Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

The 76Cu conundrum remains unsolved

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 Two high-statistics decay experiments rule out the previously reported 1.27(30) s half-life in 76Cu, capping any such component at 2-5% and leaving both states near 600-700 ms.

desk verdict Solid, high-statistics 76Cu decay measurement that sets <2% and <5% limits against a 1.27 s component and corrects adopted half-lives; the 'clearly exclude' conclusion is conditional on the unmeasured production of both states at ISOLDE, but the paper is honest about that, and the accumulated corpus bolsters the claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06400 v1 pith:4AQX5MW4 submitted 2025-05-09 nucl-ex

B. Olaizola , A. Illana , J. Benito , D.P. Suárez-Bustamante , G. Del Piccolo , A. Algora , B. Andel , A.N. Andreyev
show 75 more authors
M. Araszkiewicz Y. Ayyad R.A. Bark T. Berry M.J.G. Borge K. Chrysalidis T.E. Cocolios C. Costache J.G. Cubiss P. Van Duppen Z. Favier L.M. Fraile H.O.U. Fynbo F. Galtarossa G. Georgiev P.T. Greenless R. Grzywacz L.J. Harkness-Brennan R. Heinke M. Huyse P. Ibañez K. Johnston P.M. Jones D.S. Judson J. Konki A. Korgul U. Köster J. Kurcewicz M. Labiche I. Lazarus R. Lică M. Llanos-Expósito M. Madurga N. Marginean R. Marginean B.A. Marsh C. Mihai R.E. Mihai J.R. Murias E. Nácher C. Neacsu A. Negret V.M. Nouvilas J. Ojala J.N. Orce C.A.A. Page R.D. Page J. Pakarinen J. Papadakis S. Pascu A. Perea M. Piersa-Si{l}kowska A.M. Plaza Zs. Podolyák W. Poklepa V. Pucknell P. Rahkila C. Raison E. Rapisarda K. Rezynkina F. Rotaru K. Schomacker M. Siciliano C. Sotty M. Stryjczyk O. Tengblad J.M. Udías V. Vedia S. Viñals R. Wadsworth N. Warr H. De Witte D. Yates Z. Yue the IDS collaboration
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex PACS 23.40.-s27.50.+e
keywords 76Cubetadecayisomerhalf-life76Znnuclearstructure78Niregionspectroscopy
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 aims to settle a decades-old question about 76Cu, a neutron-rich copper isotope near doubly magic 78Ni: does it possess a long-lived isomer with a 1.27 s half-life? Using two high-statistics beta-decay experiments, it claims the answer is no. The 598.7-keV gamma-ray decay curve shows no room for a 1.27 s component beyond 2%, and a 76Ga granddaughter analysis independently caps it at 5%. The authors conclude that both known states in 76Cu decay with half-lives in the 600-700 ms range, so similar that decay curves cannot separate them, and that a recent mass measurement's spin and internal-decay assignments need rethinking. The stake is understanding which state is which in a nucleus whose structure constrains models near the 78Ni shell closure.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pair of $\beta$-decaying states in 76Cu, separated by 64.8(25) keV, and the key mechanism is the decay-curve fit. The paper uses the 598.7-keV $2^+\to 0^+$ transition in 76Zn, which collects intensity from both states, and the 199-keV transition in the 76Ga granddaughter, whose post-beam-gate rise shape depends on the parent half-life. Fits with one exponential plus background versus two-component coupled-decay models supply the limits, and the mass measurements that resolve two states provide the anchor that both states must be produced in the experiment.

What would settle it

Select one of the two 76Cu states cleanly, for example by laser ionization tuned to its spin or by storing mass-separated ions and counting the two mass-identified species separately over time, and measure its decay. If the state currently assigned as the ground state shows a 1.27 s half-life at a relative intensity above 2%, the paper's exclusion is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is negative: the $T_{1/2}=1.27(30)$ s half-life that was used to label the ground state of 76Cu is excluded by the new data. In four gamma-ray gates on 76Zn, including the 598.7-keV $2^+\to 0^+$ transition that should collect decay from both states, a single-exponential fit gives $T_{1/2}=656(2)$ ms; adding a fixed 1.27 s component worsens the fit beyond 10%, with an upper limit below 2% whether the component decays independently or via an internal transition described by the standard coupled-decay equations. The 199-keV 76Ga granddaughter curve sets the same limit at 5%. Combined with prior experiments that also saw only about 0.6 s activity, the paper concludes that the two long-lived states of 76Cu have nearly equal half-lives, so the earlier assignment of the $J=3$ spin to the isomeric state and the 1.27 s half-life to the ground state is no longer supported.

Load-bearing premise

The new limits only constrain the 1.27 s component if the production method used here creates both 76Cu states in proportions similar to the facility that first resolved two states; the paper's evidence for this is indirect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The two 76Cu states both have half-lives in the 600-700 ms range, so their decay curves cannot be used to tell which state is the isomer and which is the ground state.
  • The previous mass-measurement conclusion that the $J=3$ state is the isomer and the ground state has a 1.27 s half-life is no longer supported by the decay data.
  • The proposed internal transition between the two states with a 10-17% branching ratio is not needed to explain the data, and the paper argues that the converted-electron rates implied by such a branch would have made it visible.
  • The spin-parity assignment of the two states remains unresolved, with the paper tentatively proposing $J^\pi = 3^{(-)}$ and $6^{(-)}$ in either order.
  • Future progress requires isomerically pure beams or another method that can select one of the two states independently.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If both states indeed decay near 650 ms, the mass-measurement time distributions that previously looked flat for one state could be re-fit without invoking an internal decay branch, strengthening the two-state mass identification rather than a two-half-life interpretation.
  • A dedicated laser-spectroscopy scan searching for the tentative $J=6$ resonance would test the production assumption directly and could pin down the ordering of the two states.
  • The same unresolved-pair situation may occur in other odd-odd copper isotopes near 78Ni, where the missing isomer could hide under a nearly identical half-life rather than being absent.
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 manuscript presents new β-decay data on 76Cu from two campaigns at the ISOLDE Decay Station. The authors extract a 76Cu half-life of 656(2) ms by fitting the time distributions of four γ-ray transitions in 76Zn over a ~30-s decay window (Fig. 2). They then test for the presence of the 1.27(30)-s component reported by Winger et al. by two-component fits to the 598.7-keV transition, obtaining an upper limit of <2% on such a component from χ² scans (Fig. 3), and a granddaughter analysis using the 199-keV transition in 76Ga that yields a 5% upper limit (Fig. 4). They also measure a 76Zn half-life of 6.44(4) s. In Sec. 5.1 they argue that ISOLDE produces both the ground and isomeric states of 76Cu, using the ISOLTRAP mass offset, a tentative J=6 reanalysis of laser data, and β-feeding systematics. On this basis they conclude that the 1.27(30)-s half-life is excluded and that both 76Cu states likely have half-lives in the 600–700 ms range, leaving the J=3 assignment and internal decay branch open.

Significance. The central half-life measurement is of high quality: four independent gates, a long time window, explicit background fitting, and agreement with previous values. The <2% upper limit for a 1.27-s component from the χ² scan is a clear, statistically defined result that directly challenges the 10% branch invoked by Canete et al., and the granddaughter analysis is a valuable, independent cross-check. However, the paper's central conclusion is conditional on the unproven assumption that ISOLDE produces both 76Cu states in significant proportions. The evidence for this in Sec. 5.1 is indirect (an inferred mass centroid, a tentative private reanalysis, and a decay-pattern argument). Therefore, if the production assumption holds, the paper meaningfully advances the 76Cu debate; if not, the upper limits do not apply to the unobserved second state. The manuscript is honest about the indirect nature of some arguments but overstates the directness of the experimental exclusion in the abstract and conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.1] The upper limits of <2% (Fig. 3) and <5% (Fig. 4) only constrain a 1.27-s component if the ISOLDE beam contains both 76Cu states in non-negligible proportions. The evidence presented in Sec. 5.1 for this production assumption is indirect: the ISOLTRAP mass being 29.8(22) keV above the IGISOL ground state is interpreted as an unresolved two-state mixture rather than directly measured as a beam composition; the J=6 laser hint is labeled tentative by the authors and rests on a private communication (Ref. [33]); and the beta-feeding argument shows that two states are needed to explain the observed decay pattern, but not that both are produced in the ISOLDE source. Since the conclusion "clearly exclude the existence of a T1/2=1.27(30) s half-life" (Sec. 6) follows only if this assumption is made, the wording overstates the direct experimental evidence. Please provide a quantitative estimate of the isomeric ratio from the mass data (for example, from the centroid shift under an assumed two-state separation) or explicitly condition the main conclusion on production of both states.
  2. [Sec. 4, Fig. 4] The stated upper limit of 5% for a 1.27-s component from the 199-keV granddaughter analysis is not derived from an explicit statistical procedure in the text. Figure 4 shows curves for fixed 0%, 10%, and 20% components and an inset highlighting the deviation, but no χ2 scan, profile likelihood, or definition of the confidence level is given. Please apply the same treatment as in the lower panels of Fig. 3 (χ2 versus weight) and state the confidence level of the limit; without this, the 5% number cannot be compared with the 2% limit from the 598.7-keV gate or with the hypothesis being tested.
  3. [Sec. 5.2, Fig. 5] The abstract and Sec. 6 state that both 76Cu states have half-lives in the 600–700 ms range, but the data do not directly measure two half-lives. The two-component fit in Fig. 5, with one half-life fixed at 656 ms, only sets an upper limit of roughly 970 ms for the second component at a weight of about 1.5%; the χ2 surface is shallow and no separate half-life is determined. Please clarify that the "similar half-lives" statement is an inference from the absence of a longer-lived component plus the production assumption, rather than a measured result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2] The phrase "a period of just 1.4 s was used to record the decay curves" is ambiguous; please clarify whether this is the measurement cycle length or the fit window, since it is relevant to the sensitivity of the Winger measurement.
  2. [Sec. 5.1] The sentence "It is known that isomeric ratios can change for different fission systems or projectile energies, but it is a modest change, not an order of magnitude" is given without a reference; please provide a citation or quantitative support for this assertion.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The y-axis tick labels (100/0, 90/10, 80/20) do not match the caption's statement that the bottom of the axis corresponds to a 75/25 population ratio; please correct this inconsistency.
  4. [Sec. 5.3] The conversion-coefficient arithmetic should be checked: for α=3.17, a 10% gamma branch corresponds to a total internal-decay branch of 41.7%, not 37% as stated, and for α=39 the total would exceed 100%; please clarify the intended calculation.
  5. [Sec. 4, Fig. 2] The text states that the decay time after the beam gate is ~30 s, but Fig. 2 shows times only up to 16 s; please explain the choice of the plotted range in the figure caption or in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the 1.27-s exclusion is a direct hypothesis test against new decay data, and the production assumption is a stated condition, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental exclusion derived from new high-statistics decay curves. In Sec. 4, the authors fix the literature half-life T1/2 = 1.27 s and scan the weight of that component in a two-component fit to the 598.7-keV transition, obtaining an upper limit of <2%. The 76Ga granddaughter analysis of Sec. 4/Fig. 4 provides an independent Bateman-equation check, fixing half-lives and leaving normalization free, and yields an upper limit of 5%. In neither case is the tested quantity (the 1.27-s component's weight) an input to the fit; it is the free parameter being constrained by the data. The alternative fit in Sec. 4/Fig. 5, where the second half-life is free, is not a renamed fitted parameter presented as a prediction; it independently shows that the data prefer a secondary component near 650 ms. The only fragile step is the Sec. 5.1 assumption that ISOLDE produces both 76Cu states, supported by the ISOLTRAP mass offset, a tentative J=6 laser-spectroscopy hint, and beta-feeding systematics. That is a stated physical condition limiting the force of the conclusion, not a circular reduction: none of those arguments defines the 1.27-s component in terms of the decay data used to exclude it. The paper even flags the laser hint as tentative and the production argument as an inference, so the gap is acknowledged rather than hidden. No load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-via-citation pattern is present; Canete et al. is cited as the source of the hypothesis being tested, not as proof of the present fits.

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

The paper has no invented entities. Its free parameters are experimental fitting parameters in a direct measurement. The most important assumption is the production of both states at ISOLDE, which is argued from indirect evidence and cannot be independently verified from the data. The other assumptions are standard experimental practice.

free parameters (4)
  • T1/2 of 76Cu from fit to 598.7-keV transition = 656(2) ms (Exp. II)
    Central half-life extracted from a single exponential plus constant background fit to the four gamma-gated curves, with the free half-life. This is a fitted value, not a prediction.
  • Free half-life and population ratio in two-component fits = upper limit on free half-life ~970 ms at 1.5% population; best fit has both near 656 ms
    In Fig. 5, one half-life is fixed to 656 ms while the other half-life and the ratio between components are free. The absence of a second component is a fitted negative result.
  • Weight of 1.27 s component in upper-limit fits = <2% (gamma-rays) and <5% (76Ga)
    The upper limit is obtained by scanning the weight of a fixed 1.27 s component in a fit with free normalization and background. The boundary of the 2% limit is derived from chi-squared, so it is a fitted constraint.
  • 76Zn half-life from the 199-keV curve = 6.44(4) s
    The paper uses this as a check against the adopted 5.7(3) s, but it is extracted from the same data with a free parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The Bateman equations correctly describe mixed decays and internal transitions.
    Used in Sec. 4 and Fig. 3 to simulate the expected decay curves for independent decays and for an internal-decay branch.
  • domain assumption The 76Zn level scheme and the assignments of the four main gamma-ray transitions are correct.
    The half-life and intensity analysis gates on the 598.7, 697.7, 1337.0, and 340.8 keV transitions, assuming they are the cascade from the 76Cu beta decay and not contaminated. The paper does some Compton background subtraction, but the origin of the gates is taken from prior work.
  • domain assumption ISOLDE production yields both 76Cu states in similar isomeric ratios to IGISOL.
    Sec. 5.1 argues this extensively but ultimately cannot prove it. The negative search for a 1.27 s component in the ISOLDE decay curves can only constrain the states that are actually produced there. This assumption is load-bearing for the interpretation that the new data challenge the Canete assignment.
  • domain assumption The proton beam time structure and the resetting of the time reference at each proton bunch are correctly accounted for.
    Sec. 4 explains the step at 1.2 s in the decay curves as an artifact of the resetting time reference. The fits assume this is understood and corrected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The 76Cu conundrum remains unsolved." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4AQX5MW4

@misc{pith2026250506400,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The 76Cu conundrum remains unsolved},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4AQX5MW4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06400}
}
abstract

Near the doubly-magic nucleus \nuc{Ni}{78} ($Z=28$, $N=50$), there has been a decades-long debate on the existence of a long-lived isomer in \nuc{Cu}{76}. A recent mass measurement claimed to have settled the debate, by measuring the energy of the isomer and shedding light on the structure of the nucleus. In this work, we present new, more accurate, and precise values of the half-lives of the isomeric and ground states in \nuc{Cu}{76}. Our findings suggest that both states have very similar half-lives, in the 600-700 ms range, in disagreement with the literature values, implying that they cannot be differentiated by their decay curves. These results raise more questions than they answer, reopening the debate and showing that the structures in \nuc{Cu}{76} are still not fully understood.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06400 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The 76Zn partial level scheme populated in the 76Cu decay. For clar￾ity, only the levels and transitions relevant to this work have been included. The internal transition in 76Cu represented with a dashed line has never been observed. The width of the lines is proportional to the intensity of the transi￾tion as observed in Exp. I and their colour code follows the intensity scheme of NNDC. Similarly, the direct β-dec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The decay curve of 76Cu was measured by gating in the four most intense γ-ray transitions in 76Zn using data from Exp. II. The fit was done to an exponential decay plus a constant background, with good agreement between the four values. Some of the data points and curves were vertically displaced to avoid overlapping. See text for details. target, followed by a ∼30 s decay time. Since the employed time reference res… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. On the other hand, when assuming that 10% or 20% of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows a colour map with the result, see its caption for details. The result presents a sharp minimum along the line of both half-lives having very similar values. The free component has an upper limit of about 970 ms when its weight reaches ∼ 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Hal…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    R. P. de Groote, Private communication. (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    P. M. Walker, Z. Podoly ´ak, Nuclear Isomers, Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 2023, pp. 487–523. doi:10.1007/978-981-19-6345-2_ 46. URL

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-19-6345-2_ 2023

  3. [2]

    S. Garg, B. Maheshwari, B. Singh, Y . Sun, A. Goel, A. K. Jain, Atlas of nuclear isomers—second edition, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 150 (2023) 101546. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adt.2022.101546. URL

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [3]

    D. Papagiannopoulou, Technetium-99m radiochemistry for pharmaceuti- cal applications, Journal of Labelled Compounds and Radiopharmaceuti- cals 60 (11) (2017) 502–520.doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jlcr. 3531. URL

    work page doi:10.1002/jlcr 2017

  5. [4]

    M. L. Terranova, Nuclear batteries: Current context and near-term expec- tations, International Journal of Energy Research 46 (14) (2022) 19368– 19393. arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10. 1002/er.8539, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/er.8539. URL

    work page doi:10.1002/er.8539 2022

  6. [5]

    Thirolf, B

    P. Thirolf, B. Seiferle, L. V on der Wense, The 229-thorium isomer: door- way to the road from the atomic clock to the nuclear clock, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 52 (20) (2019) 203001. doi:https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6455/ab29b8. URL

    doi:10.1088/1361-6455/ab29b8 2019

  7. [6]

    G. W. Misch, S. K. Ghorui, P. Banerjee, Y . Sun, M. R. Mumpower, As- tromers: nuclear isomers in astrophysics, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series 252 (1) (2020) 2. doi:https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4365/abc41d. URL

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    F. R. Xu, E. G. Zhao, R. Wyss, P. M. Walker, Enhanced stability of su- perheavy nuclei due to high-spin isomerism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 252501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.252501. URL

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.92.252501 2004

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Grzywacz, R

    R. Grzywacz, R. B ´eraud, C. Borcea, A. Emsallem, M. Glogowski, H. Grawe, D. Guillemaud-Mueller, M. Hjorth-Jensen, M. Houry, M. Le- witowicz, A. C. Mueller, A. Nowak, A. Płochocki, M. Pf ¨utzner, K. Rykaczewski, M. G. Saint-Laurent, J. E. Sauvestre, M. Schaefer, O. Sorlin, J. ...

    1998

  2. [9]

    Brookhaven National Laboratory, National nuclear data center (NNDC), http://www.nndc.bnl.gov (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    L. G. Pedersen, E. Sahin, A. G ¨orgen, F. L. Bello Garrote, Y . Tsun- oda, T. Otsuka, M. Niikura, S. Nishimura, Z. Xu, H. Baba, G. Ben- zoni, F. Browne, A. M. Bruce, S. Ceruti, F. C. L. Crespi, R. Daido, G. de Angelis, M.-C. Delattre, Z. Dombradi, P. Doornenbal, Y . Fang, S. F...

    2023

  4. [11]

    J. A. Winger, J. C. Hill, F. K. Wohn, E. K. Warburton, R. L. Gill, A. Pi- otrowski, R. B. Schuhmann, D. S. Brenner, Structure of 76Zn from 76Cu decay and systematics of neutron-rich zn nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 42 (1990) 954–960. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.42.954. URL

    1990 doi

  5. [12]

    Kondev, M

    F. Kondev, M. Wang, W. Huang, S. Naimi, G. Audi, The nubase2020 eval- uation of nuclear physics properties, Chin. Phys. C 45 (3) (2021) 030001. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abddae. URL

    2021 doi

  6. [13]

    Canete, S

    L. Canete, S. Giraud, A. Kankainen, B. Bastin, F. Nowacki, P. As- cher, T. Eronen, V . Girard Alcindor, A. Jokinen, A. Khanam, I. Moore, D. Nesterenko, F. De Oliveira, H. Penttil ¨a, C. Petrone, I. Pohjalainen, A. De Roubin, V . Rubchenya, M. Vilen, J. ¨Ayst¨o, Long-sought iso...

    2024

  7. [14]

    Van Roosbroeck, H

    J. Van Roosbroeck, H. De Witte, M. Gorska, M. Huyse, K. Kruglov, D. Pauwels, J.-C. Thomas, K. Van de Vel, P. Van Duppen, S. Fran- choo, J. Cederkall, V . Fedoseyev, H. Fynbo, U. Georg, O. Jonsson, U. K ¨oster, L. Weissman, W. Mueller, V . Mishin, D. Fedorov, A. De Maesschalck,...

    2005 doi

  8. [15]

    waiting-point

    K. L. Kratz, H. Gabelmann, P. M ¨oller, B. Pfeiffer, H. L. Ravn, A. W ¨ohr, the ISOLDE collaboration, Neutron-rich isotopes around the r-process “waiting-point” nuclei2979cu50 and3080zn50, Z. Phys. A 340 (1991). doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01290331

    1991 doi

  9. [16]

    Gu ´enaut, G

    C. Gu ´enaut, G. Audi, D. Beck, K. Blaum, G. Bollen, P. Delahaye, F. Her- furth, A. Kellerbauer, H.-J. Kluge, J. Libert, D. Lunney, S. Schwarz, L. Schweikhard, C. Yazidjian, High-precision mass measurements of nickel, copper, and gallium isotopes and the purported shell closur...

    2007 doi

  10. [17]

    J. A. Winger, S. V . Ilyushkin, K. P. Rykaczewski, C. J. Gross, J. C. Batchelder, C. Goodin, R. Grzywacz, J. H. Hamilton, A. Korgul, W. Kr´olas, S. N. Liddick, C. Mazzocchi, S. Padgett, A. Piechaczek, M. M. Rajabali, D. Shapira, E. F. Zganjar, I. N. Borzov, Large β-delayed neu...

    2009 doi

  11. [18]

    Hosmer, H

    P. Hosmer, H. Schatz, A. Aprahamian, O. Arndt, R. R. C. Clement, A. Estrade, K. Farouqi, K.-L. Kratz, S. N. Liddick, A. F. Lisetskiy, P. F. Mantica, P. M ¨oller, W. F. Mueller, F. Montes, A. C. Morton, M. Ouel- lette, E. Pellegrini, J. Pereira, B. Pfei ffer, P. Reeder, P. Sant...

    2010 doi

  12. [19]

    Welker, N

    A. Welker, N. A. S. Althubiti, D. Atanasov, K. Blaum, T. E. Cocolios, F. Herfurth, S. Kreim, D. Lunney, V . Manea, M. Mougeot, D. Neidherr, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, M. Rosenbusch, L. Schweikhard, F. Wienholtz, R. N. Wolf, K. Zuber, Binding energy of 79Cu: Probing the structure of...

    2017 doi

  13. [20]

    R. P. de Groote, J. Billowes, C. L. Binnersley, M. L. Bissell, T. E. Cocolios, T. Day Goodacre, G. J. Farooq-Smith, D. V . Fedorov, K. T. Flanagan, S. Franchoo, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, A. Koszor ´us, K. M. Lynch, G. Neyens, F. Nowacki, T. Otsuka, S. Rothe, H. H. Stroke, Y . Tsunoda...

    2017 doi

  14. [21]

    Silwal, J

    U. Silwal, J. A. Winger, S. V . Ilyushkin, K. P. Rykaczewski, C. J. Gross, J. C. Batchelder, L. Cartegni, I. G. Darby, R. Grzywacz, A. Korgul, W. Kr´olas, S. N. Liddick, C. Mazzocchi, A. J. Mendez, S. Padgett, M. M. Rajabali, D. P. Siwakoti, D. Shapira, D. W. Stracener, E. F. ...

    2022 doi

  15. [22]

    L. G. Pedersen, Nuclear structure along the Z = 28 and Z = 50 shells - Shell evolution and shape coexistence in 74,76,78Cu and 126Sn, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oslo (2024). URL

    2024

  16. [23]

    Giraud, L

    S. Giraud, L. Canete, B. Bastin, A. Kankainen, A. Fantina, F. Gul- minelli, P. Ascher, T. Eronen, V . Girard-Alcindor, A. Jokinen, A. Khanam, I. Moore, D. Nesterenko, F. de Oliveira Santos, H. Penttil ¨a, C. Petrone, I. Pohjalainen, A. De Roubin, V . Rubchenya, M. Vilen, J. ¨A...

    2022

  17. [24]

    Singh, J

    B. Singh, J. Chen, A. R. Farhan, Nuclear structure and decay data for a=76 isobars, Nucl. Data Sheets 194 (2024) 3–459. doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/j.nds.2024.02.002. URL

    2024 doi

  18. [25]

    Tolosa-Delgado, J

    A. Tolosa-Delgado, J. Agramunt, J. Tain, A. Algora, C. Domingo- Pardo, A. Morales, B. Rubio, A. Tarife ˜no-Saldivia, F. Calvi ˜no, G. Cortes, N. Brewer, B. Rasco, K. Rykaczewski, D. Stracener, J. All- mond, R. Grzywacz, R. Yokoyama, M. Singh, T. King, M. Madurga, S. Nishimura,...

    2019

  19. [26]

    Tolosa-Delgado, Study of β-delayed neutron emitters in the region of 78Ni and its impact on r-process nucleosynthesis, Ph.D

    A. Tolosa-Delgado, Study of β-delayed neutron emitters in the region of 78Ni and its impact on r-process nucleosynthesis, Ph.D. thesis, IFIC-CSIC (2020). URL

    2020

  20. [27]

    data acquisition system, https: //www.nutaq.com/ (2022)

    N. data acquisition system, https: //www.nutaq.com/ (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    Benito, L

    J. Benito, L. M. Fraile, A. Korgul, M. Piersa, E. Adamska, A. N. An- dreyev, R. ´Alvarez-Rodr´ıguez, A. E. Barzakh, G. Benzoni, T. Berry, M. J. G. Borge, M. Carmona, K. Chrysalidis, C. Costache, J. G. Cubiss, T. Day Goodacre, H. De Witte, D. V . Fedorov, V . N. Fe- dosseev, G....

    2020

  22. [29]

    Piersa-Siłkowska, A

    M. Piersa-Siłkowska, A. Korgul, J. Benito, L. M. Fraile, E. Adamska, A. N. Andreyev, R. ´Alvarez-Rodr´ıguez, A. E. Barzakh, G. Benzoni, T. Berry, M. J. G. Borge, M. Carmona, K. Chrysalidis, J. G. Correia, C. Costache, J. G. Cubiss, T. Day Goodacre, H. De Witte, D. V . Fedorov,...

    2021

  23. [30]

    Grapengiesser, E

    B. Grapengiesser, E. Lund, G. Rudstam, Survey of short-lived fission products obtained using the isotope-separator-on-line facility at studsvik, J. Inorg. and Nucl. Chem. 36 (11) (1974) 2409–2431. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/0022-1902(74)80448-3 . URL

    1974 doi

  24. [31]

    Koester, Yields and spectroscopy of radioactive isotopes at lohengrin and isolde; ausbeuten und spektroskopie radioaktiver isotope bei lohen- grin und isolde, Ph.D

    U. Koester, Yields and spectroscopy of radioactive isotopes at lohengrin and isolde; ausbeuten und spektroskopie radioaktiver isotope bei lohen- grin und isolde, Ph.D. thesis, echnische Universit¨at M¨unchen (Jul 2000). URL

    2000

  25. [32]

    Hukkanen, W

    M. Hukkanen, W. Ryssens, P. Ascher, M. Bender, T. Eronen, S. Gr ´evy, 9 A. Kankainen, M. Stryjczyk, L. Al Ayoubi, S. Ayet, O. Beliuskina, C. Delafosse, W. Gins, M. Gerbaux, A. Husson, A. Jokinen, D. A. Nesterenko, I. Pohjalainen, M. Reponen, S. Rinta-Antila, A. de Roubin, A. P...

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Turkat, X

    S. Turkat, X. Mougeot, B. Singh, K. Zuber, Systematics of logft values for β−, and ec/β+transitions, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 152 (2023) 101584. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adt.2023.101584. URL

    2023

  27. [35]

    Hardy, L

    J. Hardy, L. Carraz, B. Jonson, P. Hansen, The essential decay of pan- demonium: A demonstration of errors in complex beta-decay schemes, Phys. Lett. B 71 (2) (1977) 307–310. doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/0370-2693(77)90223-4 . URL

    1977

  28. [36]

    W. B. Walters, Private communication. (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Hagberg, I

    E. Hagberg, I. Towner, J. Hardy, V . Koslowsky, G. Savard, S. Sterbenz, Beta decays of 44v and 52co, Nucl. Phys. A 613 (3) (1997) 183–198. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(96)00432-0 . URL

    1997 doi

  30. [38]

    Pauwels, O

    D. Pauwels, O. Ivanov, N. Bree, J. B ¨uscher, T. E. Cocolios, M. Huyse, Y . Kudryavtsev, R. Raabe, M. Sawicka, J. V . de Walle, P. V . Duppen, A. Korgul, I. Stefanescu, A. A. Hecht, N. Hoteling, A. W ¨ohr, W. B. Walters, R. Broda, B. Fornal, W. Krolas, T. Pawlat, J. Wrzesinski...

    2009

  31. [39]

    Cerny, R

    J. Cerny, R. Gough, R. Sextro, J. E. Esterl, Further results on the proton radioactivity of 53mco, Nucl. Phys. A 188 (3) (1972) 666–672. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(72)90226-6 . URL

    1972 doi

  32. [40]

    Van Roosbroeck, H

    J. Van Roosbroeck, H. De Witte, M. Gorska, M. Huyse, K. Kruglov, K. Van de Vel, P. Van Duppen, S. Franchoo, J. Cederkall, V . N. Fe- doseyev, H. Fynbo, U. Georg, O. Jonsson, U. K ¨oster, L. Weissman, W. F. Mueller, V . I. Mishin, D. Fedorov, W. B. Walters, N. A. Smirnova, A. V...

    2004 doi

  33. [41]

    Paziy, L

    V . Paziy, L. M. Fraile, H. Mach, B. Olaizola, G. S. Simpson, A. Apra- hamian, C. Bernards, J. A. Briz, B. Bucher, C. J. Chiara, Z. Dlouh ´y, I. Gheorghe, D. Ghit ¸ ˇa, P. Ho ff, J. Jolie, U. K ¨oster, W. Kurcewicz, R. Licˇa, N. Mˇarginean, R. Mˇarginean, J.-M. R´egis, M. Rudi...

    2020

  34. [42]

    Kib ´edi, T

    T. Kib ´edi, T. Burrows, M. Trzhaskovskaya, P. Davidson, C. Nestor, Evaluation of theoretical conversion coe fficients using bricc, Nucl. In- strum. Methods Phys. Res. A 589 (2) (2008) 202–229. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2008.02.051. URL

    2008 doi

  35. [43]

    Chester, B

    A. Chester, B. A. Brown, S. P. Burcher, M. P. Carpenter, J. J. Carroll, C. J. Chiara, P. A. Copp, B. P. Crider, J. T. Harke, D. E. M. Hoff, K. Kolos, S. N. Liddick, B. Longfellow, M. J. Mogannam, T. H. Ogunbeku, C. J. Prokop, D. Rhodes, A. L. Richard, O. A. Shehu, A. S. Tamash...

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    L. G. Pedersen, Shell evolution towards 78Ni: Spectroscopy of 74Cu and 76Cu, Master’s thesis, University of Oslo (2019). URL 10

    2019

Pith tools

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