193TL    197BI A DECAY (5.15 M)        1985CO06                  17NDS    201709
193TL  H TYP=FUL$AUT=M. Shamsuzzoha Basunia$CIT=NDS 143, 1 (2017)$
193TL2 H CUT=31-Mar-2017$
193TL C  Sources from {+14}N bombardments of Ir, {+16}O bombardments of
193TL2C  Re, and {+20}Ne bombardments of {+181}Ta, mass separation;
193TL3C  measured E|a, I|a, time-sequential |a and |g spectra.
193TL C  Others: 1974Le02, 1972Ga27, 1970Ta14, 1950Ne77.
197BI  P 533       12 (1/2+)           5.15 M    55             5365      11
197BI CP E         From 2017Au03
197BI CP T$From 1985Co06
193TL  N                       0.55    40
193TL  L 0.0          1/2(+)           21.6 M    8
193TL CL J$From Adopted Levels
193TL  A 5776      4  100
193TL CA E$From 1991Ry01, based on 5780 {I5} (1985Co06), 5770 {I10} (1974Le02),
193TL2CA 5770 {I10} (1972Ga27); other: 1970Ta14
193TL CA HF        r{-0}({+193}Tl)=1.50  {I1}
193TLxCA Value for r{-0} suggested by neighboring Pb isotone, with
193TLxCA r{-0}({+194}Pb)=1.496 3 (1998Ak04)
193TLxCA The quoted radius value gives HF=0.15 for this
193TL2CA decay. Since HF<<1 is not expected in odd-^A nuclei, one must
193TL3CA question the input to HF calculation. The two uncertain quantities
193TL4CA are the nuclear radius, r{-0}, and %|a from {+197}Bi. In order to
193TL5CA obtain an HF|?1 one would have to use r{-0}=1.59 which is unreasonably
193TL6CA large for this region. Using r{-0}=1.49,
193TL7CA based on overall systematic trends for r{-0}, an alpha
193TLxCA branch of %|a|?12 gives a HF|?1.0.
193TL9CA It seems, therefore, that %|a=55 {I40} quoted in
193TLACA 1985Co06 may be too large.