149SM 149EU EC DECAY (93.1 D) 1982ME10,1992CA11 22NDS 202210
149SM H TYP=FUL$AUT=Balraj Singh and Jun Chen$CIT=NDS 185, 2 (2022)$
149SM2 H CUT=23-Aug-2022$
149SM c 1982Me10: measured |g, |g|g, ce using a mass-separated source and
149SM2c a Compton suppression spectrometer at LLNL.
149SM c 1992Ca11: measured E|g, ce using a mass-separated source and
149SM2c a double focusing magnetic spectrometer at CERN.
149SM c 2004Mi43: measured emission probabilities of 277.1|g and 327.5|g
149SM2c as 4.13 {I3} and 4.75 {I3}, respectively using a 4|p |b|g coin
149SMxc apparatus at JAERI.
149SM c 2011In01, 2011In04: measurement of high-resolution ce data for 22.5-keV
149SM2c transition using a combined electrostatic electron spectrometer
149SM3c consisting of a retarding sphere followed by a double-pass cylindrical
149SM4c mirror energy analyzer. The electron spectra were recorded by sweeping
149SM5c the retarding voltage while the analyzer voltage was kept constant.
149SM6c FWHM=7 eV. Sources of {+149}Eu were prepared from bombardment of
149SM7c natural Er by 500-MeV protons from JINR accelerator followed by
149SM8c chemical separation of Eu fraction as Eu{-2}O{-3} and EuF{-3}
149SM9c compounds. Conversion lines of 22.5-keV transition recorded were:
149SMAc L1, L2, L3, M1, M2, M3, M4+M5, N1, N2, N3, O1, O2+O3.
149SMBc Natural widths of Sm atomic levels were deduced from the conversion
149SMDc electron lines of 22.5-keV transition as follows: 3.9 eV {I1} for
149SMEc L1 shell, 3.6 eV {I1} for L2 shell, 3.3 eV {I1} for L3 shell,
149SMFc 13.4 eV {I3} for M1 shell, 5.9 eV {I3} for M2 shell,
149SMGc 7.3 eV {I4} for M3 shell, 5.6 eV {I4} for N1 shell,
149SMHc 2.3 eV {I8} for N3 shell. Values are averages from Eu{-2}O{-3} and
149SMIc EuF{-3} sources (2011In04)
149SM c 1996Vy01 (also 1979VyZV): analysis of {+149}Eu |e decay data from
149SM2c authors' earlier (1978-1980) studies reported in secondary
149SM3c publications; five excited states reported at 22.5, 277.1,
149SM4c 350.0, 528.5 and 558.4 with |e+|b{++} feedings for g.s. and the
149SM5c five excited states.
149SM c |g, |g|g-coin: 1976Ga10, 1970Ch09, 1968Ad01, 1968Wi21, 1966Mc11,
149SM2c 1966Wi12, 1966Av05, 1962Wa32
149SM c ce: 1981Ar17, 1970An17. Others: 1966Mc11, 1966Av05, 1966Wi12,
149SM2c 1962Wa32, 1962Dz02, 1961Ha23, 1959An36
149SM c |g|g(|q): 1980Kr15 (semi-semi and semi-scin systems), 1963Ha43
149SM c |g|g(|q,H,T): 1981KrZS, 1983Kr19
149SM c |g|g(t) and ce|g(t): 1970Ko30, 1966Be39, 1963Ki15
149SM c Production and T{-1/2} of {+149}Eu: 1970Ch09, 1962Dz02, 1961Ha40,
149SM2c 1953Ma17, 1951Ho30.
149SM c Total decay energy deposit of 682 keV {I39} calculated by RADLIST
149SM2c code is in agreement with expected value of 695 keV {I4}, indicating
149SM3c the completeness of the decay scheme.
149SM cE TI$From |g+ce intensity balance at each level, unless otherwise noted.
149SM cG $Measured x-ray intensities per 100 decays (1982Me10): 22.6 {I8} for
149SM2cG K|a{-2}, 41.0 {I8} for K|a{-1}, 12.3 {I2} for K|b{-1}, 3.18 {I7} for
149SM3cG K|b{-2}, and 79.1 {I14} for all the x-rays.
149SM cG $Experimental values of |a(K)exp, |a(L)exp, |a(M)exp given under
149SM2cG comments have been deduced from present I|g data and Ice(K), Ice(L),
149SM3cG and Ice(M) from 1982Me10. For 254|g, 277|g, 281|g and 327|g, weighted
149SM4cG average of electron intensities available from 1992Ca11 and 1982Me10
149SM5cG are taken. The data have been normalized to the 350|g treated as pure
149SM6cG E2. On the basis of |?3% uncertainty on I|g data and 5% on Ice data an
149SM7cG uncertainty of |?7% is assigned to |a(exp) values. It may be noted that
149SM8cG in some cases the |a(exp) data given by 1982Me10 cannot be reproduced
149SM9cG from their intensities. In these cases it appears that the electron
149SMAcG intensities are in error
149SM cG E$From 1982Me10. In several cases 1982Me10 give uncertainties of less
149SM2cG than 10 eV. The evaluators have adopted a lowest uncertainty of 10 eV
149SM2cG based on least squares fit to E|g values in the level scheme
149SM cG RI$Relative intensities with respect to 100.0 for 327.5|g. Values in
149SM2cG 1982Me10 were given as intensities per 1000 decays. These have been
149SM3cG converted to relative values with respect to I|g(327.5|g)=100
149SM4cG (I|g/1000=40.3 {I4} in 1982Me10) using a multiplicative factor of
149SM5cG 2.4814.
149SM cG RI(B)$From 1982Me10, converted to relative intensity
149SM cG RI(A)$Weighted average of 1992Ca11, 1982Me10 and 1976Ga10.
149SM cG M,MR$From the Adopted Gammas. Adopted values are based on ce data
149SM2cG (1982Me10), unless otherwise noted. For 22.5|g
149SM3cG the data are from 2011In01 and 2011In04. Others: 1981Ar17 and 1970An17.
149SM4cG For normalization, mult(350|g) was used as pure E2 (1982Me10)
149SM cL J,T$From the Adopted Levels. Comments are given for the
149SM2cL source of the Adopted values
149SM cL E$From least squares fit to E|g data
149EU P 0.0 5/2+ 93.1 D 4 695 4
149EU cP J,T$From {+149}Eu Adopted Levels
149EU cP QP$From 2021Wa16
149SM N 0.0475 4 1.0 1.0
149SM PN 4
149SM cN NR$From I|g/100 decays=4.75 {I4} for 327.5|g by 4|p|b|g coin method
149SM2cN (2004Mi43). Other: 0.0403 {I4} (1982Me10, from I(K x ray)/I|g(327.5|g)
149SM3cN and decay scheme.
149SM L 0.0 7/2- STABLE
149SM E 10.2 33 8.4 2 10.2 33
149SMS E CK=0.83029 10$CL=0.131375 76$CM+=3.8331E-2 26
149SM cE IE$from I(|g+ce) imbalance. Note that 1982Me10 and earlier
149SM2cE compilations (1978LeZA,1976Ho17) give I|e=65 and 85, respectively. The
149SM3cE discrepancy is most probably due to incorrect value of |a(22|g) used
149SM4cE by 1982Me10 and 1978LeZA. Other: 31 {I9} (1996Vy01).
149SM L 22.5002 8 5/2- 7.33 NS 9
149SM cL E$22.499 {I7} (1996Vy01)
149SM cL T$weighted average of 7.12 ns {I11} (ce(x-ray)(t),1970Ko30) and
149SM2cL 7.37 ns {I5} (|g|g(t),1996Vy01). Others: 6.9 ns {I5}
149SM3cL (1966Be39), 7.6 ns {I5} (1963Ki15)
149SM E 77.5 33 7.50 2 77.5 33
149SMS E CK=0.82970 11$CL=0.131819 82$CM+=3.8483E-2 28
149SM cE IE$see comment for I|e to g.s. Values of 25 (1982Me10) and
149SM2cE 5 (1978LeZA,1976Ho17) are incorrect. Other: 60 {I8} (1996Vy01).
149SM G 22.5002 8 57.1 20M1+E2 0.0784 9 30.0 5 A
149SM2 G %IG=2.71 10$
149SMS G LC=23.5 4$MC=5.17 8
149SMS G NC=1.155 18$OC=0.1620 25$PC=0.00718 10
149SM cG E$weighted average of 22.4999 {I9} deduced from an average of nine
149SM2cG conversion electron lines and 22.5012 {I17} from gamma-ray
149SM3cG spectroscopy, both measured by 2011In01. Others: 22.519 {I8} (1982Me10)
149SM4cG and 22.494 {I11} (1970An17)
149SM cG $Relative I|g=55.5 {I20} (1992Ca11), 59.6 {I25} (1982Me10),
149SM2cG 56.8 {I40} (1976Ga10)
149SM cG $%I(|g+ce)=84 {I4} from I|g and |a. From Ice(22|g)/Ice(277K)=185 {I8}
149SM2cG (1970An17), %I(|g+ce)=56 {I3}. The ce data of 1966Av05 give
149SM3cG %I(|g+ce)(22|g)=82. Discrepancy is probably due to problems in
149SM4cG finding relative ce intensities
149SM cG M,MR$from 2011In01 for penetration parameter |L=-2 {I10} (2011In01).
149SM2cG |d=0.0742 {I18} for |L=2.9 {I12} and 0.0722 {I20} for |L=1.5 {I15}
149SM3cG Other: 0.0715 {I11} (1981Ar17,1970An17)
149SM cG $Subshell ratios from ce data: L2/L1=0.30 {I2}, 0.30 {I2}; L3/L1=0.30
149SM2cG {I2}, 0.29 {I2}; M2/M1=0.29 {I2}, 0.29 {I2}; M3/M1=0.32 {I2}, 0.31
149SM3cG {I2}; N3/N1=0.25 {I6}, 0.26 {I5}; P1/N1=0.013 {I2}, 0.014 {I3};
149SM4cG (O2+O3)/O1=0.59 {I7}, 0,64 {I8}. First value for Eu{-2}O{-3}, second
149SMxcG for EuF{-3} (2011In04)
149SM cG $Measured electron intensities (2011In01):
149SM2cG L1:L2:L3:M1:M2:M3:N1:N3:P1:O1:O2+O3::(49.1 {I3}):(14.5 {I2}):(14.7
149SM3cG {I2}): (10.9 {I1}):(3.1 {I1}):(3.5 {I1}):(2.4 {I2}):(0.6 {I2}):(0.03
149SMxcG {I1}):(0.32 {I3}):(0.21 {I2})
149SM cG $L- and M- subshell ratios. Weighted average of values deduced
149SM2cG from 1981Ar17 and 1970An17. 1981Ar17 give following Ice values relative
149SM3cG to ce(K)=100 for 277|g. ce(L1)=10640, ce(L2)=2756 {I85}, ce(L3)=2809
149SM4cG {I85}, ce(M1)=2490 150, ce(M2)=585 {I64}, ce(M3)=585 {I64}, ce(N)=745
149SM5cG {I110}, ce(O)+ce(P)=160 {I53}. Values from 1970An17 are: ce(L1)=9100
149SM6cG {I700}, ce(L2)=2590 {I180}, ce(L3)=2560 {I170}, ce(M1)=2050 {I50},
149SM7cG ce(M2)=590 {I80}, ce(M3)=570 {I120}, ce(N)=800 {I100}, ce(O)+ce(P)=200
149SMxcG {I50}. Others: 1966Av05, 1962Wa32, 1961Ha23
149SM L 277.072 7 5/2- 0.2 NS LE
149SM cL E$277.083 {I4} (1996Vy01)
149SM cL T$adopted value from |g(x-ray)(t) (1970Ko30)
149SM E 5.30 5 8.22 1 5.30 5
149SMS E CK=0.81785 32$CL=0.14064 24$CM+=4.1515E-2 +82-80
149SM cE IE$other: 4.29 {I14} (1996Vy01)
149SM G 254.566 23 15.78 20M1+E2 +0.20 +8-6 0.1242 20 A
149SM2 G %IG=0.750 11$
149SM2 G EKC=0.097 8 $ ELC=0.0147 12 $ EMC=0.0034 4
149SMS G KC=0.1052 19$LC=0.01494 23$MC=0.00321 5
149SMS G NC=0.000728 12$OC=0.0001087 16$PC=6.63E-6 14
149SM cG $Relative I|g=15.8 {I2} (1992Ca11), 15.73 {I20} (1982Me10),
149SM2cG 15.8 {I2} (1976Ga10)
149SM cG MR$from |g(|q) in in-beam |g-ray. |g(|q,T) in {+149}Eu |e decay
149SM2cG gives +0.6 {I4} (1981KrZS); |d(E2/M1)<0.9 from ce data
149SM G 277.089 10 88.0 4 M1+E2 -0.08 +1-2 0.0997 14 A
149SM2 G %IG=4.18 4$
149SM2 G EKC=0.085 8 $ ELC=0.0123 12 $ EMC=0.0029 3
149SMS G KC=0.0847 12$LC=0.01179 17$MC=0.002530 35
149SMS G NC=0.000574 8$OC=8.61E-5 12$PC=5.36E-6 8
149SM cG $Relative I|g=86.9 {I5} (2004Mi43), 88.4 {I4} (1992Ca11),
149SM2cG 88.1 {I10} (1982Me10), 88.2 {I3} (1976Ga10)
149SM cG $Measured I|g/100 decays=4.13 {I3} (2004Mi43), 3.55 {I4} (1982Me10)
149SM cG MR$from |g(|q) in in-beam |g-ray. Others: |g(|q,T) in {+149}Eu |e decay
149SM2cG gives +0.036 {I18} (1981KrZS); |d(E2/M1)<1.0 from ce data
149SM L 285.951 10 9/2- 0.22 NS 4
149SM E 0.00072 28 11.8 2 0.00072 28 1U
149SMS E CK=0.7626 12$CL=0.18126 +90-87$CM+=0.05613 32
149SM G 285.95 1 0.017 5 M1(+E2) +0.06 6 0.0917 13 B
149SM2 G %IG=0.00081 24$
149SMS G KC=0.0780 11$LC=0.01083 15$MC=0.002323 33
149SMS G NC=0.000527 7$OC=7.91E-5 11$PC=4.93E-6 7
149SM cG MR$from |g(|q,T) in {+149}Pm |b{+-} decay
149SM L 350.036 6 3/2- 9.5 PS 3
149SM cL E$350.00 {I5} (1996Vy01)
149SM cL T$value from this dataset: |<0.2 ns from (x-ray)|g(t) (1970Ko30).
149SM E 5.53 5 8.01 1 5.53 5
149SMS E CK=0.81066 49$CL=0.14598 37$CM+=0.04336 13
149SM cE IE$other: 4.65 {I18} (1996Vy01)
149SM G 72.983 10 0.347 17M1+E2 0.23 4 4.36 9 A
149SM2 G %IG=0.0165 8$
149SM2 G ELC=0.72 7 $ EMC=0.13 2
149SMS G KC=3.50 5$LC=0.67 6$MC=0.148 14
149SMS G NC=0.0332 31$OC=0.0047 4$PC=0.000221 4
149SM cG $Relative I|g=0.38 {I4} (1992Ca11), 0.342 {I17} (1982Me10),
149SM2cG 0.33 {I11} (1976Ga10)
149SM cG MR$from ce data
149SM G 327.526 10 100.0 5 M1+E2 +0.14 3 0.0637 9 B
149SM2 G %IG=4.75 5$
149SM2 G EKC=0.056 5 $ ELC=0.0083 8 $ EMC=0.0019 2
149SMS G KC=0.0542 8$LC=0.00753 11$MC=0.001614 23
149SMS G NC=0.000366 5$OC=5.49E-5 8$PC=3.41E-6 5
149SM cG $Relative I|g=100.0 {I6} (2004Mi43), 100 (1992Ca11), 100.0 {I10}
149SM2cG (1982Me10), 100.0 {I4} (1976Ga10)
149SM cG $Measured I|g/100 decays=4.75 {I4} (2004Mi43), 4.03 {I4} (1982Me10)
149SM cG MR$from |g(|q,T) (1981KrZS). Other: <0.6 from ce data
149SM G 350.016 10 8.95 14 E2 0.0352 5 A
149SM2 G %IG=0.425 8$
149SM2 G ELC=0.0048 5 $ EMC=0.0012 1
149SMS G KC=0.0279 4$LC=0.00565 8$MC=0.001252 18
149SMS G NC=0.000279 4$OC=3.89E-5 5$PC=1.539E-6 22
149SM cG $|a(K)(theory)=0.028 is used for normalization of ce data for
149SM2cG other transitions
149SM cG $Relative I|g=8.7 {I3} (1992Ca11), 8.91 {I10} (1982Me10),
149SM2cG 9.6 {I2} (1976Ga10); NRM weighted average taken.
149SM L 399.08 7 (1/2-,3/2-)
149SM E 0.0005 LT 11.3 GT 5.0E-4 LT 1U?
149SMS E CK=0.7087 30$CL=0.2206 22$CM+=0.07066 +83-79
149SM G 122.0 2 0.007 5 [M1,E2] 1.05 10 B
149SM2 G %IG=0.00033 24$
149SMS G KC=0.74 7$LC=0.24 13$MC=0.055 30
149SMS G NC=0.012 7$OC=0.0016 8$PC=4.1E-5 11
149SM G 376.5 2 0.0007 5 B ?
149SM2 G %IG=3.3E-5 24$
149SM L 528.592 7 3/2- 24 PS 3
149SM cL E$528.484 {I7} (1996Vy01)
149SM E 1.310 15 7.88 3 1.310 15
149SMS E CK=0.7551 +30-32$CL=0.1872 +24-22$CM+=0.05780 +85-79
149SM cE IE$other: 1.05 {I5} (1996Vy01)
149SM G 129.50 7 0.010 5 [M1,E2] 0.87 6 B
149SM2 G %IG=0.00047 24$
149SMS G KC=0.63 6$LC=0.19 9$MC=0.043 22
149SMS G NC=0.010 5$OC=0.0013 6$PC=3.5E-5 9
149SM G 178.580 16 0.54 3 M1+E2 +0.5 2 0.325 6 A
149SM2 G %IG=0.0257 14$
149SM2 G EKC=0.27 3 $ ELC=0.019 2 $ EMC=0.009 1
149SMS G KC=0.266 9$LC=0.046 4$MC=0.0100 10
149SMS G NC=0.00226 22$OC=0.000325 25$PC=1.63E-5 10
149SM cG $1982Me10 deduce |a(L)exp=0.05, incorrectly
149SM cG $Relative I|g=0.52 {I5} (1992Ca11), 0.571 {I25} (1982Me10),
149SM2cG 0.45 {I1} (1976Ga10); NRM weighted average
149SM cG MR$from ce data and |g|g(|q) assuming |d(328|g)=+0.27 {I40} (1980Kr15).
149SM cG $(179|g)(328|g)(|q): A{-2}=+0.114 {I36}, A{-4}=+0.03 {I4} (1980Kr15)
149SM G 251.510 37 0.273 25 [M1,E2] 0.114 16 A
149SM2 G %IG=0.0130 12$
149SMS G KC=0.092 18$LC=0.0170 17$MC=0.0037 5
149SMS G NC=0.00084 9$OC=0.000119 7$PC=5.4E-6 16
149SM cG $Relative I|g=0.26 {I5} (1992Ca11), 0.273 {I25} (1982Me10),
149SM2cG 0.34 {I11} (1976Ga10)
149SM G 506.093 10 13.58 11E2+M1 +4.9 +31-150.0128 4 A
149SM2 G %IG=0.645 8$
149SM2 G EKC=0.0115 11 $ ELC=0.00157 16 $ EMC=0.00039 4
149SMS G KC=0.01051 34$LC=0.00176 4$MC=0.000385 8
149SMS G NC=8.65E-5 18$OC=1.242E-5 28$PC=6.09E-7 23
149SM cG $Relative I|g=13.60 {I8} (1992Ca11), 13.45 {I13} (1982Me10),
149SM2cG 14.5 {I2} (1976Ga10); NRM weighted average
149SM cG MR$from |g(|q,T) (1981KrZS). Other: >1.8 from ce data
149SM G 528.587 10 12.73 18 E2 0.0110816 A
149SM2 G %IG=0.605 10$
149SM2 G EKC=0.0090 9 $ ELC=0.0013 2 $ EMC=0.00035 4
149SMS G KC=0.00913 13$LC=0.001528 21$MC=0.000334 5
149SMS G NC=7.49E-5 10$OC=1.076E-5 15$PC=5.28E-7 7
149SM cG $Relative I|g=12.10 {I4} (1992Ca11), 12.73 {I13} (1982Me10),
149SM2cG 13.0 {I2} (1976Ga10); NRM weighted average
149SM L 558.374 7 5/2- 24 PS 8
149SM cL E$558.409 {I16} (1996Vy01)
149SM E 0.164 5 8.55 4 0.164 5
149SMS E CK=0.7241 +53-58$CL=0.2100 +43-39$CM+=0.0660 15
149SM cE IE$other: 0.13 {I1} (1996Vy01)
149SM G 208.283 21 0.305 25M1+E2 -0.45 15 0.210 4 A
149SM2 G %IG=0.0145 12$
149SM2 G EKC=0.056 6 $ ELC=0.016 2
149SM cG $1982Me10 give |a(K)exp=0.13, |a(L)exp=0.04, which cannot be
149SM2cG reproduced from their intensity data
149SMS G KC=0.175 5$LC=0.0279 13$MC=0.00606 33
149SMS G NC=0.00137 7$OC=0.000199 7$PC=1.08E-5 5
149SM cG $Relative I|g=0.28 {I3} (1992Ca11), 0.323 {I25} (1982Me10)
149SM cG MR$from |g(|q) in in-beam |g-ray
149SM G 272.21 14 0.0032 22 [E2] 0.0763 11 B ?
149SM2 G %IG=0.00015 10$
149SMS G KC=0.0585 8$LC=0.01386 20$MC=0.00310 4
149SMS G NC=0.000689 10$OC=9.40E-5 13$PC=3.09E-6 4
149SM G 281.295 16 0.554 25M1+E2 +0.14 9 0.0954 16 A
149SM2 G %IG=0.0263 12$
149SMS G KC=0.0810 14$LC=0.01134 16$MC=0.002433 35
149SMS G NC=0.000552 8$OC=8.27E-5 12$PC=5.11E-6 10
149SM cG $Relative I|g=0.53 {I3} (1992Ca11), 0.571 {I25} (1982Me10)
149SM cG MR$from |g|g(|q) (1980Kr15)
149SM2 G EKC=0.092 10
149SM cG $(281|g)(277|g)(|q): A{-2}=-0.043 {I35}, A{-4}=-0.032 {I40} (1980Kr15)
149SM G 535.897 12 1.128 36M1+E2 -0.65 +23-430.0159 18 A
149SM2 G %IG=0.0536 18$
149SM2 G EKC=0.0082 8 $ ELC=0.0014 3
149SMS G KC=0.0135 16$LC=0.00191 15$MC=0.000410 31
149SMS G NC=9.3E-5 7$OC=1.38E-5 12$PC=8.3E-7 11
149SM cG $Relative I|g=1.35 {I4} (1992Ca11), 1.117 {I25} (1982Me10),
149SM2cG 1.1 {I1} (1976Ga10); NRM weighted average
149SM cG M$from |a(K)exp (1982Me10)
149SM cG MR$from |g(|q,T) (1981KrZS). Other: >3 from ce data
149SM G 558.372 10 1.32 8 M1+E2 1.2 +7-4 0.0124 13 A
149SM2 G %IG=0.063 4$
149SM2 G EKC=0.0097 10 $ ELC=0.0016 2 $ EMC=0.00041 5
149SMS G KC=0.0104 12$LC=0.00154 12$MC=0.000333 24
149SMS G NC=7.5E-5 6$OC=1.11E-5 9$PC=6.3E-7 8
149SM cG $Relative I|g=1.20 {I3} (1992Ca11), 1.464 {I35} (1982Me10),
149SM2cG 1.3 {I1} (1976Ga10)
149SM cG MR$from |a(K)exp
149SM L 590.880 10 9/2-
149SM E 1.43E-4 14 9.9 1 1.43E-4 14 1U
149SMS E CK=0.171 24$CL=0.601 17$CM+=0.2281 79
149SM G 568.27 10 0.0006020 E2 0.0091913 B
149SM2 G %IG=2.9E-5 10$
149SMS G KC=0.00761 11$LC=0.001241 17$MC=0.000270 4
149SMS G NC=6.07E-5 9$OC=8.76E-6 12$PC=4.42E-7 6
149SM G 590.88 1 0.00238 20 E2+M1 -1.5 +9-4 0.0101 25 B
149SM2 G %IG=0.000113 10$
149SMS G KC=0.0085 22$LC=0.00127 22$MC=0.00027 5
149SMS G NC=6.2E-5 11$OC=9.1E-6 17$PC=5.1E-7 15
149SM cG $1982Me10 give |a(K)exp=0.0086 and assign M1+E2. But from
149SM2cG authors' intensities evaluators deduce |a(K)exp=0.28 which is too high
149SM3cG for an M1+E2 assignment. Evaluators suggests that Ice(K)=0.96 {I8}
149SM4cG (1982Me10) is in error
149SM L 636.421 17 7/2-
149SM E 4.85E-4 17 9.8 1 4.85E-4 17
149SMS E CK=0.218 +84-94$CL=0.576 +66-60$CM+=0.206 +28-24
149SM G 613.915 17 0.0064525 B
149SM2 G %IG=0.000306 12$
149SM cG $From authors' intensities, evaluators deduce |a(K)exp=0.10 {I1}.
149SM2cG Evaluators suspect that Ice(K)=0.96 {I8} (1982Me10) is in error
149SM G 636.50 7 0.00372 25 M1+E2 -0.30 +16-180.0114 5 B
149SM2 G %IG=0.000177 12$
149SMS G KC=0.0097 5$LC=0.00132 5$MC=0.000282 11
149SMS G NC=6.40E-5 24$OC=9.6E-6 4$PC=6.02E-7 31
149SM cG $|a(K)exp=0.058 {I12} for doublet. Evaluators suggest that
149SM2cG Ice(K)=0.95 {I8} (1982Me10) is in error
149SM L 658.62 4(LE 7/2)
149SM E 0.0082 15 8.0 2 0.0082 15
149SMS E CL=0.705 +9-12$CM+=0.295 +12-9
149SM G 130.098 35 0.077 20 B ?
149SM2 G %IG=0.0037 10$
149SM G 308.0 1 0.0025 25 B ?
149SM2 G %IG=0.00012 12$
149SMF G FL=350.036
149SM cG E$fitted energy deviates by 0.5 keV
149SM G 381.7 2 0.086 20 A
149SM2 G %IG=0.0041 10$
149SM cG $Relative I|g=0.094 {I20} (1992Ca11), 0.074 {I25} (1982Me10)
149SM G 636.05 10 0.0074 B ?
149SM2 G %IG=3.5E-4 $