43SC 43TI EC DECAY (509 MS) 1987HO14 15NDS 201506
43SC H TYP=FUL$AUT=BALRAJ SINGH AND JUN CHEN{+#}$CIT=NDS 126, 1 (2015)$
43SC2 H CUT=31-Mar-2015$
43SC c 1987Ho14: {+43}Ti nuclides were produced by the {+40}Ca(|a,n) reaction
43SC2c with an 18 MeV alpha beam from the MC-20 cyclotron of the University of
43SC3c Jyvaskyla. |b-rays were detected by a 500 |mm, 300 mm{+2} Si(Au)
43SC4c surface-barrier detector and |g-rays by a 15.5% Ge detector. Measured
43SC5c E|g, I|g, E(|b). Deduced levels, |b- and |g-branchings, T{-1/2}.
43SC6c Comparison with shell-model calculations
43SC c Others:
43SC c T{-1/2} and isotopic identification: 1967Al08, 1963Va37, 1961Ja22
43SC2c (also 1960Ja12), 1954Ty33, 1948Sc20
43SC c |b{++}: 1969Va41 (also 1963Va37), 1961Ja22
43SC c |g: 1971BlZH
43SC cE $There is an apparent |b{++} feeding of 0.11% {I6} to the 3/2-
43SC2cE at 472.7 giving an unrealistic log| {Ift}=6.3 for 7/2- to 3/2-.
43SC3cE This imbalance is due either to missing |g transitions to
43SC4cE the 472.7 level or to intensity problems in the |g-rays involved.
43SC5cE Due to the large difference between the Q-value and the energy of
43SC6cE highest populated level, this decay scheme seems incomplete.
43SC cG M,MR$Multipolarities and mixing ratios from Adopted Gammas
43SC cG RI(A)$Estimated (evaluators) from log| {If{+1u}t}>8.5 and I|g(2137|g)
43SC cL E$From least-squares fit to E|g data
43SC cL J$From Adopted Levels
43SC cL E(A)$Intensity balance gives apparent |b{++} feeding of 0.11% {I6}
43TI P 0 7/2- 509 MS 5 6867 7
43TI cP J,T$From Adopted Levels of {+43}Ti
43TI cP QP$From 2012Wa38
43SC N 0.044 6 1.0 1.0
43SC cN NR$I|g(845|g)(per 100 decays)=2.8 {I4}, from comparison of |g-ray
43SC2cN yield to the yield of 0.5-s component of |g{+|+} radiation (1987Ho14)
43SC PN 3
43SC L 0 7/2-
43SC E 90.2 14 0.0826 16 3.554 9 90.3 14
43SC cE TI$100-summed feeding to higher levels
43SCS E EAV=2726.7 35$CK=0.000819 3$CL=8.22E-5 3$CM+=1.400E-5 5
43SC L 151.2514 3/2+
43SC E 0.07 LT 0.0001 LT 8.5 GT 0.07 LT 1U?
43SCS E EAV=2663.5 34$CK=0.001872 8$CL=0.0001883 8$CM+=3.207E-5 13
43SC G 151.9 2.9 12 A S
43SC L 472.7 3 3/2- A
43SC G 472.7 4 4.8 10
43SC L 845.17 9 5/2-
43SC E 2.6 4 0.0038 6 4.78 7 2.6 4
43SCS E EAV=2312.8 35$CK=0.001300 6$CL=0.0001306 6$CM+=2.225E-5 10
43SC G 845.2 1 62.9 19 M1+E2 +0.15 4
43SC L 1408.03 9 7/2-
43SC E 0.67 10 0.0014 2 5.13 7 0.67 10
43SCS E EAV=2038.5 34$CK=0.001853 9$CL=0.0001862 9$CM+=3.171E-5 15
43SC G 562.9 2 2.8 5
43SC G 936.0 8 1.0 2
43SC G 1408.0 1 12.6 4 M1+E2 +0.15 5
43SC L 1882.5 3 (5/2,9/2)-
43SC E 0.26 5 0.0007515 5.32 9 0.26 5
43SCS E EAV=1808.4 34$CK=0.002592 14$CL=0.0002605 1$CM+=4.436E-5 24
43SC G 1882.5 3 5.9 8
43SC L 1963.0 4 (3/2,5/2)-
43SC CL J$LOGFT=6.35 20 from 7/2- parent state disfavors 3/2, but
43SC2CL the level is weakly populated and this argument is not strong enough
43SC3CL to reject 3/2 which is supported by L-transfers in other experiments
43SC E 0.022 10 7.E-5 3 6.35 20 0.022 10
43SCS E EAV=1769.5 34$CK=0.002755 15$CL=0.0002768 1$CM+=4.71E-5 3
43SC G 1490.2 2 0.5 2 M1+E2 +0.21 6
43SC L 2288.4010 5/2-
43SC E 4.6 7 0.018 3 3.85 7 4.6 7
43SCS E EAV=1612.7 34$CK=0.003574 21$CL=0.0003592 2$CM+=6.12E-5 4
43SC G 880.7 5 1.1 2
43SC G 1443.5 3 1.3 3
43SC G 1815.4 4 0.9 5
43SC G 2137.1 1 2.1 4
43SC G 2288.3 1 100 4 M1+E2 +0.08 5
43SC L 2335.4710 5/2-
43SC E 0.38 6 0.0016 3 4.91 7 0.38 6
43SCS E EAV=1590.1 34$CK=0.003718 23$CL=0.0003737 2$CM+=6.36E-5 4
43SC G 2335.4 1 8.7 7
43SC L 2458.6810 (5/2:9/2)-
43SC E 0.91 13 0.0042 6 4.46 7 0.91 13
43SCS E EAV=1530.9 34$CK=0.00414 3$CL=0.000416 3$CM+=7.08E-5 5
43SC G 2458.6 1 20.7 8
43SC L 2760.10 10 (5/2:9/2)-
43SC E 0.20 3 0.0012 2 4.94 7 0.20 3
43SCS E EAV=1386.5 34$CK=0.00546 4$CL=0.000549 4$CM+=9.34E-5 7
43SC G 2760.0 1 4.5 3
43SC L 3259.7 10 (7/2,9/2)-
43SC E 0.011 2 0.000112 5.86 8 0.011 2
43SCS E EAV=1149.0 34$CK=0.00924 8$CL=0.000929 8$CM+=0.0001583 1
43SC G 3259.6 10 0.24 4
43SC L 3631.710 (5/2-,7/2-,9/2-) ?
43SC E 0.016 4 0.000267 5.40 11 0.016 4 ?
43SCS E EAV=974.0 33$CK=0.01470 15$CL=0.001478 15$CM+=0.0002518 2
43SC G 3631.5 10 0.36 6 ?