. 1.
  • domain assumption The 8+ to 6+ transition is unobserved because it is fully internally converted, so its energy equals the difference of the parallel 511.5 and 502.5 keV transitions.
    Sec. IV.A; this is the standard method for such fully converted transitions, also used in 200Po.
  • domain assumption The shell model valence space contains two protons in 0h9/2, 1f7/2, 0i13/2 and 18 neutrons in 1f5/2, 2p3/2, 2p1/2, 0i13/2, with no neutron excitations above N=126.
    Sec. V; the authors note this truncation suppresses high-spin energies and may need core excitations.
  • ad hoc to paper The 195.4, 211.3, and 267.5 keV transitions are treated as stretched dipole, supporting the J=25, 26, and 27 assignments.
    Sec. IV.C and Table I; their multipolarities could not be measured, so the top-spin assignments are provisional.
  • ad hoc to paper The order of the 600.5 keV and unobserved 55.5 keV transitions is as drawn, with an alternative level at 2282.7 keV not excluded.
    Sec. IV.B; explicitly flagged uncertainty in the level scheme.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Competition between the neutron-proton pair break-ups delineating the level structure of 202Po." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PL43GYAN

@misc{pith2026250510237,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Competition between the neutron-proton pair break-ups delineating the level structure of 202Po},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PL43GYAN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10237}
}
abstract

High-spin spectroscopic study of $^{202}$Po ($Z$ = 84, $N$ = 118) has been carried out using the $^{195}$Pt($^{12}$C, 5n)$^{202}$Po fusion-evaporation reaction. An extended level scheme has been proposed up to an excitation energy of $E_x\approx$ 8 MeV and angular momentum of 27$\hbar$, with the addition of 57 newly observed $\gamma$-ray transitions, along with the revisions in the placement of 8 already known transitions and the multipolarities of 4 of these transitions. The energy of the unobserved 8$^+ \rightarrow 6^+$ transition has been proposed to be 9.0(5) keV, which resolves the uncertainty in the excitation energy of the levels above the 6$^{+}$ state. Three new sequences of $M1$ transitions have also been identified in the high excitation energy regime and included in the proposed level scheme. The large-scale shell model calculations for $Z>82$ and $N<126$ valence space have been carried out using PBPOP interaction which explained the overall level scheme for both the positive and negative parity states. The calculations successfully reproduced the purity of the proton $\pi h_{9/2}$ dominated $8^+$ isomeric state, and also explained the missing $E2$ decay of the ${12}^+$ isomeric state in terms of changing nucleonic configurations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10237 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Level scheme of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (b), but not observed in coincidence with the 526.4- and 912.5-keV transitions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Gated spectra generated from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: A gated coincidence spectrum from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: A gated coincidence spectrum from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: A gated coincidence spectrum from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Comparison of the experimental and calculated level schem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: A comparison of experimental and calculated first and sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The energy error is approximately 0.1 keV for the intense ( Iγ > 20) γ rays and ranges between 0.2-0.5 keV for the lower-intensity γ rays

    The γ-ray energies, rel- ative intensities, RDCO ratios, ∆ IP DCO values and the assigned multipolarities of the observed γ-ray transitions are listed in Table I, along with the level energies ( Ex) and spin-parity ( J π ) assignments to the corresponding energy levels. The energy error is approximately 0.1 keV for the intense ( Iγ > 20) γ rays and ranges...

    work page

  2. [2]

    These two transitions extend the yrast sequence up to J π = 21 + and excitation energy of 5822.1 keV

    An E2 and M 1 multipolarities have been deduced for the 536.5- and 537.8-keV transitions, respectively, with the help of their RDCO and ∆ IP DCO values. These two transitions extend the yrast sequence up to J π = 21 + and excitation energy of 5822.1 keV. 300 400 500 600 700 Energy (keV) 0 1 2 3 4Counts (×10 2 ) 286 262 526 386 310 354 380 412 443 335 572 ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The newly observed transitions are marked in red. Three mutually coincident M 1 transitions of increasing energy, viz., 365.6, 471.3, and 565.3 keV have been placed above the 5822.1-keV level with the assistance of the coincidence relationships, extending the positive-parity yrast sequence up to an excited state of 7224.3 keV and J π = 24 +. Among these, ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The 461.0-keV transitions have been found to have an electric nature as inferred from its ∆ IP DCO value, establishing the second excited 22 + state at 6283.1 keV. The yrast sequence has been further extended by a set of three dipole transitions of increasing energy, viz., 195.4, 211.3, and 267.5 keV, further extending the level scheme of 202Po up to an e...

    work page

  5. [5]

    for the ease of discussion. Figure 8 is an illustrative double-gated coin- cidence spectrum from γ-γ-γ cube showing the γ rays in coincidence with 537.6- and 138.4-keV transitions, where the newly identified transitions are marked in red color. A cascade of six M 1 transitions of energies 181.9, 213.8, 468.4, 360.3, 278.4 and 266.4 keV has been observed fe...

    work page

  6. [6]

    The M 1 multipolarities of these transitions were confirmed from their measured RDCO and ∆ IP DCO val- ues. This newly observed cascade of M 1 transitions has been confirmed through the coincidence measurements and the placement of the transitions in the sequence has been made in decreasing order of their intensities. In addition to the M 1 sequence, a few ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    G. D. Dracoulis, P. M. Walker and F. G. Kondev, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 076301 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    R. V. F. Janssens and T. L. Khoo, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 41, 321 (1991)

    work page 1991

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    On comparing the av- erage occupancies of the ground 0 + and second 0 + 2 states, a clear rearrangement of neutron-pairs can be noticed from the f5/ 2 to ( p3/ 2 i13/ 2) orbitals for the 0 + 2 , as can be noticed in the average occupancies for the 0 + 2 state listed in Table I...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Frauendorf, Rev

    S. Frauendorf, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 423 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    Heyde, P

    K. Heyde, P. V. Isacker, M. Waroquier, J. Wood, and R. Meyer, Phys. Rep., 102, 291 (1983)

    1983

  4. [12]

    J. Wood, K. Heyde, W. nazarewicz, M. Huyse, and P. vam Duppen, Phys. Rep. 215, 101 (1992)

    1992

  5. [13]

    R. M. Clark and A. O. Macchiavelli, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 50, 1 (2000)

    2000

  6. [14]

    S. Garg, B. Maheshwari, B. Singh, Y. Sun, A. Goel, A. K. Jain, Atomic Data and Nucl. Data Tables, 150, 101546 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    J. B. McGrory and T. T. S. Kuo, Nucl. Phys. A 247, 283 (1977)

    1977

  8. [16]

    Caurier, M

    E. Caurier, M. Rejmund, and H. Grawe, Phys. Rev. C 67, 054310 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    B. Fant, T. Weckstr¨ om, and A. K¨ allberg, Phys. Scripta 41, 652 (1990)

    1990

  10. [18]

    Beuscher, D

    H. Beuscher, D. R. Zolnowski, D. R. Haenni, and T. T. Sugihara, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1128 (1976)

    1976

  11. [19]

    Bijnens, P

    N. Bijnens, P. Decrock, S. Franchoo, M. Gaelens, M. Huyse, H.-Y. Hwang, I. Reusen, J. Szerypo, J. von Schwarzenberg, G. Vancraeynest, P. Van Duppen, and J. Wauters, Phys. Rev. C 58, 754 (1998)

    1998

  12. [20]

    Hagemann, W

    U. Hagemann, W. Neubert, and W. Schulze, Nucl. Phys. A, 175, 428 (1971)

    1971

  13. [21]

    T. E. Cocolios, W. Dexters, M. D. Seliverstov, A. N. Andreyev, S. Antalic, A. E. Barzakh et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 052503 (2011), and references therein

    2011

  14. [22]

    Kesteloot, B

    N. Kesteloot, B. Bastin, L. P. Gaffney, K. Wrzosek- Lipska, K. Auranen, C. Bauer et al. , Phys. Rev. C 92, 054301 (2015), and references therein

    2015

  15. [23]

    Helariutta, J

    K. Helariutta, J. Cocks, T. Enqvist, P. T. Greenlees, P. Jones, R. Julin, S. Juutinen, P. J¨ amsen, H. Kankaanp¨ a¨ a, H. Kettunen, P. Kuusiniemi, M. Leino, M. Muikku, M. Piiparinen, P. Rahkila, A. Savelius, W. Trzaska, S. T¨ orm¨ anen, J. Uusitalo, R. Allatt, P. Butler, R. Pa...

    1999

  16. [24]

    Van de Vel, A

    K. Van de Vel, A. Andreyev, R. Page, H. Kettunen, P. T. Greenlees, P. Jones et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 17, 167 (2003)

    2003

  17. [25]

    S. K. Tandel, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 233, 953 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    H¨ ausser, T

    O. H¨ ausser, T. K. Alexander, J. R. Beene, E. D. Earle, A. B. McDonald, F. C. Khanna, I. S. Towner, Nucl. Phys. 17 A 273, 253 (1976)

    1976

  19. [27]

    Nagamiya and T

    S. Nagamiya and T. Inamura, Nucl. Phys. A, 182, 84 (1972)

    1972

  20. [28]

    Maheshwari, D

    B. Maheshwari, D. Choudhury, and A. K. Jain, Nucl. Phys. A, 1014, 122277 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    A. Maj, H. Grawe, H. Kluge, A. Kuhnert, K. H. Maier, J. Recht, and N. Roy, Nucl. Phys. A 509, 413 (1990)

    1990

  22. [30]

    H. C. Jain, P. Carl´ e, A. K¨ allberg, L. O. Norlin, K.-G. Rensfelt, U. Roseng ˚ ard, and B. Fant, Nucl. Phys. A475, 338-360 (1987)

    1987

  23. [31]

    Baldsiefen, H

    G. Baldsiefen, H. H¨ ubel, D. Mehta, B.V.Thirumala Rao, U. Birkental, G. Fr¨ ohlingsdorf et al. , Phys. Let. B 275, 252, (1992)

    1992

  24. [32]

    Podoly´ ak, Eur

    Zs. Podoly´ ak, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 233, 903 (2024), and reference therein

    2024

  25. [33]

    A. Maj, H. Grawe, H. Kluge, A. Kuhnert, K. H. Maier, R. A. Meyer, J. Recht, and N. Roy , Z. Phys. A - Atomic Nuclei 324, 123 (1986)

    1986

  26. [34]

    Wikstr¨ om, I

    K. Wikstr¨ om, I. Bergstr¨ om, J. Blomqvist, C. J. Herrlan- der, B. Fant, and V. Rahkonen, Phys. Scr. 10, 292 (1974)

    1974

  27. [35]

    Baldsiefen, H

    G. Baldsiefen, H. H¨ ubel, D. Mehta, B. V. Thirumala Rao, U. Birkental, G. Fr¨ ohlingsdorf, M. Neffgen, N. Nenoff, S. C. Pancholi, N. Singh, W. Schmitz, K. Theine, and P. Willsau, Phys. Lett. B 275, 252 (1992)

    1992

  28. [36]

    R. M. Clark, R. Wadsworth, E. S. Paul, C. W. Beausang, I. Ali, A. Astier, D. M. Cullen, P. J. Dagnall, P. Fallon, M. J. Joyce, M. Meyer, N. Redon, and P. H. Regan, Phys. Lett. B 275, 247 (1992)

    1992

  29. [37]

    H¨ ubel, G

    H. H¨ ubel, G. Baldsiefen, D. Mehta, B. V. Thirumala Rao, U. Birkental, G. Fr¨ ohlingsdorf et al. , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 28, 427 (1992)

    1992

  30. [38]

    A. K. Jain and D. Choudhury, Pramana 75, 51 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Baldsiefen, H

    G. Baldsiefen, H. H¨ ubel, W. Korten, D. Mehta, N. Nenoff, B. V. Thirumala Rao et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 574, 521 (1994)

    1994

  32. [40]

    G¨ orgen, N

    A. G¨ orgen, N. Nenoff, H. H¨ ubel, G. Baldsiefen, J. A. Becker, A. P. Byrne et al., Nucl. Phys. A 683, 108 (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    H. Pai, G. Mukherjee, S. Bhattacharyya, C. Bhat- tacharya, S. Bhattacharya, T. Bhattacharjee et al. , Phys. Rev. C 90, 064314 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    R. M. Clark, R. Wadswortht, F. Azaiezf, C. W. Beau- sang, A. M. Bruce, P. J. Dagnalls, P. Fallon, P. M. Jones, M. J. Joyce, A. Korichit, E. S. Paul, J. F. Sharpey- Schafer, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 19, L57 (1993)

    1993

  35. [43]

    Auranen, J

    K. Auranen, J. Uusitalo, S. Juutinen, H. Badran, F. De- franchi Bisso, D. Cox et al. , Phys. Rev. C 97, 024301 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Kanjilal, S

    D. Kanjilal, S. K. Dey, S. S. Bhattacharjee, A. Bisoi, M. Das, C. C. Dey, S. Nag, R. Palit, S. Ray, S. Saha, J. Sethi, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 159 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    D. J. Hartley, E. P. Seyfried, W. Reviol, D. G. Saran- tites, C. J. Chiara, O. L. Pechenaya, K. Hauschild, A. Lopez-Martens, M. P. Carpenter, R. V. F. Janssens, D. Seweryniak, and S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. C 78, 054319 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    Frauendorf, Nucl

    S. Frauendorf, Nucl. Phys. A 557, 259 (1993)

    1993

  39. [47]

    P. Zhao, S. Zhang, J. Peng, H. Liang, P. Ring, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B 699, 181 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    J. Meng, J. Peng, S.-Q. Zhang, and P.-W. Zhao, Front. Phys. 8, 55 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    Meng and P

    J. Meng and P. Zhao, Phys. Scr. 91, 053008 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    L. F. Yu, P. W. Zhao, S. Q. Zhang, P. Ring, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C 85, 024318 (2012)

    2012

  43. [51]

    Singh, D

    S. Singh, D. Choudhury, R. Roy, B. Maheshwari, R. Palit, P. Dey, B. Das, A. Kundu, Md. S. Laskar, D. Negi, A. Dhal, S. Nag, and N. Goel, Acta Phys. Pol. B Proc. Suppl. 17, 3-A10 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Md. S. R. Laskar, R. Palit, E. Ideguchi, T. Inakura, S. N. Mishra, F. S. Babra et al. , Phys. Rev. C 104, L011301 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Palit, S

    R. Palit, S. Saha, J. Sethi, T. Trivedi, S. Sharma, B. S. Naidu, Jadhav, R. Donthi, P. B. Chavan, H. Tan, and W. Hennig, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 680, 90 (2012)

    2012

  46. [54]

    H. Tan, W. Hennig, M. Walby, A. Fallu-Labruyere, J. Harris, D. Breus, P. Grudberg, W. K. Warburton, C. Va- man, T. Glasmacher, P. Mantica, D. Miller, K. Starosta, and P. Voss, IEEE Nucl. Sci. Symp. Conf. Record NSS 08, 3196 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    Computer code DAMM: MILNER PACKAGE, the Oak Ridge analysis software ( private communication )

  48. [56]

    D. C. Radford, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 361, 297 (1995)

    1995

  49. [57]

    D. C. Radford, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 361, 306 (1995)

    1995

  50. [58]

    Kr¨ amer-Flecken, T

    A. Kr¨ amer-Flecken, T. Morek, R. M. Lieder, W. Gast, G. Hebbinghaus, H. M. J¨ ager, W. Urban, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 275, 333 (1989)

    1989

  51. [59]

    K. S. Krane, R. M. Steffen, and R. M. Wheeler, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 11, 351 (1973)

    1973

  52. [60]

    Starosta, T

    K. Starosta, T. Morek, Ch. Droste, S. G. Rohozi´ nski, J. Srebrny, A. Wierzchucka, M. Bergstr¨ om, B. Herskind, E. Melby, T. Czosnyka, and P. J. Napiorkowski, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 423, 16 (1999)

    1999

  53. [61]

    Droste, S

    Ch. Droste, S. G. Rohozinsky, K. Starosta, T. Morek, J. Srebrny, and P. Magierski, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 378, 518 (1996)

    1996

  54. [62]

    P. M. Jones, L. Wei, F. A. Beck, P. A. Butler, T. Byrski, G. Duchne, G. de France, F. Hannachi, G. D. Jones, and B. Kharraja, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 362, 556 (1995)

    1995

  55. [63]

    N. A. F. M. Poppelier and P. W. M. Glaudemans, Z. Phys. A 329, 275 (1988)

    1988

  56. [64]

    Zwarts, P

    D. Zwarts, P. W. M. Glaudemans, Z. Phys. A - Atoms and Nuclei 320, 487 (1985)

    1985

  57. [65]

    Shukla, P

    S. Shukla, P. C. Srivastava, K. Nomura, and L. Zamick, Nucl. Phys. A 1044, 122842 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Shimizu, T

    N. Shimizu, T. Mizusaki, T. Utsuno, and Y. Tsunoda, Comp. Phys. Comm. 244, 372 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    N. J. Stone, INDC Nuclear Data Sheets 0816 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf/

  61. [69]

    F. G. Kondev, Nucl. Data Sheets 187, 355 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    F. G. Kondev, Nucl. Data Sheets 177, 509, (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.