Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 37 references

Intruder structures in $^{32}$Si and $^{29}$Al

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read High-spin states in 32Si and 29Al flip to negative parity, confirming 0f7/2 intruder structures

desk verdict A careful experimental paper with genuinely new data on two neutron-rich sd-shell nuclei; the central negative-parity intruder conclusion is right for J>=13/2 in 29Al but the Summary overstates it by ignoring the 11/2+ yrast state. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22357 v1 pith:S6SIGL6V submitted 2025-06-27 nucl-ex

J. Williams , G. Hackman , K. Starosta , R. S. Lubna , Priyanka Choudhary , Subhrajit Sahoo , P. C. Srivastava , C. Andreoiu
show 26 more authors
D. Annen H. Asch M. D. H. K. G. Badanage G. C. Ball M. Beuschlein H. Bidaman V. Bildstein R. J. Coleman A. B. Garnsworthy B. Greaves G. Leckenby V. Karayonchev M. S. Martin C. Natzke C. M. Petrache A. Radich E. Raleigh-Smith D. Rhodes R. Russell M. Satrazani P. Spagnoletti C. E. Svensson D. Tam F. Wu D. Yates Z. Yu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex PACS 21.10.Tg23.20.Lv25.70.Gh27.30.+t21.60.Cs
keywords 32Si29Alintruderstates0f7/2negativeparityshellmodelDSAMlifetimesfusion-evaporation
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

The paper measures the high-spin structures of 32Si and 29Al with fusion-evaporation reactions and establishes that in both nuclei the yrast states above spin 5 have negative parity. This matters because it shows that the high-energy yrast landscape in this neutron-rich sd-shell region is dominated by intruder configurations that occupy the 0f7/2 orbital, rather than by extensions of the ground-state band. The result is concrete: in 32Si most of these states feed a 5− nanosecond isomer, while in 29Al a rotor-like band is reassigned from 9/2+ magnetic rotation to a 7/2− intruder band, with the band-head at 5022.6 keV. If correct, the paper provides a clear experimental signature of cross-shell excitation and constrains the shell-model interactions used to describe the N=20 island-of-inversion boundary.

What carries the argument

The central objects are negative-parity states formed by promoting one neutron across the N=20 shell gap into the 0f7/2 intruder orbital (1p1h cross-shell excitation). The machinery that carries the argument is a combination of fusion-evaporation reactions (12C+22Ne), TIGRESS gamma-ray spectroscopy with angular distribution, DCO, and polarization-direction correlation (PDCO) measurements to fix spins and parities, and Doppler-shift attenuation method (DSAM) lifetime measurements for all observed states. The 46.9(5) ns 5− isomer in 32Si serves as an anchor: the negative-parity states feed it and it decays by a hindered E3, establishing the pattern of normal-versus-intruder structures separated in energy.

What would settle it

A direct measurement that would settle the central claim is a high-resolution transfer experiment on the 5022.6 keV level in 29Al to confirm its L=3 (hence negative parity) assignment; if that level were shown to be positive parity, the band-head and the band’s negative-parity interpretation would collapse. Similarly, a shell-model calculation using parameters not fitted to these high-spin states that nonetheless reproduced the measured energies and transition strengths would strengthen the intruder interpretation; conversely, finding that the FSU agreement vanishes when the fitted data are removed would weaken it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In both 32Si and 29Al, the high-spin yrast states have negative parity and carry significant 0f7/2 intruder population. In 32Si, most of the high-energy states feed into a previously characterized 5− nanosecond isomer, and new candidates for the 4+1, 6+1, and 6−1 levels are identified. In 29Al, the rotor-like band reported earlier is reassigned as a negative-parity band with a 7/2− band-head at 5022.6 keV, contradicting the earlier 9/2+ magnetic-rotation interpretation. The band members decay by hindered E1 transitions to the positive-parity ground-state band, consistent with shell-model predictions. The discovery is an extension: it confirms the expected crossover from positive-parity ground-state band to negative-parity intruder yrast states at high spin in two sd-shell nuclei, with transition strengths that now serve as benchmarks for the FSU and SDPF-MU interactions.

Load-bearing premise

The identification of the observed states as 0f7/2 intruders depends on the reliability of the FSU and SDPF-MU shell-model interactions, and the paper concedes that FSU’s good agreement may simply reflect that its two-body matrix elements were fitted to similar high-spin data from this same mass region.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 29Al band reinterpretation removes it from the list of proposed magnetic-rotation bands in the sd shell; the measured B(M1) trend rising with spin and the absence of crossover E2 transitions instead point to a deformed intruder band with suppressed quadrupole collectivity.
  • The new B(E2; 2+1→0+1) of 6.3(+1.1,−0.8) W.u. supports a gradual onset of deformation along N=18 approaching the island of inversion, rather than a sharp transition.
  • The 5− spin-trap isomer in 32Si becomes a useful filter: high-spin intruder states can be tagged by their decay into the isomer, providing a clean route to study intruder configurations in nearby nuclei via the same fusion-evaporation reactions.
  • The measured transition strengths, including the small B(M1) for the 6−→5− transition and the hindered E3 from the isomer, provide quantitative benchmarks that any shell-model interaction in the psdpf space must reproduce.
  • The fact that FSU and SDPF-MU disagree significantly for high-spin negative-parity states means the new data can discriminate between interactions, guiding future refinements of the cross-shell Hamiltonians.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the negative-parity intruder interpretation is right, one would expect analogous 0f7/2-intruder yrast states at high spin in neighboring odd-A sd-shell nuclei such as 31Si, 30Al, or 33P; these could be searched for with the same fusion-evaporation and isomer-tagging technique.
  • The paper's conclusion that magnetic rotation is not the right explanation for the 29Al band may extend to other sd-shell bands previously labeled as shears bands, since the authors find that enhanced M1 strengths alone are not sufficient evidence without the expected B(M1) trend.
  • A direct test of the 29Al band-head parity would be a high-resolution transfer measurement to the 5022.6 keV level (e.g., 27Al(t,p) with better energy resolution than the earlier work) to confirm the L=3 assignment; if that assignment failed, the band's negative parity would rely only on the less certain gamma-ray polarisation data.
  • The paper's finding that the 4− state at 6347.7 keV decays to the 3−2 state but not to the 3−1 state, mirroring shell-model occupancies, suggests that near-degenerate negative-parity states with different 0f7/2 occupancies could be a general feature of this mass region; isolating such pairs in other nuclei would test the pattern.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports a fusion-evaporation study of 32Si and 29Al using the 12C(22Ne,2p) and 12C(22Ne,αp) reactions at TRIUMF, with TIGRESS γ-ray spectroscopy and CsI charged-particle detection. New high-spin levels and transitions are identified in both nuclei, lifetimes are extracted from Doppler-shift attenuation measurements with attention to feeding corrections and target delamination, and spin-parity assignments are based on angular distributions, DCO ratios, and polarization asymmetries. The results are compared to shell-model calculations with the FSU and SDPF-MU interactions. The main claims are that high-spin yrast states in both nuclei have negative parity and significant 0f7/2 intruder character, that in 32Si these states feed a 5− isomer, and that in 29Al a rotor-like band built on a 7/2− state at 5022.6 keV replaces the earlier 9/2+ magnetic-rotation interpretation.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides new experimental evidence for 0f7/2 intruder configurations at high spin near the N=20 island of inversion and revises the structure of an excited band in 29Al. The experimental analysis is careful and includes several systematic checks: feeding corrections for the DSAM lifetimes, explicit target-delamination tests, and comparisons of two stopping-power models. The comparison of two shell-model interactions is informative; the SDPF-MU 3p3h calculation independently reproduces the negative-parity band energies, which strengthens the intruder interpretation despite the acknowledged circularity of the FSU interaction. The main weaknesses are an overstatement of the yrast-parity claim in the Summary and Introduction, and a reliance on an external transfer-reaction L-value for the parity of the 29Al band-head.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VII Summary, Section I Introduction, Table V] The statement "In both nuclei, we find that the high spin (J > 5) yrast states have negative parity" is not supported by the 29Al data in Table V. The 11/2+ state at 5854.8(7) keV is populated by a transition assigned M1(+E2) to the 9/2+ level at 3577.7(5) keV, so its positive parity is secure, and it lies 57 keV below the 11/2− state at 5911.9(6) keV. The yrast state at J=11/2 is therefore positive parity. The claim holds only for J≥13/2 in 29Al. The Introduction, Section VI discussion, and Figure 13, which states that the yrast states switch from positive to negative parity with increasing spin, should be reworded accordingly.
  2. [Section VII Summary, Table II] For 32Si, the corresponding claim rests on the single tentative (6)− assignment for the 7868.9(7) keV level. The competing (6+) candidates at 8900(3) and 9852(2) keV are also tentative, and the (6)− assignment itself is made on the basis of limited angular-distribution statistics and a polarization asymmetry that only favours M1. The Summary should explicitly state that the negative-parity yrast character at J=6 is tentative and depends on this one level.
  3. [Section IV "Negative parity band"] The negative-parity assignment of the 29Al rotor-like band is contingent on the L=3 transfer assignment to the 5022.6 keV level from Ref. [27]. Although the in-band M1/E2 and out-of-band (E1) multipolarity assignments are consistent with negative parity, the (E1) labels for the 2334.0 and 3510.0 keV transitions are parenthesized and do not independently fix the parity. The conclusions should state explicitly that the negative-parity, and hence intruder, interpretation of the band is inherited from that previous L=3 assignment, and discuss the consequence for the interpretation if the L-value were incorrect.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section V and Section VII] The Summary's phrase "particularly good agreement found using the recently developed FSU interaction" should carry the caveat already given in Section V, namely that the FSU two-body matrix elements were fitted using high-spin data from this mass region including 0f7/2 excitations. Without that caveat the Summary reads as a parameter-free prediction.
  2. [Section III, paragraph on the 6837 keV level] The sentence "Since this level decays to the 5− isomer, is is likely also negative parity" contains a typo and should read "it is likely also negative parity."
  3. [Table III] In the 29Al entries, the two Δasym values for several transitions are given without a definition of which one is measured under which condition; the footnote indicating that the second value is after gating on the 1754.3 keV transition is helpful, but a similar note for the first value would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

FSU agreement is acknowledged to be partly built in, but the measured level scheme and the SDPF-MU cross-check keep the central claim largely independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V (32Si Discussion), shell-model comparison and 7869-keV level paragraph]
    "The good agreement of the FSU calculations is unsurprising in this context, since the two-body matrix elements of the FSU interaction are fitted using similar data from this mass region — in particular high-spin states containing excitation to the 0f7/2 orbital [29]. ... Above the isomer, the (6)− level observed at 7868.9(7) keV aligns well with the 6−1 state predicted at 7853 keV in the FSU model calculations."

    The FSU interaction is used here as the primary shell-model validation for the 32Si 6^- candidate: the 7868.9(7)-keV level 'aligns well' with the FSU 6^-_1 state, and FSU is used to reject the J=7 alternative. But the paper itself states that FSU's two-body matrix elements are fitted using high-spin states containing 0f7/2 excitation from this mass region, with a co-author of the present paper among the interaction's developers. The 'prediction' of a 6^- intruder state at 7853 keV is therefore not an independent parameter-free test; agreement is partly built in. The level scheme itself is derived from angular distributions, DCO, polarization, and transfer data, so the circularity is partial and confined to the interpretive shell-model validation, not the experimental discovery.

full rationale

The experimental backbone of the paper is not circular: spins, parities, and lifetimes are determined from γ-ray angular distributions, DCO ratios, polarization asymmetries, and transfer L-values (e.g., the L=3 assignment to the 5022.6-keV level), not from the shell model. The negative-parity intruder band in 29Al is supported by measured M1/E2 and E1 assignments and by the external (t,p) transfer data. The only load-bearing reduction I find is the use of the FSU interaction to validate the 32Si 6^- candidate and to argue for 0f7/2 intruder character: the paper explicitly concedes that FSU's two-body matrix elements are fitted to high-spin 0f7/2 states in this mass region, so the agreement is partially by construction rather than a genuine prediction. This is mitigated by the SDPF-MU 3p3h calculation for 29Al, which independently reproduces the negative-parity band energies, and by the fact that the experimental level scheme stands independently. I do not count the Summary's overbroad statement that all J>5 yrast states are negative parity as circularity; Table V actually lists an 11/2+ yrast state at 5854.8 keV in 29Al, but that is an internal-consistency/correctness issue, not a reduction of a derivation to its inputs. Score 3.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental results rest on standard detector calibrations and analysis assumptions. The interpretation rests on shell-model interactions that were fitted partly in the same mass region, and on a prior transfer-reaction spin assignment for the 29Al band-head. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Effective charges e_p, e_n (FSU) = e_p = 1.36e, e_n = 0.45e
    Used in all FSU shell-model E2 strength calculations in Tables VI and VII. Chosen by convention from prior work, not fitted to the present data; changing them rescales predicted B(E2) values.
  • Effective charges e_p, e_n (SDPF-MU) = e_p = 1.35e, e_n = 0.35e
    Used in SDPF-MU E2 strength calculations in Table VII. Standard input choices, not outputs of this paper; they affect the shell-model comparison.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The FSU and SDPF-MU shell-model interactions are valid for describing positive- and negative-parity states in 32Si and 29Al.
    Invoked throughout Sections V and VI; the interpretation of intruder character and the 6- assignment rely on the predicted level energies and occupancies from these interactions.
  • domain assumption The L=3 transfer assignment to the 5022.6 keV level in 27Al(t,p) [27] is correct and implies negative parity for that level and the entire band.
    Used in Section IV to set the 7/2- band-head. If the prior transfer assignment were wrong, the negative-parity assignment would rest only on the (E1) assignments of the out-of-band transitions.
  • domain assumption States strongly populated in fusion-evaporation reactions are yrast or near-yrast.
    Used in Section III to assign J=4+ to the 5883 keV level and J>=6 to the 7869 keV level. A non-yrast state with strong population would invalidate those arguments.
  • domain assumption GEANT4/ICRU and SRIM-2013 stopping powers bracket the true stopping power for the recoil velocities of interest.
    Used in the DSAM lifetime analysis; the systematic uncertainty is taken as the difference between the two models, following Ref. [19]. This assumes neither stopping model is badly wrong.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intruder structures in $^{32}$Si and $^{29}$Al." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S6SIGL6V

@misc{pith2026250622357,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intruder structures in $^32$Si and $^29$Al},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S6SIGL6V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22357}
}
abstract

We have studied $^{32}$Si and $^{29}$Al using $^{12}$C($^{22}$Ne,2p) and $^{12}$C($^{22}$Ne,$\alpha$p) fusion-evaporation reactions. In both cases, we observed significant population of high-spin structures distinct from the ground-state yrast bands. In $^{32}$Si, most of the high-energy states feed into a $J^{\pi} = 5^-$ nanosecond isomer. In $^{29}$Al, we identified a rotor-like negative-parity band with a $J^{\pi} = 7/2^-$ band-head. Doppler shift lifetime measurements were performed for all observed states. These results were compared to shell model calculations and interpreted in terms of proton and neutron cross-shell excitation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22357 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of two-proton gated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Decay scheme of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Angular distributions of various transitions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the 1942.06(6) keV DSAM lineshape (gated on the feeding 3940.1(12) keV transition) to GEANT4-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Doppler-corrected 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Background-subtracted Doppler-corrected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Decay scheme of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Background-subtracted Doppler-corrected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Comparison of yrast and near-yrast level energies in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Comparison of observed level energies in the in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Comparison of yrast and near-yrast level energies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    R. M. Clark and A. O. Macchiavelli, The Shears Mech- 17 anism in Nuclei, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 50, 1 (2000)

    work page 2000

  2. [1]

    Otsuka, T

    T. Otsuka, T. Suzuki, R. Fujimoto, H. Grawe, and Y. Akaishi, Evolution of nuclear shells due to the ten- sor force, Physical Review Letters 95, 232502 (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [2]

    E. K. Warburton, J. A. Becker, and B. A. Brown, Mass systematics for A = 29-44 nuclei: The deformed A ∼32 region, Physical Review C 41, 1147 (1990)

    work page 1990

  4. [3]

    Utsuno, T

    Y. Utsuno, T. Otsuka, T. Mizusaki, and M. Honma, Varying shell gap and deformation in N∼20 unstable nu- clei studied by the Monte Carlo shell model, Physical Review C 60, 054315 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [4]

    Williams, G

    J. Williams, G. Hackman, K. Starosta, R. S. Lubna, P. Choudhary, P. C. Srivastava, C. Andreoiu, D. An- nen, H. Asch, M. D. H. K. G. Badanage, G. C. Ball, M. Beuschlein, H. Bidaman, V. Bildstein, R. Coleman, A. B. Garnsworthy, B. Greaves, G. Leckenby, V. Karay- onchev, M. S. Martin, C. Natzke, C. M. Petrache, A. Radich, E. Raleigh-Smith, D. Rhodes, R. Russ...

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Dungan, S

    R. Dungan, S. L. Tabor, R. S. Lubna, A. Volya, V. Tri- pathi, B. Abromeit, D. D. Caussyn, K. Kravvaris, and P.-L. Tai, High-spin states in 29Al and 27Mg, Physical Review C 94, 064305 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Sultana, R

    H. Sultana, R. Bhattacharjee, A. Chakraborty, M. A. Khan, S. S. Bhattacharjee, R. Chakrabarti, S. Das, U. Garg, S. S. Ghugre, R. Palit, R. Raut, S. Saha, S. Samanta, J. Sethi, A. K. Sinha, and T. Trivedi, Possi- ble onset of multifaceted excitation modes in 29Al, Phys- ical Review C 98, 014330 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    Hackman and C

    G. Hackman and C. E. Svensson, The TRIUMF-ISAC gamma-ray escape suppressed spectrometer, TIGRESS, Hyperfine Interactions 225, 241 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    A. B. Garnsworthy et al. , The GRIFFIN facility for Decay-spectroscopy studies at TRIUMF-ISAC, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A 918, 9 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    Williams, C

    J. Williams, C. Andreoiu, G. C. Ball, N. Bernier, M. Bowry, S. S. Bhattacharjee, C. Burbadge, R. Caballero-Folch, A. Chester, F. H. Garcia, A. B. Garnsworthy, S. A. Gillespie, G. Hackman, R. Hender- son, B. Jigmeddorj, C. Jones, P. Kowalski, R. Lafleur, A. D. MacLean, M. Morri...

    2019

  3. [10]

    P. Voss, R. Henderson, C. Andreoiu, R. Ashley, R. A. E. Austin, G. C. Ball, P. C. Bender, A. Bey, A. Cheeseman, A. Chester, D. S. Cross, T. E. Drake, A. B. Garnswor- thy, G. Hackman, R. Holland, S. Ketelhut, P. Kowal- ski, R. Kr¨ ucken, A. T. Laffoley, K. G. Leach, D. Miller, ...

    2014

  4. [11]

    In general, the energies of positive-parity states are similar between both models and consistent with exper- iment. For negative-parity states, the FSU model is in general agreement with the experimental results, whereas the SDPF-MU model under-predicts the energies of sev- e...

    2022

  5. [12]

    micromatter.com/, Accessed: June 6, 2025

    Micromatter Technologies Inc., https://www. micromatter.com/, Accessed: June 6, 2025

    2025

  6. [13]

    Greene, P

    J. Greene, P. Voss, and K. Starosta, Thick backed carbon targets via mechanical rolling, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 299, 1121 (2014)

    2014

  7. [14]

    Kr¨ amer-Flecken, T

    A. Kr¨ amer-Flecken, T. Morek, R. Lieder, W. Gast, G. Hebbinghaus, H. J¨ ager, and W. Urban, Use of DCO ratios for spin determination in γ-γ coincidence measure- ments, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section A 275, 333 (1989)

    1989

  8. [15]

    Starosta, T

    K. Starosta, T. Morek, C. Droste, S. Rohozi´ nski, J. Sre- brny, A. Wierzchucka, M. Bergstr¨ om, B. Herskind, E. Melby, T. Czosnyka, and P. Napiorkowski, Experimen- tal test of the polarization direction correlation method (PDCO), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Res...

    1999

  9. [16]

    Agostinelli et al., GEANT4 - a simulation toolkit, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sec- tion A 506, 250 (2003)

    S. Agostinelli et al., GEANT4 - a simulation toolkit, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sec- tion A 506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  10. [17]

    Williams, C

    J. Williams, C. Andreoiu, R. Ashley, G. C. Ball, T. Bal- last, P. C. Bender, C. Bolton, V. Bildstein, A. Chester, D. S. Cross, T. Domingo, T. Drake, A. Garnsworthy, P. Garrett, B. Hadinia, G. Hackman, R. Henderson, D. Jamieson, B. Jigmeddorj, A. Knapton, R. Kruecken, D. Miller...

    2017

  11. [18]

    ICRU Report 73, Stopping of ions heavier than helium, Journal of the ICRU 5, 1 (2005)

    2005

  12. [19]

    J. F. Ziegler, M. D. Ziegler, and J. P. Biersack, SRIM - the stopping and range of ions in matter (2010), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B 268, 1818 (2010)

    2010

  13. [20]

    Williams, G

    J. Williams, G. C. Ball, A. Chester, P. Choudhary, T. Domingo, A. B. Garnsworthy, G. Hackman, J. Hen- derson, R. Henderson, R. Kr¨ ucken, R. S. Lubna, J. Mea- sures, O. Paetkau, J. Park, J. Smallcombe, P. C. Sri- vastava, K. Starosta, C. E. Svensson, K. Whitmore, and M. Willia...

    2020

  14. [21]

    K. S. Krane and R. M. Steffen, Determination of the E2/M1 Multipole Mixing Ratios of the Gamma Transi- tions in Cd 110, Physical Review C 2, 724 (1970)

    1970

  15. [22]

    Java-RULER, https://github.com/ IAEA-NSDDNetwork/Java-RULER , Accessed: June 6, 2025

    2025

  16. [23]

    Fornal, R

    B. Fornal, R. Broda, W. Kr´ olas, T. Paw lat, J. Wrzesi´ nski, D. Bazzacco, D. Fabris, S. Lunardi, C. Rossi Alvarez, G. Viesti, G. de Angelis, M. Cinausero, D. R. Napoli, and Z. W. Grabowski, Gamma-ray studies of neutron- rich N=18,19 nuclei produced in deep-inelastic collisio...

    1997

  17. [24]

    M. Asai, T. Ishii, A. Makishima, M. Ogawa, and M. Mat- suda, Nanosecond isomers in 32,33Si and 34P (JAERI Tandem Annual Report 2001) pp. 23–24

    2001

  18. [25]

    Guillaume, B

    G. Guillaume, B. Rastegar, P. Fintz, and A. Gallmann, Transitions ´ electromagn´ etiques dans le noyau32Si atteint par la r´ eaction30Si(t, p γ)32Si, Nuclear Physics A 227, 284 (1974)

    1974

  19. [26]

    H. T. Fortune, L. Bland, D. L. Watson, and M. A. Abouzeid, 32Si from 30Si(t, p), Physical Review C 25, 5 (1982)

    1982

  20. [28]

    Bland, H

    L. Bland, H. Fortune, D. Watson, M. Abouzeid, and B. Wildenthal, The 27Al(t, p) 29Al reaction at Et = 15 MeV, Nuclear Physics A 431, 237 (1984)

    1984

  21. [29]

    Endt, Strengths of Gamma-Ray Transitions in A = 5-44 Nuclei, IV, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 55, 171 (1993)

    P. Endt, Strengths of Gamma-Ray Transitions in A = 5-44 Nuclei, IV, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 55, 171 (1993)

    1993

  22. [30]

    R. S. Lubna, K. Kravvaris, S. L. Tabor, V. Tripathi, E. Rubino, and A. Volya, Evolution of the N = 20 and 28 shell gaps and two-particle-two-hole states in the FSU interaction, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043342 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Utsuno, T

    Y. Utsuno, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, M. Honma, T. Mizusaki, and N. Shimizu, Shape transitions in ex- otic Si and S isotopes and tensor-force-driven Jahn-Teller effect, Physical Review C 86, 051301(R) (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    B. A. Brown and W. A. Richter, New “USD” Hamil- tonians for the sd shell, Physical Review C 74, 034315 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    R. W. Ibbotson, T. Glasmacher, B. A. Brown, L. Chen, M. J. Chromik, P. D. Cottle, M. Fauerbach, K. W. Kem- per, D. J. Morrissey, H. Scheit, and M. Thoennessen, Quadrupole collectivity in 32,34,36,38Si and the N = 20 shell closure, Physical Review Letters 80, 2081 (1998)

    1998

  26. [34]

    Heery, J

    J. Heery, J. Henderson, C. R. Hoffman, A. M. Hill, T. Beck, C. Cousins, P. Farris, A. Gade, S. A. Gillespie, J. D. Holt, B. Hu, H. Iwasaki, S. Kisyov, A. N. Kuchera, B. Longfellow, C. M¨ uller-Gatermann, A. Poves, E. Ru- bino, R. Russell, R. Salinas, A. Sanchez, D. Weisshaar, ...

    2024

  27. [35]

    J. G. Pronko and R. E. McDonald, Study of32Si using the 30Si(t, pγ) reaction, Physical Review C 6, 2065 (1972)

    1972

  28. [36]

    Ekstr¨ om and J

    P. Ekstr¨ om and J. Tillman, Study of 29Al with the 26Mg(α, p γ)29Al reaction, Nuclear Physics A 230, 285 (1974)

    1974

  29. [37]

    F. Beck, T. Byrski, G. Costa, and P. Engelstein, Life- time measurements in 29Al, Nuclear Physics A 218, 213 (1974)

    1974

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.