Transient field measurements of g-factors in 194,196,198Pt; g(21+) systematics in transitional W, Os, Pt nuclei

Transient field measurements of first-excited stateg-factors in188,190,192Os

“…On the whole, this approach gives a better estimate of the g-factor than the more "traditional" collective estimate Z/A, particularly in nuclei with valence nucleons beyond the midshell. At first sight a good example is provided by the even osmium isotopes 186 1920s" In these nuclei satisfactory agreement has been found [2] between the previously measured 2~ +-state magnetic moments and the simple IBM estimate assuming the proton (neutron) bosons have a g-factor of unity (zero). This agreement, however, is regarded [2] with some caution as the observed variation of the g-factors of higher excited states within these same nuclei defies description in terms of sophisticated collective models, implying the presence of single-particle effects [3][4][5].…”

“…At first sight a good example is provided by the even osmium isotopes 186 1920s" In these nuclei satisfactory agreement has been found [2] between the previously measured 2~ +-state magnetic moments and the simple IBM estimate assuming the proton (neutron) bosons have a g-factor of unity (zero). This agreement, however, is regarded [2] with some caution as the observed variation of the g-factors of higher excited states within these same nuclei defies description in terms of sophisticated collective models, implying the presence of single-particle effects [3][4][5]. Furthermore, the mass dependence of g (2 +) in the neighbouring isotopes i92, i94,196,,98pt shows significant departures from the simple IBM description which appears to work so well for osmium -this also has been interpreted as evidence for non-collective effects [2].…”

“…This agreement, however, is regarded [2] with some caution as the observed variation of the g-factors of higher excited states within these same nuclei defies description in terms of sophisticated collective models, implying the presence of single-particle effects [3][4][5]. Furthermore, the mass dependence of g (2 +) in the neighbouring isotopes i92, i94,196,,98pt shows significant departures from the simple IBM description which appears to work so well for osmium -this also has been interpreted as evidence for non-collective effects [2]. Since the structures of nuclei in this region are rich, and a comprehensive theoretical description of the g-factor variations observed in these nuclei has not been developed to date, it is important that the g-factors be measured accurately.…”

“…Although this lifetime lies at the limit of the uncertainty assigned by Raman et al [6], the average g-factor remains, within errors, consistent with the present result. 188,190,1920s Over the past decade extensive experimental studies [2][3][4] of the g-factors of excited states in the stable, even isotopes of W, Os and Pt, have been performed using the transient-field technique. These measured gyromagnetic ratios have been compared mainly with predictions of interacting boson models [2][3][4].…”

“…188,190,1920s Over the past decade extensive experimental studies [2][3][4] of the g-factors of excited states in the stable, even isotopes of W, Os and Pt, have been performed using the transient-field technique. These measured gyromagnetic ratios have been compared mainly with predictions of interacting boson models [2][3][4]. As the present measurement confirms the magnetic moment values adopted earlier [2][3][4], the discussions and conclusions included in those publications remain valid, insofar as the applications of the models have not dated.…”