Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Direct observation of $\beta$ and $\gamma$ decay from a high-spin long-lived isomer in $^{187}$Ta

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that the long-lived 2933-keV isomer in $^{187}$Ta decays both by an internal transition through an unobserved, highly converted 259-keV transition and by beta decay to $^{187}$W, with a revised half-life of $136(24)$…

desk verdict Solid first observation of decay branches from a long-lived K-isomer in 187Ta; the unobserved 259-keV transition weakens the spin assignment but not the main result. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02848 v1 pith:NXXEDS43 submitted 2025-01-06 nucl-ex nucl-th

J. L. Chen , H. Watanabe , P. M. Walker , Y. Hirayama , Y. X. Watanabe , M. Mukai , C. F. Jiao , M. Ahmed
show 15 more authors
M. Brunet T. Hashimoto S. Ishizawa F. G. Kondev G. J. Lane Yu. A. Litvinov H. Miyatake J. Y. Moon T. Niwase J. H. Park Zs. Podolyák M. Rosenbusch P.Schury M. Wada F. R. Xu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-exnucl-th PACS 23.20.Lv23.40.-s27.80.+w21.10.-k
keywords nuclearisomerbetadecayinternalconversionK-forbiddentransitiontantalum-187multi-nucleontransferprolate-to-oblateshapefive-quasiparticlestate
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 the first direct observation of the decays of a long-lived, high-spin isomer in $^{187}$Ta, a nucleus in the neutron-rich $A \approx 190$ region where a prolate-to-oblate shape transition is predicted. The isomer, previously identified only through storage-ring mass measurements at an excitation energy of $2933(14)$ keV, is now shown to decay with a half-life of $136(24)$ s both internally, through a highly converted and unobserved 259-keV transition followed by a 569–327 keV cascade feeding the known $(25/2^-)$ isomer, and by $\beta$ decay to states in $^{187}$W that feed the $(11/2^+)$ isomer at 411 keV. From the measured hindrance of the $K$-forbidden internal transition, the paper argues for $K \geq 35/2$, and model calculations suggest a prolate five-quasiparticle configuration. If correct, this establishes one of the highest-spin long-lived isomers in the region and provides a new test for shape-coexistence and triaxial-softness predictions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the presumed 259-keV transition, an unobserved and highly converted electromagnetic transition inferred from the 259-keV energy gap between the $2933(14)$-keV isomer and the $1778(1)$-keV state after the 569- and 327-keV cascade. The spin assignment rests on $K$-hindrance systematics: $K$ is the projection of the total nuclear spin on the symmetry axis, and a $K$-forbidden transition has hindrance $F$ that grows with the degree of forbiddenness $\nu = \Delta K - L$; the reduced hindrance $f_\nu = F^{1/\nu}$ is typically 30–200. Comparing the observed partial rates, for each assumed multipolarity of the 259-keV transition, with the systematic behaviour of $\log F$ versus $\Delta K$ compiled in Ref. [37] rules out E1, M1, E2, E4, and M4, leaving M2, E3, or M3 with $\Delta K = 5$\u2013$7$, giving $K \geq 35/2$. Configuration-constrained potential-energy-surface calculations then identify five-quasiparticle configurations with the right energies and prolate deformations.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to detect the presumed 259-keV transition—either its $\gamma$-ray line or its internal-conversion electrons—in delayed coincidence with the 569- and 327-keV cascade, or to identify the discrete $\gamma$ transitions that feed the $(11/2^+)$ isomer in $^{187}$W; failure to observe them, or observation of a different energy or multipolarity, would invalidate the proposed decay scheme and the $K \geq 35/2$ assignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the first direct observation of decay branches from the $2933(14)$-keV isomer in $^{187}$Ta, which had previously been identified only by mass measurements. In the new experiment, produced via multi-nucleon transfer reactions, the isomer is found to decay with a half-life of $136(24)$ s through two pathways. The internal branch feeds the $(25/2^-)$ isomer at $1778(1)$ keV through a 569–327 keV $\gamma$-ray cascade accompanied by tantalum $K$ X-rays; the missing 259 keV is attributed to a highly converted transition that is not directly observed. The external branch is established by the delayed observation of the 46-keV transition de-exciting the $(11/2^+)$ isomer in $^{187}$W, indicating $\beta$ decay to high-spin states in the daughter nucleus. Analysis of the hindrance factors for possible multipolarities rules out low-multipolarity decays and leaves M2, E3, or M3 for the 259-keV transition, implying $K \geq 35/2$. Configuration-constrained potential-energy-surface calculations place five-quasiparticle states with $K^\pi = 35/2^-$, $37/2^\pm$, $39/2^+$, and $41/2^+$ near the measured excitation energy, all with approximately axially symmetric prolate deformation.

Load-bearing premise

The decay scheme rests on the assumption that a single, unobserved 259-keV transition carries the missing energy between the isomer and its decay products; if that transition has a different energy or multipolarity, or if other unobserved transitions exist, the branching ratios and the deduced spin of the isomer would be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The isomer $^{187}$Ta$_{m2}$ is a five-quasiparticle prolate state with $K \geq 35/2$, showing that axial symmetry is approximately preserved even in a nucleus near the predicted prolate-to-oblate transition.
  • The neutral-atom half-life of $136(24)$ s is much shorter than the lower limit measured for fully stripped ions, indicating that internal conversion—absent in bare ions—dominates the internal decay branch.
  • Beta decay from $^{187}$Ta$_{m2}$ populates high-spin states in $^{187}$W that feed the $(11/2^+)$ isomer at 411 keV, making the isomer a gateway to high-spin spectroscopy on the neutron-rich tungsten side.
  • The measured hindrances add a new data point for the systematics of $K$-forbidden transitions in the $A \approx 190$ transitional region, testing the $L$-dependent hindrance parametrization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A future experiment with higher statistics and a dedicated conversion-electron detector might directly observe the 259-keV transition, settling its energy and multipolarity and testing the proposed decay scheme.
  • If the beta-decay branch feeds discrete states in $^{187}$W, a $\gamma$\u2013$\gamma$ coincidence measurement could identify the intermediate levels above the $(11/2^+)$ isomer, providing new information on the shape evolution of the daughter nucleus.
  • Combining the neutral-atom half-life with a more precise bare-ion half-life from a storage-ring measurement could determine the total conversion coefficient of the 259-keV transition without relying on the branching-ratio estimate.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first decay-spectroscopy study of the 2933(14)-keV isomer in 187Ta (187Tam2), populated via multi-nucleon transfer and selected with the KISS setup. Coincidence data show a 569-327-keV gamma cascade accompanied by Ta K X-rays, which the authors assign to the internal decay of 187Tam2 feeding the known (25/2-) isomer at 1778 keV, with the energy deficit to the Tam2-Tam1 gap carried by an unobserved, assumed highly converted 259-keV transition. Delayed gamma rays following the 411-keV (11/2+) isomer in 187W are assigned to a beta-decay branch from 187Tam2. A half-life of 136(24) s is obtained by combining the two decay branches. Hindrance systematics for the assumed multipolarities of the 259-keV transition suggest K>=35/2, and configuration-constrained Woods-Saxon calculations propose prolate five-quasiparticle candidates.

Significance. The experiment provides the first decay information on a long-lived high-spin isomer in a nucleus near the predicted prolate-to-oblate shape transition, a region where K-isomer systematics and shape softness are both of active interest. The measurements are carefully performed: the KISS beam is isotopically clean, the efficiency calibration is source-based, and the half-life is extracted from both internal and beta branches using two independent time distributions. The use of published hindrance systematics and independent Woods-Saxon potential-energy-surface calculations as external benchmarks avoids fitting the model to the new data. The beta-decay branch and the half-life are robust. The main weakness is that the internal-branch normalization and the spin-parity inference rest on an unobserved 259-keV transition; a quantitative limit on that transition is needed to make those conclusions fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (2) and Fig. 1 inset] The authors should provide a quantitative upper limit on the intensity of a 259-keV gamma ray. The text states that no peak is visible near 260 keV in the 569-keV gate, but with 41(10) observed 569-keV events and the known relative efficiencies, a Poisson upper limit can be computed and used to test directly whether the 259-keV transition can be E1, M1, or E2, for which the gamma branch is large. This matters because Eq. (2), the p_beta/p_gamma ratios in Table I, the lambda_gamma and B(L) values in the same table, and the K>=35/2 assignment in Sec. IV all depend on the energy, multipolarity, and conversion coefficient of this unobserved transition. Without such a limit, the internal-decay branch and the spin-parity inference rest on an assumption that the authors themselves label as such, and alternative energies, multipolarities, or additional unobserved transitions cannot be excluded.
  2. [Sec. IV, paragraph on E1/M1/E2 rule-out] The argument that low-multipolarity, large-Delta-K transitions would be followed by a cascade of four or more gamma rays is qualitative. It should be made quantitative by comparing the expected gamma-ray multiplicity and total transition intensity from such a cascade with the observed 569-327-keV cascade and the absence of other coincident gamma rays in the present data. If additional unobserved low-energy transitions exist, the energy balance and hence the inferred Delta-K change, which would propagate directly into the K>=35/2 conclusion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III] There are typographical errors: 'the the neutral-atom half-life' should read 'the neutral-atom half-life', and 'high-mulitpolarity' should be 'high-multipolarity'.
  2. [Fig. 4] The order of the 569- and 327-keV transitions is stated to be ambiguous in the text, but a specific order is drawn in the figure; the figure should use dashed arrows or an explicit note to indicate that the ordering is not determined.
  3. [Eq. (2)] The electron-coincidence probability is written as a sum of conversion probabilities for the 259- and 327-keV transitions; this ignores the small probability that both transitions convert in the same event, which would not satisfy the M=1 condition. A sentence justifying this approximation would be helpful.
  4. [Title and abstract] The phrase 'direct observation' is somewhat strong for the internal-decay branch, since the 259-keV transition itself is not observed; consider wording such as 'observation of decay radiations from' to reflect the actual experimental evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the decay scheme and K assignment rest on external benchmarks (hindrance systematics, BrIcc conversion coefficients, Woods-Saxon universal parameters) and on previously published independent measurements.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The existence and excitation energy of the 2933(14)-keV isomer come from independent ESR mass measurements (Refs. [16,17]), and the 1778(keV) energy and (25/2-) assignment of the lower isomer come from a separate published experiment (Ref. [19]); neither is refitted from the present data. The half-life 136(24) s is obtained from direct fits to time distributions of two independent decay branches (internal and beta), not from a parameter fitted to the quantity being predicted. The internal transition energy (259 keV) is inferred from the energy difference between the known isomer and the 569+327 keV cascade; this is an assumption, not a circular reduction, and the paper explicitly states its tentative nature. The K>=35/2 assignment is derived by comparing the computed log F values to published hindrance systematics (Ref. [37], an external compilation) and then checking against Woods-Saxon CCPES calculations with universal parameters (Refs. [38,39]) that are not fitted to the present data. No equation defines the target result in terms of itself, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The reliance on earlier work by the same collaboration is load-bearing but constitutes independent experimental evidence, not circularity.

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

The paper's conclusions rest on the assumed 259-keV transition, empirical K-hindrance systematics, and the reliability of Woods-Saxon based configuration-constrained calculations. No free parameters are fitted to the data in the sense of a derivation; the measured half-lives and branching ratios are data products, and model parameters are taken from prior literature.

assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The internal decay of 187Tam2 proceeds only through an unobserved 259-keV transition, assumed to be highly converted.
    The 569- and 327-keV gammas are prompt, so the long-lived isomer's direct de-excitation must be a higher-multipolarity transition with energy 259 keV, inferred from the energy difference between 2933 and 1778 keV minus 896 keV. This transition is not observed directly.
  • domain assumption The hindrance systematics of K-forbidden transitions from Kondev et al. (2015) apply to 187Ta and can be used to infer Delta-K and K.
    The paper uses empirical logF versus Delta-K systematics to rule out low-L transitions and constrain K >= 35/2.
  • domain assumption The Woods-Saxon potential with universal parameters and configuration-constrained PES reliably predicts the energies and deformations of multi-quasiparticle states.
    The CCPES calculations are used to propose five-quasiparticle configurations and a prolate shape for the isomer.
  • domain assumption The 569- and 327-keV transitions have E1, M1, or E2 multipolarity because they are observed in prompt coincidence.
    The paper assumes prompt transitions rule out M2 or higher multipolarities, which affects the conversion coefficients and branching ratio estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct observation of $\beta$ and $\gamma$ decay from a high-spin long-lived isomer in $^{187}$Ta." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NXXEDS43

@misc{pith2026250102848,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct observation of $\beta$ and $\gamma$ decay from a high-spin long-lived isomer in $^187$Ta},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NXXEDS43}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02848}
}
abstract

$^{187}$Ta ($Z=73$, $N=114$) is located in the neutron-rich $A \approx 190$ region where a prolate-to-oblate shape transition via triaxial softness is predicted to take place. A preceding work on the $K^{\pi} = (25/2^-)$ isomer and a rotational band to which the isomer decays carried out by the same collaboration revealed that axial symmetry is slightly violated in this nucleus. This paper focuses on a higher-lying isomer, which was previously identified at 2933(14) keV by mass measurements with the Experimental Storage Ring at GSI. The isomer of interest has been populated by a multi-nucleon transfer reaction with a $^{136}$Xe primary beam incident on a natural tungsten target, using the KEK Isotope Separation System at RIKEN. New experimental findings obtained in the present paper include the internal and external $\beta$-decay branches from the high-spin isomer and a revised half-life of 136(24) s. The evaluated hindrances for $K$-forbidden transitions put constraints on the spin-parity assignment, which can be interpreted as being ascribed to a prolate shape with a five-quasiparticle configuration by model calculations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02848 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Gamma-ray energy spectrum measured in coincidence with MSPGC(M = 1) within an electron- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Electron- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Proposed decay scheme of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Neutron (left) and proton (right) single-particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tajima and N

    N. Tajima and N. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. C 64, 037301 (2001)

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    The mea- surements of the growth and decay curves were carried out using macroscopically pulsed 187Ta+ beams with a Ton/Toff condition of 1800/1800 s

    within an electron- γ time window of 0.2-0.8 µs. The mea- surements of the growth and decay curves were carried out using macroscopically pulsed 187Ta+ beams with a Ton/Toff condition of 1800/1800 s. The red solid lines represent the result of a log-likelihood fit. as feeding the (11 /2+) isomer at 411 keV in the decay of 187Tag [20] despite the sufficien...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Sarriguren, R

    P. Sarriguren, R. Rodr ´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, and L. M. Robledo, Phys. Rev. C 77, 064322 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    P. D. Stevenson, M. P. Brine, Z. Podolyak, P. H. Regan, P. M. Walker, and J. R. Stone, Phys. Rev. C 72, 047303 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

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

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    Podoly´ ak, S

    Z. Podoly´ ak, S. J. Steer, S. Pietri, F. R. Xu, H. L. Liu, P. H. Regan, D. Rudolph, A. B. Garnsworthy, R. Hoischen, M. G´ orska, J. Gerl, H. J. Wollersheim, T. Kurtukian-Nieto, G. Benzoni, T. Shizuma, F. Becker, P. Bednarczyk, L. Caceres, P. Doornenbal, H. Geissel, J. Gre ¸ bosz, A. Kelic, I. Kojouharov, N. Kurz, F. Montes, W. Prokopowicz, T. Saito, H. S...

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    F. R. Xu, P. M. Walker, and R. Wyss, Phys. Rev. C 62, 014301 (2000)

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    M¨ oller, A

    P. M¨ oller, A. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 109-110, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    C. B. Collins, F. Davanloo, M. C. Iosif, R. Dussart, J. M. Hicks, S. A. Karamian, C. A. Ur, I. I. Popescu, V. I. Kirischuk, J. J. Carroll, H. E. Roberts, P. McDaniel, and C. E. Crist, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 695 (1999)

    1999

  2. [10]

    P. M. Walker and F. R. Xu, Phys. Scr.91, 013010 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Dracoulis, G

    G. Dracoulis, G. Lane, A. Byrne, H. Watanabe, R. Hughes, F. Kondev, M. Carpenter, R. Janssens, T. Lauritsen, C. Lister, D. Seweryniak, S. Zhu, P. Chowd- hury, Y. Shi, and F. Xu, Phys. Lett. B 720, 330 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    G. D. Dracoulis, Phys. Scr. 2013, 014015 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Kurtukian-Nieto, J

    T. Kurtukian-Nieto, J. Benlliure, K.-H. Schmidt, L. Au- douin, F. Becker, B. Blank, E. Casarejos, F. Farget, M. Fern´ andez-Ord´ o˜ nez, J. Giovinazzo, D. Henzlova, B. Jurado, J. Pereira, and O. Yordanov, Phys. Rev. C 89, 024616 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    G. J. Lane, G. D. Dracoulis, F. G. Kondev, R. O. Hughes, H. Watanabe, A. P. Byrne, M. P. Carpenter, C. J. Chiara, P. Chowdhury, R. V. F. Janssens, T. Lauritsen, C. J. Lister, E. A. McCutchan, D. Seweryniak, I. Stefanescu, and S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. C 82, 051304 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Y. X. Watanabe, Y. H. Kim, S. C. Jeong, Y. Hirayama, N. Imai, H. Ishiyama, H. S. Jung, H. Miyatake, S. Choi, J. S. Song, E. Clement, G. de France, A. Navin, M. Rej- mund, C. Schmitt, G. Pollarolo, L. Corradi, E. Fioretto, D. Montanari, M. Niikura, D. Suzuki, H. Nishibata, and ...

    2015

  8. [16]

    Zagrebaev and W

    V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 122701 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    M. W. Reed, P. M. Walker, I. J. Cullen, Y. A. Litvinov, D. Shubina, G. D. Dracoulis, K. Blaum, F. Bosch, C. Brandau, J. J. Carroll, D. M. Cullen, A. Y. Deo, B. Detwiler, C. Dimopoulou, G. X. Dong, F. Farinon, H. Geissel, E. Haettner, M. Heil, R. S. Kempley, R. Kn¨ obel, C. Koz...

    2012

  10. [18]

    M. W. Reed, I. J. Cullen, P. M. Walker, Y. A. Litvinov, K. Blaum, F. Bosch, C. Brandau, J. J. Carroll, D. M. Cullen, A. Y. Deo, B. Detwiller, C. Dimopoulou, G. D. Dracoulis, F. Farinon, H. Geissel, E. Haettner, M. Heil, R. S. Kempley, R. Kn¨ obel, C. Kozhuharov, J. Kurcewicz, ...

    2010

  11. [19]

    P. M. Walker, Y. Hirayama, G. J. Lane, H. Watanabe, G. D. Dracoulis, M. Ahmed, M. Brunet, T. Hashimoto, S. Ishizawa, F. G. Kondev, Y. A. Litvinov, H. Miy- atake, J. Y. Moon, M. Mukai, T. Niwase, J. H. Park, Z. Podoly´ ak, M. Rosenbusch, P. Schury, M. Wada, X. Y. Watanabe, W. Y...

    2020

  12. [20]

    L. M. Robledo, R. Rodr ´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, and P. Sarriguren, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 36, 115104 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    G. J. Lane, G. D. Dracoulis, A. P. Byrne, R. O. Hughes, H. Watanabe, F. G. Kondev, C. J. Chiara, M. P. Carpen- ter, R. V. F. Janssens, T. Lauritsen, C. J. Lister, E. A. McCutchan, D. Seweryniak, S. Zhu, P. Chowdhury, and I. Stefanescu, Phys. Rev. C 80, 024321 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    Mukai, Y

    M. Mukai, Y. Hirayama, Y. X. Watanabe, H. Watan- abe, H. Koura, S. C. Jeong, H. Miyatake, M. Brunet, S. Ishizawa, F. G. Kondev, G. J. Lane, Y. A. Litvinov, T. Niwase, M. Oyaizu, Z. Podoly´ ak, M. Rosenbusch, P. Schury, M. Wada, and P. M. Walker, Phys. Rev. C 105, 034331 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Hirayama, Y

    Y. Hirayama, Y. Watanabe, N. Imai, H. Ishiyama, S. Jeong, H. Miyatake, M. Oyaizu, S. Kimura, M. Mukai, Y. Kim, T. Sonoda, M. Wada, M. Huyse, Y. Kudryavt- sev, and P. Van Duppen, Nucl. Instrum. Methods in 9 Phys. Res. B 353, 4 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    M. Reed, G. Lane, G. Dracoulis, F. Kondev, M. Car- penter, P. Chowdhury, S. Hota, R. Hughes, R. Janssens, T. Lauritsen, C. Lister, N. Palalani, D. Seweryniak, H. Watanabe, S. Zhu, W. Jiang, and F. Xu, Phys. Lett. B 752, 311 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Hirayama, Y

    Y. Hirayama, Y. Watanabe, M. Mukai, M. Oyaizu, M. Ahmed, H. Ishiyama, S. Jeong, Y. Kakiguchi, S. Kimura, J. Moon, J. Park, P. Schury, M. Wada, and H. Miyatake, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 412, 11 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Hirayama, Y

    Y. Hirayama, Y. Watanabe, N. Imai, H. Ishiyama, S. Jeong, H. Jung, H. Miyatake, M. Oyaizu, S. Kimura, M. Mukai, Y. Kim, T. Sonoda, M. Wada, M. Huyse, Y. Kudryavtsev, and P. Van Duppen, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 376, 52 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    The beam trajectory was switched between the decay station and MRTOF using an electrostatic deflector located about 1 m upstream of the terminal of the beamline

    or to a multi-reflection time-of-flight (MRTOF) de- vice for high-resolution mass measurements [28], the lat- ter of which was installed at 90 ◦ with respect to the original KISS beam axis. The beam trajectory was switched between the decay station and MRTOF using an electrost...

    2000

  20. [28]

    Hirayama, Eur

    Y. Hirayama, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.024, 01099 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Mukai, Y

    M. Mukai, Y. Hirayama, Y. Watanabe, P. Schury, H. Jung, M. Ahmed, H. Haba, H. Ishiyama, S. Jeong, Y. Kakiguchi, S. Kimura, J. Moon, M. Oyaizu, A. Ozawa, J. Park, H. Ueno, M. Wada, and H. Miyatake, Nucl. In- strum. Methods Phys. Res. A 884, 1 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    J. Y. Moon, S. Jeong, M. Wada, P. Schury, Y. Watan- abe, Y. Hirayama, Y. Ito, M. Rosenbusch, S. Kimura, S. Ishizawa, T. Niwase, H. Wollnik, and H. Miyatake, RIKEN Accel. Prog. Rep. (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Mukai, Y

    M. Mukai, Y. Hirayama, P. Schury, Y. Watan- abe, M. Ahmed, H. Haba, H. Ishiyama, S. Jeong, Y. Kakiguchi, S. Kimura, J. Moon, M. Oyaizu, A. Ozawa, J. Park, H. Ueno, M. Wada, and H. Miyatake, Nucl. In- strum. Methods Phys. Res. A 463, 421 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Hirayama, P

    Y. Hirayama, P. Schury, M. Mukai, H. Choi, S. Iimura, Y. Watanabe, M. Wada, H. Watanabe, and H. Miy- atake, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 997, 165152 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    M. Wang, W. Huang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chin. Phys. C 45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Shizuma, T

    T. Shizuma, T. Hayakawa, S. Mitarai, T. Morikawa, and T. Ishii, Phys. Rev. C 71, 067301 (2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    Shizuma, T

    T. Shizuma, T. Ishii, H. Makii, T. Hayakawa, M. Mat- suda, S. Shigematsu, E. Ideguchi, Y. Zheng, M. Liu, T. Morikawa, and M. Oi, Phys. Rev. C77, 047303 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    Kib´ edi, T

    T. Kib´ edi, T. Burrows, M. Trzhaskovskaya, P. Davidson, and C. Nestor, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 589, 202 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Y. X. Watanabe, P. M. Walker, Y. Hirayama, M. Mukai, H. Watanabe, G. J. Lane, M. Ahmed, M. Brunet, T. Hashimoto, S. Ishizawa, S. Kimura, F. G. Kondev, Y. A. Litvinov, H. Miyatake, J. Y. Moon, T. Niwase, M. Oyaizu, J. H. Park, Z. Podoly´ ak, M. Rosenbusch, P. Schury, and M. Wad...

    2021

  30. [38]

    K. E. G. L¨ obner, Phys. Lett. B26, 369 (1968)

    1968

  31. [39]

    Kondev, G

    F. Kondev, G. Dracoulis, and T. Kib´ edi, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 103-104, 50 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    F. Xu, P. Walker, J. Sheikh, and R. Wyss, Phys. Lett. B 435, 257 (1998)

    1998

  33. [41]

    Cwiok, J

    S. Cwiok, J. Dudek, W. Nazarewicz, J. Skalski, and T. Werner, Comput. Phys. Commun. 46, 379 (1987)

    1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.