Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Rapid structural evolution of neutron-rich silicon isotopes toward N = 28

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Lifetime and inelastic-scattering measurements of the neutron-rich isotopes 40Si and 41Si show that the silicon chain undergoes rapid structural evolution, moving from moderate triaxial collectivity toward oblate deformation as the doubly j

desk verdict Solid experimental paper with new lifetimes and B(E2) data for 40,41Si; the structural interpretation leans heavily on tentative spin assignments in 41Si, but the measured lifetimes and M1 dominance are robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16174 v1 pith:P5FBVD6M submitted 2026-07-17 nucl-ex nucl-th

G. L. Zimba , H. Iwasaki , B. A. Brown , Y. Utsuno , N. Shimizu , N. Aoi , M. Basson , T. Beck
show 22 more authors
J. Chen J. Chung-Jung A. Douglas A. Ertoprak P. Farris C. Fransen A. Gade S. A. Gillespie A. Hill K. Kolos D. Lempke I. Lihtar T. Mijatović S. Neupane S. Noji T. Parry A. Revel R. Salinas A. Sanchez E. Schieb D. Weisshaar Y. Yamamoto
This is my paper
classification nucl-exnucl-th
keywords nuclearstructuresiliconisotopesshellevolutionquadrupolecollectivitytriaxialityoblatedeformationlifetimemeasurementinelasticscattering
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 reports new lifetime and inelastic-scattering measurements for 40Si and 41Si, extracting B(E2) transition strengths and B(M1) strength limits. It argues that 40Si at N=26 is moderately quadrupole-collective with a low-lying 2+2 state indicating triaxiality, while 41Si at N=27 shows two near-degenerate excited states at 570 and 658 keV with comparable B(E2) strengths yet M1-dominated decays, pointing to the onset of oblate deformation. These results matter because N=28 is a magic number, yet 42Si is strongly collective; the data trace how that collectivity emerges and provide a discriminating test of competing shell-model interactions.

What carries the argument

The argument hinges on three pieces: (1) the recoil-distance Doppler-shift method, applied with a plunger and gamma-ray tracking array, to extract excited-state lifetimes; (2) heavy-ion inelastic-scattering cross sections analyzed with coupled-channel calculations (Fresco) to extract B(E2) strengths; and (3) the theoretical framework of the doubly jj-closed configuration at Z=14, N=28, where upsloping proton 5/2[202] and neutron 7/2[303] orbitals inhibit prolate deformation and low-lying oblate-driving negative-parity neutron orbitals (1/2[330], 3/2[321], 5/2[312]) become nearly degenerate. The near-degeneracy of these orbitals is invoked to explain why the two observed 41Si states have comp

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the spins and parities of the 570- and 658-keV states in 41Si, for example via gamma-ray angular correlations or polarized-beam techniques, would settle whether the adopted assignments are correct; if they differ from 5/2− and 1/2−, the extracted B(M1) values and the specific K-mixing/oblate interpretation would need revision, although the M1-dominance conclusion is robust to interchanging the two assignments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that 40Si (N=26) has a B(E2; 0+→2+1) of 332(+134/−43) e2fm4, indicating moderate quadrupole collectivity, and reports a tentative 2+2 state at 1614 keV whose low energy relative to 2+1 is consistent with triaxiality. For 41Si (N=27), it measures two near-degenerate states at 570 and 658 keV with comparable B(E2↑) strengths of about 39(10) and 50(15) e2fm4, but lifetimes of 8.1 and 11.9 ps that imply mostly M1 decays (≈98% and ≈82% M1, respectively). The pattern cannot be explained by a single K quantum number, suggesting mixing of oblate-driving neutron configurations associated with the doubly jj-closed Z=14, N=28 configuration. Together these results provide new evide

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation of the 41Si results rests on the tentative spin-parity assignments (5/2− and 1/2−) for the 570- and 658-keV states, which are adopted from a previous experiment rather than determined here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the silicon chain documents a clear case of rapid shape change from triaxial collectivity to oblate deformation over just two neutrons, providing a benchmark for shell-evolution theories.
  • The results favor the SDPF-MU shell-model interaction over SDPF-U-Si for the neutron-rich silicon region, guiding future calculations of neighboring nuclei.
  • The low-lying 2+2 state in 40Si, interpreted as a triaxiality signature, motivates searches for similar low-lying 2+2 states in other N=26 isotones.
  • The M1-dominance of the two 41Si ground-state transitions, with small B(M1) values, places tight constraints on the wave functions of the low-lying negative-parity states.
  • The predicted 7/2− state in 41Si at 235 keV, with an expected lifetime of about 16 ns, falls outside the current sensitivity; a dedicated fast-timing measurement could either confirm or refute the SDPF-MU wave function.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The near-degeneracy and comparable E2 strengths in 41Si might be a manifestation of a pseudo-spin or SU(3)-like symmetry in the oblate-deformed mean field; a measurement of E2/M1 mixing ratios would test this directly.
  • If the oblate interpretation holds, 42Si itself should exhibit a rotational-like band with an E(4+)/E(2+) ratio approaching the rigid-rotor value of 3.33; future gamma-ray spectroscopy of 42Si could confirm this.
  • The same doubly-jj-closed mechanism may operate in neighboring isotones, such as sulfur (Z=16) at N=28; measuring B(E2) strengths in 44S or 45S could reveal whether the oblate-driving effect is specific to the Z=14 proton subshell.
  • The authors note that SDPF-MU overestimates the measured B(M1) strengths, as seen in 37Si as well; systematic refinement of the interaction's magnetic transition operator (e.g., spin g-factors) could be tested against these new precise values.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports lifetime measurements for excited states in 40Si and the first simultaneous lifetime and heavy-ion inelastic-scattering measurements for 41Si, using the TRIPLEX plunger and GRETINA at FRIB. For 40Si, the 2+1 and tentative 2+2 lifetimes give a moderate B(E2) and an upper limit on the 2+2→2+1 M1 strength, interpreted as triaxial signatures near N=26. For 41Si, the 570- and 658-keV transitions are assigned as (5/2−)→(3/2−) and (1/2−)→(3/2−) following Ref. [20]; the measured cross sections and lifetimes yield comparable B(E2↑) values and dominant M1 decays. The authors compare with SDPF-MU and SDPF-U-Si shell-model calculations and argue for rapid evolution toward oblate deformation in 41Si as N=28 is approached.

Significance. The data are scarce and valuable: they provide the first simultaneous lifetime and inelastic-scattering information for 41Si, and new lifetime information for 40Si. The analysis uses standard recoil-distance and coupled-channel techniques with carefully quoted statistical and systematic uncertainties. The paper also tests the sensitivity to the optical potential and explicitly acknowledges the tentative nature of the spin-parity assignments and the M1 overestimation by SDPF-MU. These strengths make the experimental results useful even if the structural interpretation is subsequently revised.

major comments (3)
  1. [End Matter II; Table I; Fig. 3] The central claim of oblate deformation and K mixing in 41Si rests on the tentative (5/2−) and (1/2−) assignments for the 570- and 658-keV states, taken from Ref. [20] without new spin evidence. The paper tests only the interchange of these two assignments. The Fresco extraction of B(E2↑) depends on the assumed spins through the (2Ji+1) factor, the conversion to B(E2↓) is spin-dependent, and the Nilsson K=1/2/K=3/2 discussion is built on these specific quantum numbers. If a different plausible spin sequence (e.g., 3/2−,5/2−) or a different ground-state spin is adopted, the 'comparable B(E2) strengths' and the K-mixing/oblate interpretation lose their basis. The abstract and conclusion should either be explicitly conditional on the adopted level scheme or a broader sensitivity scan over alternative spin assignments should be provided.
  2. [Table I and Discussion of 41Si] The paper states that the results are 'consistent with large-scale shell-model predictions,' but the SDPF-MU interaction overestimates the two measured B(M1) values by large factors (0.11 vs. 0.04 and 0.31 vs. 0.014, i.e., roughly 2.75 and 22). The agreement is primarily limited to excitation energies and B(E2) strengths. The sentence acknowledging that 'further refinement of the calculated wave functions may be required' is appropriate, but the concluding 'consistent with...' phrasing should be qualified so that the substantial M1 discrepancy is not obscured.
  3. [Method, 41Si inelastic scattering] Because no elastic-scattering data exist for 41Si, the coupled-channel analysis substitutes the 40Si+12C and 40Si+181Ta optical potentials for the 41Si+9Be and 41Si+181Ta systems. One alternative potential (40Ar+208Pb) is tested and included in the quoted uncertainties, which is commendable. However, the Be-foil cross sections are used to fix the deformation lengths δ_N, so the extracted B(E2↑) values inherit any error from the 40Si+12C → 41Si+9Be substitution. The sensitivity to this specific approximation is not separately quantified; a sentence stating its estimated contribution would strengthen the systematic budget.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Summary] The phrase 'suggest an evolution toward oblate shape' is suitably cautious in the abstract, but the summary says 'provide new experimental evidence for ... toward oblate deformation.' Given the tentative spin assignments, the stronger wording should be tempered or explicitly tied to the adopted level scheme.
  2. [Table I] In the 40Si row for B(E2; 0+→2+2), the entries '104 70' are ambiguous because no experimental value is listed. It should be clarified that these are theory values from SDPF-MU and SDPF-U-Si, respectively, and no experimental B(E2) is extracted for this transition.
  3. [Fig. 3] The caption introduces a 'T-plot' without defining the term. The text explains the circles, but a one-sentence definition of what a T-plot is (and what the axes represent) would improve readability.
  4. [End Matter II] The sentence 'While recent high-resolution measurements report a richer γ-ray structure in 41Si [20]' is useful, but it would be helpful to state explicitly that the present analysis therefore cannot exclude feeding or additional weak transitions; the statement that no statistically significant feeding is observed is already present but could be more prominent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the measured B(E2), B(M1), and lifetimes are extracted independently, and the shell-model comparisons are not fitted to the new data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is data-to-observable, not input-to-output. Lifetimes are extracted by comparing recoil-distance lineshapes to Geant4 simulations; B(E2↑) values are obtained from measured inelastic-scattering cross sections via coupled-channel Fresco calculations with an externally determined optical potential (CEG07); B(M1) values follow from combining measured lifetimes with the E2 partial widths. No parameter appearing in the final B(E2), B(M1), or deformation-length numbers is fitted to the quantities it later 'predicts'. The shell-model interactions SDPF-MU and SDPF-U-Si are prior published interactions used as benchmarks, not adjusted to the present data; the paper explicitly reports that SDPF-MU overestimates the measured B(M1) strengths, which shows the comparison is not forced. The spin-parity assignments for the 570- and 658-keV states are adopted, with the caveat 'Since the spin-parity assignments are not yet definitive', from Ref. [20] and are used conditionally ('Assuming the proposed level scheme for 41Si [Fig. 4(a) of Ref. [20]]'); the authors also test the interchange of the two tentative assignments and find the M1-dominance conclusion unchanged. This reliance is a stated limitation and a correctness/sensitivity concern, not a circular reduction: the assignments come from an earlier published experiment (Ref. [20]) and are not re-derived from the present model or data. There is no self-citation chain that substitutes for an argument, no fitted input relabeled as a prediction, and no ansatz presented as first-principles via a self-citation. Although several cited theory and previous-experiment references share authors with this paper (e.g., SDPF-MU and Ref. [20]), those are prior external benchmarks, not unverified premises. The central claim is therefore self-contained with respect to the new data, with the acknowledged caveat that absolute B(M1) values and the oblate interpretation would change if future data revise the tentative spins.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard experimental assumptions (detector simulation, recoil-distance analysis) and two model-dependent inputs: the optical potential for the inelastic-scattering analysis (substituted from 40Si because no elastic data exist for 41Si) and the tentative spin-parity assignments from Ref. [20]. The shell-model interactions used for comparison are external benchmarks, not fit in this paper. The deformation length δ_N is fitted to part of the data and used for the B(E2) extraction, which is a measurement-extraction step rather than a prediction.

free parameters (2)
  • Deformation length δ_N for the 570-keV state in 41Si = 0.45(+0.05/-0.05) fm
    Determined by fitting the Be-foil inelastic-scattering cross section with Fresco; then used to convert the Ta-foil cross section into B(E2↑; 3/2−→5/2−). A parameter fit to data, not predicted from first principles.
  • Deformation length δ_N for the 658-keV state in 41Si = 0.53(+0.04/-0.05) fm
    Same procedure for the 3/2−→1/2− excitation; fitted to Be-foil data and used for the Ta-foil B(E2) extraction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The CEG07 optical potential, available only for even-even nuclei, can be applied to 41Si by substituting 40Si+181Ta and 40Si+12C potentials.
    Section 3: 'As this potential is available only for even-even nuclei, the 40Si+181Ta and 40Si+12C optical potentials were adopted to describe the 41Si+181Ta and 41Si+9Be systems.' The B(E2↑) values depend on this; the authors cross-checked with a different potential and added the difference in quadrature.
  • domain assumption The 570- and 658-keV states in 41Si have tentative spin-parity 5/2− and 1/2−, respectively, from Ref. [20].
    Table I footnote: 'all 41Si spin-parity assignments are tentative.' End Matter II: 'Assuming the proposed level scheme for 41Si [Fig. 4(a) of Ref. [20]]...' The extracted B(M1) values and the oblate/K-mixing interpretation rest on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The 1614-keV state in 40Si is the 2+2 state, inferred by excluding 0+2 and 4+1 using the 100 W.u. E2 upper limit (Ref. [43]).
    The paper states 'A 0+2 or 4+1 assignment is disfavored because the observed lifetime would correspond to B(E2)≈250 W.u. well above the recommended upper limit.' The triaxiality discussion depends on this tentative assignment.
  • domain assumption The SDPF-MU and SDPF-U-Si shell-model interactions provide valid predictions for the Si isotopic chain.
    All interpretations compare the data to these prior interactions; the oblate conclusion is 'consistent with' SDPF-MU. These are external benchmarks, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Geant4 simulations and the recoil-distance formalism correctly model detector response, energy loss, and decay-position distributions.
    The lifetime extraction compares Doppler-corrected spectra to Geant4 simulations following Refs. [28,30,34]; any error in the simulation model propagates to all measured lifetimes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rapid structural evolution of neutron-rich silicon isotopes toward N = 28." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P5FBVD6M

@misc{pith2026260716174,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rapid structural evolution of neutron-rich silicon isotopes toward N = 28},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P5FBVD6M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16174}
}
abstract

Neutron-rich Si isotopes represent a unique case of shell evolution, exhibiting a robust shell closure at $N=20$ and pronounced quadrupole collectivity at $N = 28$. We report lifetime measurements of excited states in $^{40}$Si and the first simultaneous lifetime and heavy-ion inelastic-scattering measurements in $^{41}$Si. In $^{40}$Si, the extracted lifetimes for the $2_1^+$ and $(2_2^+)$ states indicate moderate quadrupole collectivity at $N=26$, together with signatures of triaxiality. In $^{41}$Si, two near-degenerate states at 570 and 658~keV exhibit comparable $B(E2)$ strengths as extracted from inelastic scattering, while the measured lifetimes indicate dominant $M1$ decays. The combined lifetime and inelastic-scattering results suggest an evolution toward oblate shape, consistent with large-scale shell-model predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16174 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows Doppler-corrected γ-ray spectra mea￾sured in the (41Si,40Si) channel. The prominent peaks at 628(4) and 986(6) keV [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Doppler-corrected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Potential-energy surface (PES) and T-plot for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (c). At this lifetime, corresponding to the upper 1σ bound of the 1614-keV state, the decay occurs pre￾dominantly after the recoil ions have traversed the de￾grader and reached their final velocity. Consequently, the Doppler correction becomes effective for a large fra…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Doppler-corrected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references

  1. [20]

    A. Gade, B. A. Brown, J. A. Tostevin, D. Bazin, P. C. Bender, C. M. Campbell, H. L. Crawford, B. El- man, K. W. Kemper, B. Longfellow, E. Lunderberg, D. Rhodes, S. R. Stroberg, and D. Weisshaar, Phys. Rev. C110, 014331 (2024)

    2024

  2. [1]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Gade, O. Sorlin, T. Suzuki, and Y. Ut- suno, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015002 (2020)

    2020

  3. [2]

    Sorlin and M.-G

    O. Sorlin and M.-G. Porquet, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.61, 602 (2008)

    2008

  4. [3]

    Phys.120, 103866 (2021)

    F.Nowacki, A.Obertelli, andA.Poves,Prog.Part.Nucl. Phys.120, 103866 (2021)

    2021

  5. [4]

    C. M. Campbell, N. Aoi, D. Bazin, M. D. Bowen, B. A. Brown, J. M. Cook, D.-C. Dinca, A. Gade, T. Glas- macher, M. Horoi, S. Kanno, T. Motobayashi, W. F. Mueller, H. Sakurai, K. Starosta, H. Suzuki, S. Takeuchi, J.R.Terry, K.Yoneda, andH.Zwahlen,Phys.Rev.Lett. 97, 112501 (2006)

    2006

  6. [5]

    Bastin, S

    B. Bastin, S. Grévy, D. Sohler, O. Sorlin, Z. Dom- brádi, N. L. Achouri, J. C. Angélique, F. Azaiez, D. Bai- borodin, R. Borcea, C. Bourgeois, A. Buta, A. Bürger, R. Chapman, J. C. Dalouzy, Z. Dlouhy, A. Drouard, Z. Elekes, S. Franchoo, S. Iacob, B. Laurent, M. Lazar, X. Liang, E. Liénard, J. Mrazek, L. Nalpas, F. Negoita, N. A. Orr, Y. Penionzhkevich, Z....

    2007

  7. [6]

    L. A. Riley, P. Adrich, T. R. Baugher, D. Bazin, B. A. Brown, J. M. Cook, P. D. Cottle, C. A. Diget, A. Gade, D. A. Garland, T. Glasmacher, B. A. Hartl, K. E. Hosier, K. W. Kemper, A. Ratkiewicz, K. P. Siwek, D. C. Stoken, J. A. Tostevin, and D. Weisshaar, Phys. Rev. C79, 051303 (2009)

    2009

  8. [7]

    Hoffman, T

    C. Hoffman, T. Baumann, D. Bazin, J. Brown, G. Chris- tian, D. Denby, P. DeYoung, J. Finck, N. Frank, J. Hin- nefeld, S. Mosby, W. Peters, W. Rogers, A. Schiller, A. Spyrou, M. Scott, S. Tabor, M. Thoennessen, and P. Voss, Phys. Lett. B672, 17 (2009)

    2009

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    Otsuka, T

    T. Otsuka, T. Suzuki, M. Honma, Y. Utsuno, N. Tsun- oda, K. Tsukiyama, and M. Hjorth-Jensen, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 012501 (2010). 8

    2010

  2. [9]

    Utsuno, T

    Y. Utsuno, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, M. Honma, T. Mizusaki, and N. Shimizu, Phys. Rev. C86, 051301 (2012)

    2012

  3. [10]

    Hamamoto, Phys

    I. Hamamoto, Phys. Rev. C76, 054319 (2007)

    2007

  4. [11]

    B. A. Brown, Physics4, 525 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    Y. M. Xing, Y. F. Luo, Y. H. Zhang, M. Wang, X. H. Zhou, J. G. Li, K. H. Li, Q. Yuan, Y. F. Niu, J. Y. Guo, J. C. Pei, F. R. Xu, G. de Angelis, Y. A. Litvinov, K. Blaum, I. Tanihata, T. Yamaguchi, Y. Yu, X. Zhou, H. S. Xu, Z. Y. Chen, R. J. Chen, H. Y. Deng, C. Y. Fu, W. W. Ge...

    2025

  6. [13]

    J. S. Phillips, R. J. Charity, N. Dronchi, H. Webb, L. G. Sobotka, M. J. Basson, C. Benetti, B. A. Brown, K. W. Brown, S. Brown, J. Chung-Jung, J. R. Cory, G. Flo- res, A. Gade, M. Gajdosik, S. Gillespie, M. Kuich, C. E. McCormick, T. Parry, J. Pereira, D. Weisshaar, and V. Ze...

    2025

  7. [14]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2081 (1998)

  8. [15]

    Baumann, A

    P. Baumann, A. Huck, G. Klotz, A. Knipper, G. Walter, G. Marguier, H. Ravn, C. Richard-Serre, A. Poves, and J. Retamosa, Phys. Lett. B228, 458 (1989)

    1989

  9. [16]

    L. A. Riley, I. Conroy, A. M. Himmelreich, M. Heinze, J. Kosa, B. McNulty, P. D. Cottle, M. Spieker, A. Volya, A. L. Conley, D. Houlihan, B. Kelly, K. W. Kemper, S. M. Ali, T. Beck, S. A. Gillespie, M. Hausmann, S. Noji, J. Pereira, D. Weisshaar, J. Chung-Jung, P. Far- ris, A....

    2025

  10. [17]

    A. Gade, B. A. Brown, J. A. Tostevin, D. Bazin, P. C. Bender, C. M. Campbell, H. L. Crawford, B. El- man, K. W. Kemper, B. Longfellow, E. Lunderberg, D. Rhodes, and D. Weisshaar, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 222501 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    Takeuchi, M

    S. Takeuchi, M. Matsushita, N. Aoi, P. Doornenbal, K. Li, T. Motobayashi, H. Scheit, D. Steppenbeck, H. Wang, H. Baba, D. Bazin, L. Càceres, H. Crawford, P. Fallon, R. Gernhäuser, J. Gibelin, S. Go, S. Grévy, C. Hinke, C. R. Hoffman, R. Hughes, E. Ideguchi, D. Jenkins, N. Koba...

    2012

  12. [19]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson,Nuclear structure. Volume II. Nuclear deformations(Addison-Wesley/W. A. Ben- jamin, Inc., Reading, MA, 1974)

    1974

  13. [21]

    Sohler, S

    D. Sohler, S. Grévy, Z. Dombrádi, O. Sorlin, L. Gaude- froy, B. Bastin, N. Achouri, J. Angélique, F. Azaiez, D. Baiborodin, R. Borcea, C. Bourgeois, A. Buta, A. Burger, L. Caceres, R. Chapman, J. Dalouzy, Z. Dlouhy, A. Drouard, Z. Elekes, S. Franchoo, S. Ia- cob, I. Kuti, B. L...

    2011

  14. [22]

    Gaudefroy, J

    L. Gaudefroy, J. M. Daugas, M. Hass, S. Grévy, C. Stodel, J. C. Thomas, L. Perrot, M. Girod, B. Rossé, J. C. Angélique, D. L. Balabanski, E. Fiori, C. Force, G. Georgiev, D. Kameda, V. Kumar, R. L. Lozeva, I. Matea, V. Méot, P. Morel, B. S. N. Singh, F. Nowacki, and G. Simpson...

    2009

  15. [23]

    Hausmann, A

    M. Hausmann, A. Aaron, A. Amthor, M. Avilov, L. Ban- dura, R. Bennett, G. Bollen, T. Borden, T. Burgess, S.Chouhan, V.Graves, W.Mittig, D.Morrissey, F.Pelle- moine, M. Portillo, R. Ronningen, M. Schein, B. Sher- rill, and A. Zeller, Nucl. Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. Sect. B...

    2013

  16. [24]

    Portillo, B

    M. Portillo, B. Sherrill, Y. Choi, M. Cortesi, K. Fukushima, M. Hausmann, E. Kwan, S. Lidia, P. Os- troumov, R. Ringle, M. Smith, M. Steiner, O. Tarasov, A. Villari, and T. Zhang, Nucl. Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. Sect. B540, 151 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Bazin, J

    D. Bazin, J. Caggiano, B. Sherrill, J. Yurkon, and A. Zeller, Nucl. Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. Sect. B 204, 629 (2003), 14th International Conference on Elec- tromagnetic Isotope Separators and Techniques Related to their Applications

    2003

  18. [26]

    Yurkon, D

    J. Yurkon, D. Bazin, W. Benenson, D. Morrissey, B. Sherrill, D. Swan, and R. Swanson, Nucl. Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. Sect. B422, 291 (1999)

    1999

  19. [27]

    Iwasaki, A

    H. Iwasaki, A. Dewald, T. Braunroth, C. Fransen, D. Smalley, A. Lemasson, C. Morse, K. Whitmore, and C. Loelius, Nucl. Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. Sect. A806, 123 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Loelius, H

    C. Loelius, H. Iwasaki, B. A. Brown, M. Honma, V. M. Bader, T. Baugher, D. Bazin, J. S. Berryman, T. Braunroth, C. M. Campbell, A. Dewald, A. Gade, N. Kobayashi, C. Langer, I. Y. Lee, A. Lemasson, E. Lunderberg, C. Morse, F. Recchia, D. Smalley, S. R. Stroberg, R. Wadsworth, C...

    2016

  21. [29]

    Dewald, O

    A. Dewald, O. Möller, and P. Petkov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.67, 786 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Iwasaki, A

    H. Iwasaki, A. Lemasson, C. Morse, A. Dewald, T. Braunroth, V. M. Bader, T. Baugher, D. Bazin, J. S. Berryman, C. M. Campbell, A. Gade, C. Langer, I. Y. Lee, C. Loelius, E. Lunderberg, F. Recchia, D. Smalley, S. R. Stroberg, R. Wadsworth, C. Walz, D. Weisshaar, A. Westerberg, ...

    2014

  23. [31]

    Paschalis, I

    S. Paschalis, I. Lee, A. Macchiavelli, C. Campbell, M. Cromaz, S. Gros, J. Pavan, J. Qian, R. Clark, H. Crawford, D. Doering, P. Fallon, C. Lionberger, T. Loew, M. Petri, T. Stezelberger, S. Zimmermann, D. Radford, K. Lagergren, D. Weisshaar, R. Winkler, T. Glasmacher, J. Ande...

    2013

  24. [32]

    Weisshaar, D

    D. Weisshaar, D. Bazin, P. Bender, C. Campbell, F. Rec- chia, V. Bader, T. Baugher, J. Belarge, M. Carpenter, 9 H. Crawford, M. Cromaz, B. Elman, P. Fallon, A. Forney, A. Gade, J. Harker, N. Kobayashi, C. Langer, T. Laurit- sen, I. Lee, A. Lemasson, B. Longfellow, E. Lunderber...

    2017

  25. [33]

    C. M. Campbell, N. Aoi, D. Bazin, M. Bowen, B. Brown, J.Cook, D.-C.Dinca, A. Gade, T.Glasmacher, M. Horoi, S. Kanno, T. Motobayashi, L. Riley, H. Sagawa, H. Saku- rai, K. Starosta, H. Suzuki, S. Takeuchi, J. Terry, K. Yoneda, and H. Zwahlen, Phys. Lett. B652, 169 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Agostinelliet al., Nucl

    S. Agostinelliet al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. Sect. A506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    Revel, J

    A. Revel, J. Wu, H. Iwasaki, J. Ash, D. Bazin, B. Brown, J. Chen, R. Elder, P. Farris, A. Gade, M. Grinder, N. Kobayashi, J. Li, B. Longfellow, T. Mijatović, J. Pereira, A. Poves, A. Sanchez, N. Shimizu, M. Spieker, Y. Utsuno, and D. Weisshaar, Phys. Lett. B838, 137704 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Salinas, H

    R. Salinas, H. Iwasaki, A. Revel, B. A. Brown, J. Ash, D. Bazin, J. Chen, R. Elder, P. Farris, A. Gade, M. Grinder, N. Kobayashi, J. Li, B. Longfellow, T. Mi- jatović, J. Pereira, A. Sanchez, M. Spieker, Y. Utsuno, D. Weisshaar, and J. Wu, Phys. Rev. C113, 014330 (2026)

    2026

  29. [37]

    I. J. Thompson, Computer Phys. Rep.7, 167 (1988)

    1988

  30. [38]

    Wimmer, T

    K. Wimmer, T. Arici, W. Korten, P. Doornenbal, J.- P. Delaroche, M. Girod, J. Libert, T. R. Rodríguez, P. Aguilera, A. Algora, T. Ando, H. Baba, B. Blank, A. Boso, S. Chen, A. Corsi, P. Davies, G. de Ange- lis, G. de France, D. T. Doherty, J. Gerl, R. Gern- häuser, T. Goigoux,...

    2020

  31. [39]

    Furumoto, W

    T. Furumoto, W. Horiuchi, M. Takashina, Y. Yamamoto, and Y. Sakuragi, Phys. Rev. C85, 044607 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Furumoto, Y

    T. Furumoto, Y. Sakuragi, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. C80, 044614 (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Suomijärvi, D

    T. Suomijärvi, D. Beaumel, Y. Blumenfeld, P. Chomaz, N. Frascaria, J. Garron, J. Roynette, J. Scarpaci, J. Bar- rette, B. Fernandez, J. Gastebois, and W. Mittig, Nucl. Phys. A509, 369 (1990)

    1990

  34. [42]

    Nowacki and A

    F. Nowacki and A. Poves, Phys. Rev. C79, 014310 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    P. M. Endt, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables23, 547 (1979)

    1979

  36. [44]

    T. H. Ogunbeku, B. P. Crider, S. N. Liddick, B. A. Brown, A. Chester, K. L. Childers, P. Chowdhury, E. Lamere, R. Lewis, B. Longfellow, R. S. Lubna, S. Lyons, S. K. Neupane, D. Perez-Loureiro, C. J. Prokop, A. L. Richard, U. Silwal, D. P. Siwakoti, D. C. Smith, M. K. Smith, an...

    2023

  37. [45]

    M. E. Bunker and C. W. Reich, Rev. Mod. Phys43, 348 (1971)

    1971

  38. [46]

    Hamamoto, Phys

    I. Hamamoto, Phys. Rev. C100, 014324 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Tsunoda, T

    Y. Tsunoda, T. Otsuka, N. Shimizu, M. Honma, and Y. Utsuno, Phys. Rev. C89, 031301(R) (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Otsuka and Y

    T. Otsuka and Y. Tsunoda, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 43, 024009 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.