Shell structure of Ti and Cr nuclei from measurements ofgfactors and lifetimes

Shell structure underlying the evolution of quadrupole collectivity inS38andS40<

“…Without exception the deformed nuclei studied to date have g factors near the hydrodynamical limit, Z/A, reflecting the strong coupling between protons and neutrons, and a magnetic moment dominated by the orbital motion of the proton charge with small contributions from the intrinsic magnetic moments of either the protons or the neutrons. Examples include 24 Mg in the sd shell [40], and 50 Cr in the pf shell [41]. Robinson et al [42] have recently used the shell model to examine the relation between the B(E2),…”

gfactors of the low-lying states inPd106: Examination of the vibrational character ofGürdal1, Kumbartzki2, Benczer‐Koller3 et al. 2010Phys. Rev. CSelf Cite

“…A modified Monte Carlo code, that takes into account the triple layer target and uses Ziegler's stopping-power tables [24] was used to calculate a set of decay histories for the line shapes to be fitted. The large probe ion recoil velocities from the inverse kinematics reaction (see Table I measurements [25]. The line-shape fits were performed for the data of single clover segments located at forward and backward angles.…”

gfactor of the first excited state inFe56and implications for transient-field calibration in the Fe region

“…The procedure adopted by the Bonn group is to replace a lin by the product a lin G beam , where G beam is an attenuation factor that depends on the energy deposited by the beam in the target. For their measurement on 54 Fe, Speidel et al [1,5] used G beam = 0.83(3), so that, in effect, a lin = 14.1(7) T in Eq. (8).…”

“…The reference point for transient-field calibrations in this region [3][4][5][6] is the g factor of the first-excited state in 56 Fe, for which g = +0.61 ± 0.08 has been adopted for the past two decades [7][8][9]. Unfortunately, as will be shown below, the uncertainty in this value is underestimated: the correct average value based on previously published data should be g(2 + 1 ; 56 Fe) = +0.61 ± 0.13, having an experimental uncertainty of ∼±21%.…”