2000 recalibration of gamma-ray and proton energies 20030807 A. H. Wapstra Content. I Revision calibration paper 90Wa22 A. Corrections for old 14N(n,g) calibrators II Special (n,g) reactions A. Introduction B. 35Cl(n,g)36Cl and 27Al(n,g)28Al for calibrations C. 53Cr(n,g)54Cr for calibrations D. Recalibrations for 24-26Mg(n,g) values E. Recalibrations for 32-36S(n,g) values III Recalibration of proton induced reactions A. Introduction B. Problems in converting thresholds into reaction energies C. Recalibration of 27Al+p resonances. D. The 7Li(p,n)7Be threshold E. Light A=4n-2 (p,n) cases, general F. 34S(p,n), 33S(p,g) and 33S(n,g) G. 26Mg(p,n), 25Mg(n,g) and 25Mg(p,g) H. The matter of 14N(p,n) and 26Mg(p,n). I. 42Ca(p,n), 41Ca(n,g and 41Ca(p,g) J. 34S(p,g) and the 35S(B-) puzzle K. The 65Zn-65Cu and 71Ge problem IV. Systematic overview (n,g) Q-value determinations V. Systematic overview (p,g) recalibrations and tests VI. Overview threshold determinations VII. Appendices: Mac Master 80Is02, 81Ke11, 82Is05 (n,g) results 79Br25 Bill ILL beta spectrometer 77Vo02 (3He,t) reactions 90Ha13 Hardy's (p,n) recalibrations 64Jo11 Oak Ridge (p,n) results 97Ro26 PTB (n,g) results 65Ry01 Rytz's (p,n) recalibrations 79Ov01 Freeman's (p,n) recalibrations 76Fr13 VIII. References (those not in Rfile 02-06) THOUGH THIS REPORT IS MEANT MAINLY FOR MY OWN USE. YET: I TRIED TO FORMULATE THINGS IN A WAY USEFUL FOR UNINITIATED. Energies given in eV: the international volt used as standard. In eV_90 (italics!): "conventional" volt used; _90 stands for sub 90. The difference, 4(40) ppb (see section I 1), is seldomly important. If the eV indication has been omitted, it is eV_90 unless it is a quote from the original authors. (Notation in 90Wa22: V* for V_76, V' for V_90.) References in this report: I use NDS RefKey's, or similar styled ones if not NDS available. Those not given in my Rfile are given at the end of this paper. Conversion table of 90Wa22 reference numbers to this style: [ 1] 86Co.1 [11] 83Hu11 [21] 83Ra04 [ 2] 86Gr01 [12] 80De40 [22] 81Va.A [ 3] 83Co09 [13] 78Ke02 [23] 80Wa24 [ 4] 73CoTA [14] 82Vy10 [24] 88Wa20 [ 5] 85Wa02 [15] 82Va13 [25] 86Wa33 [ 6] 89Co.B [16] 83Ad05 [26] 86Ke14 [ 7] 79He19 [17] 75Sm02 [27] 80Gr12 [ 8] 79Ry03 [18] 82Al19 [28] 83Ke11 [ 9] 83Kr12 [19] 82Sh23 [10] 82Sc14 [20] 86Ke15 I. Revision Gamma Calibration Paper 90Wa22 1. Constants. Mohr and Taylor 00Mo.1 prepared a new set of: "1998 CODATA recommended values of (fundamental) constants." Unchanged definition: c=299 792 458 cm s^-1; unchanged "conventional" volt V_90 based on Josephson constant 2e/h=483597.9 GHz (V_90)^-1 (exact). Therefore too: hc/e=1239.841 8521 eV_90 nm (exact but rounded). 1998CODATA: V_90/V= 1.000 000 004(39) (equ. 385) since 2e/h=483597.898(19) GHz V^-1 (page 1809); and thus too hc/e=1239.841 857 (49) eV nm | And with m=m_e: h/m =0.000 727 389 5032 m^2/s (7.3 ppb) h/mc=1.331 025 042(10) u fm (7.6 ppb) *) m=548 579 911 0(12) mu-u (2.1 ppb) (And new 02Be.1: =548 579.909 2( 4) ) m=510 998.903( 4) eV_90 (7.6 ppb) *) m=510 998.902(21) eV (40 ppb ) mc^2/e: 1u=931 494 009.0(7.1) eV_90 (7.6 ppb) *) 1u=931 494 013 (37) eV (40 ppb ) M(p)=1.007 276 466 88(13) u -> M(H)-1= 7825 032.19(.14) nu M(n)=1.008 664 915 78(55) u -> n-H=782 346.74(50) keV_90 M(d)=2.013 553 212 71(35) u -> M(D)-2=14101 778.02(.38) nu M(alpha)=4.001 506 174 7 (10) u -> M(4He)-4= 2603 249.7(1.0 ) nu Electron binding energy Ee(H)=14.60 nu Ee(4He)=84.815 for conv. in M(atom) see 98CODATA table 3 p. 1728. *) 7273895032*548579911/299792458=1.3310250418; 2*299etc/483etc*133102450418=931494009 (mc^2/e=2c/((2e/h)*(h/mc)) For comparison: 90Wa22 me=510 998.838( 20) eV_90)(40 ppb) AME93,95 me=510 999.060(150) eV AME93,95 1u=931 493 860( 70) eV_90 (65 ppb) 2a. 198Au. Helmer-vdLeun ("draft 5" of their coming paper 99He.A) made list of many recalibrated gamma ray energies, based on a value for Eg(198Au) which they got from the 80De40 one below by replacing their value 192 015.904 fm for the applicable Si lattice constant by 86Co.1's 192 015.540 fm and using a new hc/e_90, as 90Wa22 did. 99Ke05 uses 192 015.576 fm (50 ppb) (their Table III.) CODATA98+PrvCom0224: 192 015.558(57) fm (28 ppm) for this d_220(ILL). It may be convenient to give an overview. 78Ke02 411 804.41(0.15) eV *) 0.37 ppm 80De40 411 804.44(0.13) eV *) 0.31 ppm; same authors 90Wa22 411 801.85(0.15) eV_90 0.36 ppm; same with Si ltccnst 99Ke05: 411 801.927 eV_90 99He.1 411 802.05(0.17) eV, 0.36 ppm *) Add to these errors the 2.6 ppm contribution due to the value hc/e=1239.8520 eV nm these authors used. 2b. H(n,g) 99Ke05 (Kessler/Deslattes): old wavelength H(n,g) wrong; new result 557.671 129 9(99)fm or, converted to wavelength in the centre of gravity system 557.340 978(99) fm (178 ppb). Using the above value for h/mc then yields B(D)= 2388 170.07(.42) nu. CODATA98 relative mass values +PrvCom0224, however, give H+n-D=p+n-d=2388 169.952(0.415) nu (difference due to the correction in d_220(ILL).) The latter value converted to energy units gives Sn(D)=2224 566.00(0.39) eV_90 -> E(g)=2223 248.34(.39) eV_90 (capture gamma ray energy calculated using the D+ mass) The Utrecht 82Va13 result was: E(g)=144Ce(2185)+37596(4) (error statistics; they add quadratically (6) due to "2.6 ppm error in 198Au standard"; see above. We can now leave this out!) They use: Ce 2185 662 79Gr01 based on 198Au 411804.41 now 411801.85 ->2185 648 (99He.1: 2185 645(5).) Thus E(g)=2223244(6) -> S(n)=2224 561(6). Agrees nicely with above! Dubna 82Vy10 says 2224 563(9) based on 48V,144Ce 79Gr01; same correction ->90Wa22 (Common part in the errors due to calibrant 4 eV, negligible.) Adam 83Ad05 says 2224 257(9) based on 411 804.41(0.11) New Si det. result 97Ro26; corr. to present N+n S(n)=2224 585.5(0.5) No info on error. Deviation from mass doublet value 19.5 3. Atomic mass determinations. AME95 used new Penning trap results from preprints, now replaced by 95Va38 and 95Di08. Further, some new SMILE data became available and some, debatable, Van Dyck ones have been updated. I made a least squares analysis of them. I added for connection 3He with T the precise Q- from T(B-)3He (converted to micro-u.) In total 30 relations between H, D, T, 3He, C, 13C, N, 15N, 16O, 20Ne and 40Ar. (N.B.: the Van Dyck results alone do not form an overdetermined set!) Result: Re/Ri=1.01; quite satisfactory. Thus using CF=1 for all is acceptable. Table 2 S(n) from mass spectroscopy. (14C due to Smith doublets!) AEl (A-1)El D-AEl H S(n) E(g) 90Wa22 2000 nu nu eV_90 eV_90 D 0 0 0 0 2224566.0 0.4 2223248.3 .4 T 4329257 3 4329244.3 2.1 6257231.1 2.0 6250278.5 2.0 13C 2921911 12 2921908.0 0.9 4946305.8 0.9 4945296.2 0.9 14C 8176435.5 3.9 8173874.4 3.9 15N 9241780 8 9241852.4 0.9 10833296.2 0.9 10829099.6 0.9 (more recent LstSqrs in file List.repts2002-06.) 3a. Mass of H, n, D. The result H2-D=1548 286.01(0.46) nu subtracted from the $ 2b one yields n-H= 839 883.94(0.69) nu =782 346.86(0.58) eV_90. For mass excesses of H and D following comparison: 00Mo M(H)-1=7825 031.99(0.13) nu M(D)-2=14101 777.82(0.35) nu LsSqr 7825 032.01(0.12) 14101 778.00(0.42) ama2002-06 7825 032.05(0.10) 14101 777.97(0.38) 3b. Threshold T(p,n)3He The used Q(B-) of 3H 18590.7(1.0) subtracted from above value for n-H yields for T(p,n)3He Q=-763 755.16(1.15) eV_90. Earlier, interesting for proton energy calibrations, the other mentioned values were found. T=1018918.3(1.7) eV_90 Q=-763 755.2(1.2) eV_90 61Ry05 1019350 (200) -764 080 (150) 64Sa12 1019000 (100) -763 817 ( 75) 64Bo10 1019760 (510) -764 387 (383) Calibrations used: Ry, Sa, same group: absolute Brho measurements; 64Bo absolute voltages. (64Sa says T -> Q=-763 770(80).?) 4. The 16O gamma ray 6129 keV. Utrecht 82Al19 unchanged 6129 228 (54) eV_90 See also 25Mg(p,g) Los Alamos 82Sh23 unchanged 6129 121 (22) (error in S(n) of 3He makes no difference) McMaster 86Ke15 new 14N(n,g)->6129 183(40) (improved agreement! AVERAGE 6129 136(18*1.30) ADOPT: 6129 140(20). (90Wa22 gave 6129 140(30) eV_90.) 5a. Gamma's from radioactive isotopes. Old values: for recalibration. 66Ga. 4806 580(200)4086 270(100)2751 920(60) 70Ph01; 4807 000 4086 550 71Ca14 4085 800 2751 750 74He.A(78Ma23 table 2) 4806 060(18) 4085 875(12) 2751 852(6) 93Al15(+27 ppm, in average) 4806 007( 9) 4085 853( 9) 2751 835(5) 99He.A not 99He.1 24Na 2754 029(14) 1368 636( 6) 90Endt 2754 008(11) 1368 625( 5) 99He.A not 99He.1 40K 1460 830(5 ) 90Endt 56Co 3451 380(80) 3253 640(90) 2598 640(70) .. 70Ph01 3451 550(200)3253 600(160)2598 580(80) .. 71Ca14(??) .. 76Me.A 3451 154(13) 3253 417(11) 2598 460(10) .. 79He19 3451 119( 4) 3253 402( 5) 2598 438( 4) .. 99He.1 ThC 2614 533(11) 79He19 2614 511(10) 99He.A not 99He.1 5. The 13C gamma ray 3684 keV Utrecht 81Va.A: calibrated with "to be published" 66Ga gamma's. PrvCom 1998 van der Leun: same as 93Al15 see $5a. Then: delta-E 1261 854(6) -> E(gamma)=1261 788(6). Oak Ridge 83Ra04 E(g)=1261 765(27) based on 198Au 411 794(8) (see their Table I); recal. 1261 789(11), error if we take out the part due to the 198Au calibration (may be optimistic!) Combined Etr 1261 854, and with S(n) table 2 Ex=3684 452(6) -> Eg=3683 892(6). (90Wa22 had 3683 915(15)eV_90.) Agreement with directly measured values slightly worse than 90Wa22. 6. The 14N(n,gamma) calibration gamma rays. 90Wa22 made corrections using new values for natural constants. The new mass measurements with Penning traps (see new Table 1) by curious accident now change S(n) to nearly the earlier value! Since 90Wa22, the Los Alamos paper 97Ju02 appeared. Energy calibration 510 999(1), 2223 253(4), 4945 303(12), 6250 296(3) (from AME95); in the average only 1.6 ppm higher than the values in Table 2. They derive 15N S(n) table 3; 1.7 ppm high. The only other measurement with comparable accuracy is the MacMaster one 86Ke14, calibrated with S(n)=10833 301(12). New 97Ro26 S(n)=10833 233.9(0.5) probably adopted for calibration. For the present analysis, I now present in Table 4 the ORIGINAL gamma ray energy values of these two groups. In order to get best values from these two sets , I followed following policy. I selected the gamma rays with the most dependable energy values (which happen to be the ones given by 97Ju02 with 3 digits behind the decimal point). Criteria: sufficient intensities, and undisturbed. The latter criterium made me disregard the 9149-9151 keV doublet. True, their energies are identical to the ground-state transition minus the 1678-1681 keV doublet; but this doublet is also not so neatly separated. I then made least squares analysis, using the energy sum relations provided by the well-known decay scheme. For the ground-state transition, the energy value from table 2 was added. The consistency factor came out 1.48 for combination of the Los Alamos and McMaster gamma energy values; no surprise since comparison reveals some discrepancies. Separate analyses of the values of the two laboratories (not using the table 2 input value) gave consistency factors 0.67 for Los Alamos, 1.75 for McMaster. Since the Los Alamos values are more recent, and in my opinion made with even more care than the McMaster ones, I decided to double the errors of the last group. In order to introduce no increase in Re/Ri due to the used different calibrators, I introduced multiplication factors for the gamma energies, one for each group. And again, the table 2 value was added. The consistency factor came out 1.02; which justifies my treatment. The resulting values of level energies, and the resulting precisions, I give in Table 3, and the resulting gamma ray energies are given in Table 4, as "adopted". Table 3 Level energies in 15N. For "Adopted", in eV_90. For the other two as reported. Adopted 97Ju02 86Ke14 5270 149(10) 5270 164(13) 5270 155(10) 5298 821(11) 5298 824(15) 5298 822(11) 6323 836(10) 6323 858(13) 6323 775(15) 7155 073(12) 7155 089(16) 7155 051(16) 7300 859(14) 7300 885(18) 7300 832(16) 8312 633(16) 8312 635(20) 8312 620(25) 9154 905(23) 9154 934(18) 9154 895(23) 10833 296( 1) 10833 314(12) 10833 302(12) Table 4 Gamma ray energies in 14N(n,gamma). For "Adopted" in eV_90. For the other two as reported. Adopted 97Ju02 86Ke14 1884 798 (12) 1884 780 (18) 1884 879 (21) 1999 689 (22) 1999 679 (27) 1999 708 (86) 2520 437 (16) 2520 443 (22) 2520 418 (15) 2830 783 (23) 2830 805 (36) 2830 809 (70) 3531 991 (14) 3531 982 (20) 3532 013 (13) 3677 739 (12) 3677 737 (17) 3677 772 (17) 4508 733 (10) 4508 731 (17) 4508 783 (14) 5269 155 (10) 5269 162 (17) 5269 169 (12) 5297 817 (11) 5297 826 (20) 5297 817 (15) 5533 380 (11) 5533 391 (18) 5533 379 (13) 5562 041 (10) 5562 059 (21) 5562 062 (17) 6322 405 (10) 6322 433 (16) 6322 337 (14) 7298 953 (14) 7298 980 (32) 7298 914 (33) 8310 162 (16) 8310 156 (39) 8310 143 (29) 10829 100 ( 1) 10829 110 (59) 10829 087( 46) Calculated from from S(n) of authors: 10829 118 (12) 10829 097 (12) I A. Corrections for 14N(n,g) calibrators The table below gives original values for S(n) and/or the energy of the corresponding ground-state gamma transition from various authors, which have been adopted for calibration by other groups. The first "ppm" column gives differences with the present values. It is, however, not evident that corrections for calibration (both values and errors) can be made based only on these ppm values. For that reason, I compared their values for Eg's between 4509 000 and 7299 000 eV with those derived above; the differences are given in the other two tables below. The resulting weighted averages of the ppm corrections are given in the second ppm column. Of course, the errors given in this column are not useful for making corrections in errors of Eg's based on these calibrators! The "final" ppm column gives corrections I use, and the errors I adopt for Eg-error reductions where seemingly applicable. S(n) Eg ppmSn ppmEg's final ppm 67Th05 10830 000(1 000) -83(92) -62(66) -70(150) 68Gr14 10829 004( 600) +9(55) +6(25) +8( 60) 68Ma04 @) 10829 200( 400) -9(37) +63(20) +50( 50) 69Jo.A 10829 800( 600) -64(55) -68(40) -65( 70) 71Be34 10833 560(150) 10829 364( 150) -24(14) -16(16) -20( 30) 74Gr37 10833 640(130) 10829 444 *) -31(12) -31( 8) -31( 20) 74Is06 10833 670(120) 10829 470 *) -34(11) -12(17) -20( 40) 75Sm02 10833 395( 30) 10829 198 *) -9( 3) - -9( 3) 75Wa.A =75Sm02 &) -9( 3) - -9( 3) 76Sp06 10833 230( 90) %) +7(10) -4( 8) -10( 30) 78St25 10829 200( 130) -9( 3) -8( 8) -8( 6) 80Gr12 10833 297( 38) 10829 101 *) 0( 4) -1( 3) -1( 6) 83Co09 10833 302( 12) 10829 106 *) -1( 1) -1( 1) 83Ra04 =75Wa.A 10829 199 *) -9( 3) -8( 3) -8( 3) 86AjSe 10829 200( 20) -9( 3) -3( 2) -4( 3) 86Ke14 10833 302( 12) 10829 106 *) -1( 1) +1( 10 0( 1) 90Wa22 10833.232( 20) 10829.035( *) +6 =6( 2) @) Difference ppmSn and ppmEg due to not considering sumrelations. For 71Be34 too, S(n) is just highest Eg. &) 10833 505 of 75Wa.A is misprint. *) Derived from mass doublets %) values adjusted to 75Sm02 1999 67Th05 68Gr14 68Ma04 69Jo.A 71Be34 74Is06 4508.733 #09(1) #8.8(.3 ) #8.8(.3) #9.1(.6) #8.733(.09) #8.79(.23) 5269.155 #70(1) #9.2(.35) #8.5(.2) #9.5(.6) #9.567(.16) #9.20(.23) 5297.817 #98(1) #7.8(.35) #7.4(.3) #8.1(.6) #8.066(.08) #7.79(.25) 5533.380 #34(1) #3.2(.35) #3.0(.3) #3.8(.6) #2.825(.20) #3.51(.23) 5562.041 #62(1) #2.2(.35) #2.0(.3) #2.5(.6) #1.794(.33) #2.10(.27) 6322.405 #23(1) #2.0(.4 ) #2.1(.4) #2.7(.6) #2.300(.20) #2.54(.26) 7298.953 #99(1) #9.0(.5 ) #8.7(.4) #9.5(.8) #9.034(.10) #9.42(.34) 71Be34: E(g) calculated from E(trnstn). About 66Gr.A mentioned by 67Th: 68Ma04's Gr67 (prvcom) is same as 68Gr14; thus 66Gr.A probably too. Resulting ppm corrections to be made to get '99 standard values: 67Th05 68Gr14 68Ma04 69Jo.A 71Be34 74Is06 - 59(221) - 15(66) - 15(66) - 81(133) + 0(20) - 13(51) -160(190) - 9(66) +124(38) - 65(113) - 78(30) - 9(44) - 31(189) + 3(66) + 79(57) - 51(113) - 47(15) + 5(47) -112(181) + 33(63) + 69(54) - 76(108) +100(36) - 23(42) - 7(180) - 29(63) + 7(54) - 83(108) + 44(59) - 11(49) - 94(158) + 64(63) + 48(68) - 47( 95) + 17(31) - 21(41) - 6(137) - 6(69) + 35(55) - 75( 82) -11(14) - 64(47) 74Gr37 76Sp06 78St25 86Ke14 86AjSe - 73(24) - 50(24) - 11( 3) - 5( 7) - 39(19) + 3(13) - 16(19) - 3( 2) - 3( 4) -65(23) - 70(54) - 42(23) 0( 3) - 2( 4) 0(22) + 49(39) + 23(22) 0( 2) + 5( 4) - 25(18) - 20(14) - 2(18) - 4( 3) 0( 4) - 3(19) -105(79) + 20(19) + 11( 2) -10( 3) - 31(23) + 44(38) - 9(23) + 5( 5) - 4( 3) II Special (n,g) determinations. II A. Introduction This report purports to make corrections to reported values for (n,gamma) reactions, mainly based on the new gamma ray calibration energies. In this connection, I found it often usefull, especially for not so recent reports, to recalculate S(n) values from reported "primary" gamma ray energies (those originating in the capture state) making use of the most recent values for the energies Ex of the final levels. Most of the latter I found in issues of "Nuclear Data Sheets" (which I label in the style NDS974, last three digits representing the Date: 974=April 1997, .... 01a=Oct 2001 ... 98b=Nov 1998 I rarely recalibrated recalibrate the NDS Ex's. Most are based on the "old" 198Au 411 keV value which is 2.5 eV_90 high; thus the so derived S(n)'s may be some 15 eV high which is scarcely ever important. For this purpose, I selected at most 8 of the highest energy primary rays with the smallest errors going to well defined levels with acceptable spin-parities. I did often not accept level energies derived from the author's work, even in NDS's. The result, derived from a least squares evaluation with uncorrected authors errors (where available), I give in the style: AHW98b avrg 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(Ref) S(n)(error*Re/Ri). or Etr in stead of Eg+Ercl if the authors have corrected the primary energies for recoil (this, unfortunately, is not always mentioned.) I give values in eV_90 where not mentioned differently; I omit unit. References keys are Nucl. Data Sheet ones, or their style. The end of this report gives those not present in my current Rfile. In several cases, these analyses gave reasons for decreasing the errors assigned to the resulting S(n) by the original authors. In some cases, data no longer used in our most recent mass evaluations now turned out to be still valuable and thus have been added again. I also found it usefull to repair a situation in those mass evaluations that I thought not to be fully acceptable. There, no notes were easily available on recalibrations adopted in the Qfile (marked ,Z after refkey, or in attached remarks). Neither does this file give the original values, which complicates making future corrections. The present report is meant to improve the situation, for cases depending on gamma calibrations. Marked "clbr" I give the items the author adopt for calibration. For ones belonging to a usual calibrator, I give only the energy value adopted by the author. The recalibrated energy values I mark "rcl". In addition to measurements with thermal neutrons, and with neutrons with resonance energies (the latter often allowing assignment to the relevant isotope in mixtures), measurements have been made with neutron distributions with average energies 24 keV and 2 keV. Reference to latter method 68Si.1. For the 2 keV ones, 71He13 says "approximately Gaussian with avr 1 950 FWHM 700". Resulting correction: 1 950(300). 78Ma.1 2 050( 20). 92Br25 (for 188Os+n) See also 74Gr11(183W+n); 79Ci04(195Pt+n) Finally, measurements have been made with "average neutron resonances" (e.g. 68Bo21). The necessary correction to measured gamma energies for the average neutron energy may then be different for s- and p-wave neutron capture! For some papers which each give several data based on the same calibration, I found it useful to give a combined treatment in appendices at the end of this report. II B. 35Cl(n,g)36Cl and 27Al(n,g)28Al for calibrations A considerable number of precision S(n) results have been made by the workers in the Laue-Langevin Institute. Most of them have been calibrated with their results for 35Cl(n,g)36Cl by 82Kr12, or by the 82Sc14 one for 27Al(n,g)28Al based on the former. I will here discuss their result on these two and compare them with other ones of similar reported precision. And in my overview below, I also add some earlier results sometimes used for calibrations. The seminal ILL Cl+n result departs from the Brookhaven 78St25. The latter calibrate with the N+n Eg results of 74Gr37, which they multiply, however, with the ratio of the 75Wa.A value for S(n) of 15N divided by the 74Gr37 one (-22 ppm; thus, in order to reduce to 2001 S(n) in eV_90, the results have to be corrected by a further -9 ppm.) They quote errors 100 eV for the best measured gamma's with energies between 4 and 9 MeV; but warn that "An 0.20 keV absolute error should be added to the listed uncertainties". No reason is given for this decision. A least squares analysis of a set of their primary Eg's with the listed errors, combined with 90Endt Ex values for the fed levels (see overview below) shows good consistency and suggests that this 200 eV may be an overestimate. Yet, I decided to assign this error to the resulting S(n). The paper 82Kr determines, with the curved crystal spectrometer GAMS, very precise Eg's up to 3.5 MeV based on the 78Ke02 value 411 804.4(0.8) for 198Au. (I do not know why they assume a 1.9 ppm error, smaller than the 2.6 ppm contribution due to the error in the Si lattice constant adopted by 78Ke02, see Section I.) They use them to construct a partial level scheme up to 3.5 MeV; which is used to calibrate semi-conductor spectrometers up to this energy. For higher energies, they calibrate "as a starting point" with the 78St25 results. The results they use to extend the decay scheme, to derive a provisional value for S(n) and then to readjust the new values (including S(n).) The resulting value S(n) is 13.4 ppm lower than the value I derive from the 78St25 result (see below). It has a statistical error 9 eV to which is added "a systematic error of 10 ppm .. uncertainty in calibration procedure of the (semicondutor) spectrometer and the 2 ppm error in (the 198Au line)". Thus, the total error is 90 eV (10.5 ppm.) Clear is, that the obtained level energies below 3.5 MeV have to be reduced due to the revised value for the Si lattice constant compared to that of 78Ke02. In order to get energies in eV_90, the correction is -6.1 ppm, or -21 eV at 3.5 MeV. But I have difficulty in estimating the corrections to the Eg's the semiconductor spectrometer. I was first inclined to assume that it might be the 9 ppm correction due to the 78St25 N+n calibration mentioned above. Then, the total correction would be the -21 eV just mentioned plus -9 ppm of the remaining 8.5-3.5 MeV, or -55 eV; in total -76 eV. As said, the systematic error is 10 ppm, rather smaller than the 200 eV systematic uncertainty, say about 40 ppm, in the 78St25 values used for calibration. This suggests that 82Kr12 assume that their procedure improves these values, probably due to the influence of their precision results up to 3.5 Mev. Then, the total correction might be only slightly larger than that due to the -6.1 ppm change in the 198Au Eg, or in total -52 eV. Fortunately, the difference is not great. Then the ILL measurement 82Sc14 for 27Al+n. Eg up to 2200 000 with GAMS, calibration with 517 077 36Cl line, value from 82Kr12. Above that, same procedure as 82Kr12 (to be precise, a preprint of it) using their semi-conductor values as "starting point". Thus, the correction is either -6.1 ppm of 2200 000 + 9 ppm of 7525 000-2200 000 =-61 eV, or -6.1 ppm of the whole =-47 eV. Again, the difference is not great. For discussion of the McMaster results for many nuclides see the appendix. For the data in their 80Is02, where they quote only the statistical errors, my analysis indicates that the systematic error is about 26 ppm. Though not said in discussing their 81Ke02 35Cl+n result, I suspect that their quoted precision 20 eV is also only statistical. It must be remarked that their 9Be(n,g) value, reported error 100 eV, is 290 eV (43 ppm) lower than their own later 86Ke14 one. Thus, I feel their error should be increased to 200 eV too. Also, it seems recommendable to me not to include these data in deriving best values for the two S(n)'s under consideration. A "Leningrad" group reported so to see very respectable measurements on several nuclides, among them the ones discussed here, in a report in Russian 81Su.A. They calibrate with 198Au 411 804.41(1.08) (5.8 ppm above the 2001 value in eV_90), and find for the C+n line 4945 330(60), 6.9 ppm high, in a very nice agreement. I therefore reduce all their values by 7 ppm. Their abstract (in English) says "The normalization error to (198Au) is equal to 9 ppm" which is larger than the 2.6 ppm error in the 198Au line. The situation may be similar to that in the ILL results. I think this must be accepted. (NB. These data seem not to have been published in a decent journal; their results are not quoted in later NDS issues on 123Sb+n, 91Zr+n.) Considering all these results, I think the best way to get dependable values for these two cases is averaging the ILL and Petersburg results. (The other, less accurate ones anyhow do not differ much from them.) The results suggest, that the ILL results based on 35Cl+n have to be reduced by 5.8 ppm to get values in eV_90, the 27Al+n ones by 10.5 ppm. I think it is quite satisfactory that these corrections do not differ much from the ones due to the 198Au calibration value alone. Overview of results. 35Cl(n,g)36Cl 72Lo26 8579 200(400) rcl 8579 270(400) ** clbr N+n(68Gr14) 76Sp06 8579 390(180) rcl 8579 300(180) ** clbr N+n 75Sm02 78St25 rcl 8579 720(200) ** authors do not give S(n). See discussion above. clbr 74Gr37 N+n -22 ppm; rcl: 9 ppm more AHW98a avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(90Endt) 8579 795(36*0.95) 19 ppm high 81Ke02 8579 820(20+syst) rcl 8579 810(200) ** cal N+n(80Gr12) "errors 110 assigned to the transitions (Eg's)" AHW98a avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(90Endt) 8579 852(38*0.83) (from highest primary g's; 6110.69 not used) 81Su.A 8579 720(35;77) rcl 8579 660(100) ** authors give no Q; clbr. and error see 27Al(n,g) AHW991 avr 6 Eg+Ercl+Ex(90Endt) 8579 718(26*1.28) (from highest primary g's; 6110.69 not used), nice! 82Kr12 8579 680( 90) rcl 8579 610(90) ** clbr see text above. (NB! says E(g) corr for recoil; NOT TRUE) 85Ke04 precision low energies 03Fi.A 8679 672( 18) see introduction Section IV. FOR RECALIBRATIONS. Weighted average 81Su,82Kr: 8579 632(67*0.37) Then highest energy Etr 8579 630(70) Eg 8578 534(70) and strong gamma's: 7791 188(70) 7790 282(70) (Ex of 90EnVa) 7414 734(70) 7413 918(70) ** : checked sept 2000 - "now" and entered in Qfile Overview recalibrations (198Au -5.8 ppm BNn 78St25 Cl -11.7 ppm Al -7.2 ppm combined -9 ppm McM 81Ke02 Cl -22 ppm \ and N+n=80Gr12 combined -9 ppm ILL 82Kr12 Cl - 5.8 ppm \ 82Sc14 Al -10.5 ppm combined -8 ppm 72Is13 Al -45 ppm 76Sp06 Cl +28 ppm 79Br25 Al -38 ppm 27Al(n,g)28Al 72Is13 7725 400(500) rcl 7725 786(500) Strongest lines: Eg 7724 900, 7695 300, 6315 600, 6101 800, 5411 400, 5134 400 clbr N+n 68Ma04 78St25 rcl 7725 030(200) ** see 35Cl(n,g). Authors do not give S(n) AHW98a avr 7 Eg+Ercl+Ex(90Endt) 7725 096(38*1.26) (from highest occuring primary g's) 79Br25 7725 350(100+stt=200) rcl 7725 070(300) only one Eg in magn. spctrmtr. See appendix 80Is02 7725 200(60) rcl 7725 126(209) see appendix 81Su.A 7725 075(23;72) AME95 7725 020(100) ** second error "normalization error to .. 198Au 9 ppm" AHW991 avr 4 Eg+Ercl+Ex(98Endt) 7725 074(14*1.70); OK 82Sc14 7725 190(90) rcl 7725 140(90) ** clbr Cl+n(82Kr12 preprint) 03Fi.A 7725 170( 4) Meaning value and error see introduction Sect IV. FOR RECALIBRATIONS. Weighted average 81Su,82Sc 7725 085(67*0.71) Then highest energy | Etr 7725 085(70) Eg 7723 941(70) and strong gamma's: | 7694 447(70) 7693 312(70) (Ex of 90EnVa) | II C. 53Cr(n,g)54Cr for calibrations Discussed here because good illustration of occuring difficulties. 68Wh03 measures differences in energies between peaks (twice second escape ones); first of the 3720 000 line with the 24Na 2754 line, and the latter with the others. Results compared with 2001 values: 2001 difference resulting Eg original Eg new Eg 2754 008 +2me+ 56 100(200)=3719 906(200) 3719 750(250) 3719 840( 80) above(or)+2me+105 240(200)=4847 144(280) 4847 000(320) 4846 764(106) above + 25 300( 80)=4872 444(294) 4872 300(330) 4872 064( 70) S(n) is the sum of the latter two energies + Ercl's, 234 and 236 respectively. One can improve this by replacing the higher one by the NDS934 value; Ex=4872 330(70). This value is in the old 198Au scale; the eV_90 value is 4872 301, leading to new Eg in the table. Combining this with the 68Wh03 energy difference, I obtain the S(n) below and the "new" Eg's above. For comparison, I also give the Eg for the lower energy gamma following from the NDS934 level energy. The 92Lo26 value, recalibrated with the Cl+n result above, does not quite agree; but the difference is substantially less than before recalibration. 68Wh03 9719 770(650) rcl 9719 300(160) ** 72Lo26 9717 700(400) rcl 9718 298(400) ** see 35Cl(n,g) above. Used for calibration. 80Is02 9718 907(272) see appendix ** AVERAGE: 9719 103(130*1.74) 89Ho15 9719 700(190) rcl error (500) ** clbr ThC 2614 Fe 7631 7645 does not discuss calibration or Q. New: 03Fi.A 9720 000(50) see introduction section IV; made "U": ama0308 9719 170(125) NB. 68Wh03 also used H(n,g) 2223 290(70); 24Na 2753 920(120) (now 2223 253 2754 029 ) and 182Ta 65Gr16 1188 630(140) now 1189 040(3) 192Ir 4 ref's 52Mu45 60Be11 63Li10 65Mu03, From these 60Co, 41Ar gamma's: 1173 230(40) 1332 540(40) 1293 640(40) now 1173 228( 3) 1332 492( 4) 1293 ...... II D. Recalibrations for 24-26Mg(n,g) Used in discussions of 25Mg(p,g) and 26Mg(p,n) Section III G. Ref 24Mg(n,g) 25Mg(n,g) 26Mg(n,g) 80Is02 7330 430(230) 11092 790(310) - 82Hu02 7330 753(140) 11091 794(440) 6443 322(550) ** 90Pr02 7330 640( 80) 11093 100( 60) 6443 260( 80) orig. 91Ki04 11093 240( 60) orig 92Wa06 7330 694( 50) 11093 226( 50) 6443 438( 50) **. New: 03Fi.A 7330 530( 40) 11093 157( 21) 6443 350( 30) see note. NB. 69Se08 for 25Mg: 11093 400(400) error stat. only clbr 15N no value given (69Jo.A of same group: 15N S(n)=10834 000(500).) 80Is02 see Appendix 82Hu02 orig. S(n) 7330 830; 11091 910; 6443 390 reclbr. with Al+n of 82Sc14 90Pr02 clbr. N+n no value prbl. 86Ke14 Eg=1029 097(12); thus no rcl. 91Ki04,92Wa06: same measurement! clbr. D, 13C, 15N; 92Wa06 orig. S(n)'s 7330 650; 11093 160; 6443 400; clbr of 91Ki04 revised slightly downwards to fit my 90Wa22; thus 2001 correction +5.9 ppm 03Fi.A For meaning values and errors see introduction section IV; for comparison with Oak Ridge 92Wa06 see IIE. Except for the early unprecise 82Hu02 value for 25Mg, the agreement is rather satisfactory. II E. Recalibrations for 32-36S(n,g) Used in discussions on S(p,g) results III F, III J. 32S(n,g) 33S(n,g) 34S(n,g) 36S(n,g) 67Ke07 8646 000(1000) 6988 000(2000) 72Dz13 6986 300(300) 73Sp06 8641 300(700) 83Ra04 8641 820(100) 11417 120(100) 6986 000(100) 4303 520(120) eV_90 85Ke08 8641 600( 30) 6985 840( 50) others 6985 650(210) 4303 690(130) eV_90 03Fi.A 8641 809( 25) 11417 219( 16) 6986 091( 15) see intro Sctn IV ("Others" for 35S: from combination of Q for 34S(p,g) from Raman et al. (see Section III J.) and Q-(35S). For 36S: value derived from 87Pi03's Q=2079 120(130) eV_90 for 36S(d,p).) The paper Oak Ridge-los Alamos paper 83Ra04 gives a list of "primary" and "secondary" gamma ray calibrations for the (n,g) measurements (THEIR table I). I plotted the differences with the present values; the average correction is -12 ppm. This should apply to the values in their table IV under the heading "Mass-Doublet Standard". But in their own discussion they made a correction from "mass doublet standard" values to "Gold Standard" ones corresponding to a change for S(n) for D from a value 2224 662(30)eV to a "gold standard" one 2224 568(7) eV, is very near the present eV_90 value. Also, as to be expected, the "gold standard" values differ only little from the "mass-doublet" ones after making the mentioned calibration correction. Thus, the best possible choice is to accept, without changes, the values S(n) for 33S, 34S, 35S and 37S in the last column of their Table IV. (For 37S see also 94Ra09.) See table above. The errors given for the "mass doublet standard" values are only about half those given for the "gold standard" ones. Reason: half the 94 eV correction to get "values in the gold standard" was added -linearly!- to those errors "to provide a conservative estimate of the total uncertainties". The values of 85Ke08 (McMaster) are calibrated with N+n Q=10833 302(12) and therefore not recalibrated either. The fact that for three cases measured by 83Ra04 the results are hundreds of eV higher than other ones is unpleasant. (That the one for 36S(n,g) is lower than the one derived from the (d,p) result does not look really significant). For discussion of their 34S(p,g) result see section III J. The recalibrated values for Mg(n,g) above of 92Wa06 (same group as 83Ra04) are also somewhat higher than those of 90Pr02 (same group as 85Ke08). 2003-0703: Compared with 03Fi.A, the 83Ra values agree well; but the 92Wa ones are a little high. III Recalibration of particle induced reaction energies. III A Introduction Of particle induced reactions, I discuss below mainly (p,g) ones and (p,n) reactions. Q(p,g)'s are obtained almost exclusively by measuring gamma rays emitted at a proton resonance at energy Er in the yield in the bombardment. The gamma ray energy measurements determine the corresponding excitation energy Ex. Not always authors state clearly whether their reported Eg's are corrected for recoil. In one case where it is said to be done, it is not true! (82Kr12) For Q(p,n)'s, the usual method is measuring the yield of neutrons, or positons, as a function of the proton energy, and extrapolating it to the threshold T. An alternative method is measuring the time of flight (TOF) of the neutrons at proton resonances just above the threshold, in bombardments with a pulsed beam (PTB: 85Sc16, 89Sc24, 92Bo.A, 92Bo02, 98Bo30). The usual method of yield^3/2 extrapolation to the threshold is valid for emerging s-wave protons. For corrections see next section. The TOF method may be better, especially for higher angular momenta. The proton energy is mostly measured in a magnetic spectrometer calibrated, most often, by measuring a resonance or a threshold at a well known energy in a proton induced reaction. The required absolutely calibrated data are obtained by calibrated magnetic or electrostatic analyzers or velocity determinations. To recalibrate them using present-day constants, I update the discussion in 66Ma60: Velocity measurements: 66Ma60 changes 63Ga09 +39 ppm for change in proton mass in eV; must now be +56 ppm see table below. (NB: for 7Li(p,n) 66Ma60 increases error from 300 to 600, but did not make a similar change for 27Al(p,g). I accept this though I do not see Marion's reasons. For 70Ro07, an update from 66Ro discussed by 66Ma60, I make a similar change using mass values in table below.) Electrostatic measurements: 66Ma60 made no correction; I do neither. Magnetic measurements: 66Ma60 corrects 61Be13 (and 66Bo20) for replacing constants of 57Co.1 by 63Co.A's (shortly later revised in 65Co.1): "gamma sub p -41 ppm , (e/m) sub p -48 ppm ->(e/m)/gamma^2 34 ppm higher E sub p too". From this remark and the value below, it is cle", or as said in 00Mo.1: "shielded". Thus for now: 2001: 00Mo.1: gamma -29 ppm ,e/m -65 ppm->(e/m)/g^ 7 lower!! Overview: gamma-sup-p e/m-sub-p M(p) in keV 55Co.1 2.675 23 (4 ) 9.579 44 (8 ) 938 211(10) 61Be13 2.675 23 (4 ) 9.579 46 (7 ) 63Ga09 938 219 61Ry05 2.675 13 (2 ) (uses F/M(a).) 66Ma60 938 256 63Co.A 2.675 120(20) 9.578 998(103) 70Ro07 938 259.2 65Co.1 2.675 123( 7) 9.578 999( 65) 938 256 (5) 86Co.1 2.675 153( 1) 9.578 831(0.3) 938 272.3(0.3) 00Mo.1 2.675 153 41 9.578 834 08 938 271.998 Also, some E(a)'s of naturally occurring alpha emitters are used for calibration; for an overview see 65Ry01. The Auckland Group (81St04, 81Wh03,85Wh03,89Ba28,91Ba.1,92Ba.A, 94Br11,94Br37, 94Li20, 98Ha36) calibrates their magnetic spectrometer by letting a beam of K+ or Cs+ follow the same path after acceleration through a known voltage (see 80Ba.B), a fine method. Their discussion of atomic effects (94Br37, 94Am08) is nicely informative. Unfortunately, the analyses below suggest that they may have underestimated their errors. III B. Problems in converting thresholds into reaction energies In the determination of thresholds and resonance energies for particle- induced reactions, one has to take into account several effects. In yield threshold determinations, the result may be influenced by the presence of resonances near the threshold. They can introduce a considerable shift between an apparent threshold and the real value, (as calculated, e.g., from reaction energies). Examples: an estimated 0.1-1.8 kev in 26Mg(p,n), 69Fr09; +0.5(1.5) keV in 54Fe(p,n), 74Ho21; 0+-0.5 keV in 34S(p,n) 94Li20; and even 8 keV for 54Fe(p,n) see below! Of course, the energy resolution has influence. In measurements with "thick" targets, the energy loss function in the target has to be taken into account. Here, the Lewis effect 62Le.1 plays a role: as said by 69Fr08, "The discrete energy loss of the bombarding protons in the target material ... causes the yield of a (p,n) reaction to rise more rapidly just above threshold than if continuous losses are assumed. Rough calculations for .. 5 Mev protons in Mg (by 66Pa03 and 62Wa11) suggest .. displaced .. by about 0.25 keV below true value)". Note by 66Ma60, Lewis effect for the 1880 keV 7Li(p,n) threshold: "It must be emphasized that ... the threshold (from) (yield)^3/2 extrap- olation .. recommended for calibration purposes ... is not appropriate for Q-value calculation; the TRUE threshold probably is about 150 eV higher." (and generally, 66Ma says, 100-200 eV difference.) NB! I must still check whether such a correction WAS made in determining Q-values for AME's! (2001-1022) This effect can also influence the determination of resonance energies. A correction in the opposite direction must be made for the average energy loss due to atomic excitation in the scattering process. Calculation by 93Wi21 (94Am08 says: energy independent estimate) and 94Am08, see table. The resulting correction (last column) is different for thresholds and resonances; and somewhat dependent on details of the measurement. See remarks on 94Br37 below. See Also 27Al(p,n). Examples: case E(keV) 93Wi 94Am corr(-eV) 14N(p,n) 6300 105 164 133(70) 26Mg(p,n) 5210 123 88 102(30) 27Al(p,n) 5800 129 141 100(30) 34S(p,n) 6460 142 141 47(30) 42Ca(p,n) 7400 149 139 82(30) 25Mg(p,g) 1380 123 57 73(30) 25Mg(p,g) 1590 123 60 82(30) 27Al(p,g) 990 129 91 24(20) 27Al(p,g) 1320 129 95 44(20) 33S(p,g) 970 142 93 33(20) 33S(p,g) 1540 142 101 36(20) 33S(p,g) 1990 142 105 37(20) In their latest paper, 98Ha36, the Auckland group folds all three corrections in a curve fitted to the result. III C. Recalibration of 27Al+p resonances. Many resonance energies Er are calibrated with the 992 keV resonance in 27Al+p. The values Er available in 1990 I discussed in an unpublished, but circulated document 90Wa.A, to get a best average value. Since then, a value from Auckland, 81St04, was replaced (see 94Br37) by one considerably lower than all earlier ones, causing a difficulty. As will appear below, more Auckland values (but not only theirs) cause trouble in discussing reaction energies Q(=S(p) or S(n)) for (p,g) and (n,g) reactions; sometimes if combined with a few other ones. We will have to consider several such cases in order to find a best compromise. The mentioned report 90Wa.A contains revised values for the first three following references: Ref. Er orig. (eV) Er recal (eV_90) Method Comment 56Bu27 990 800(200) absolute, magn. 1. 61Be13 992 200(500) -> 992 193(270) absolute, magn. 2 62Ry01 991 830(100) -> 991 740(100) absolute, magn. 1. 63Bo07 991 910(300) absolute,el.stat. 63Ga09 991 600(200) 991 640(200) abs., velocity 2. 70Ro07 991 907( 49) -> 991 921( 49) abs., velocity 2,3. 81St04 991 843( 33) -> 991 835( 33) replaced by 94Br37 4 94Br37 991 748( 17) see below 78ENVA 991 880( 40) average earlier 90Endt 991 860( 30) "average 70Ro+81St." Comment 1. As to Rytz et al. see section I 2a on 3H(p,n) of 64Sa12 and 61Ry05, same group: first E(p) about right, but earlier quite HIGH!). Comment 2. See III A on same references. Comment 3. 90Wa.A gives for 70Ro07: 991860(60) eV_90, obtained through multiplying with the ratio of values for their 7Li(p,n) threshold mentioned section III D. Now no longere recommendable!! Their T-value for 12C(3He,n) section III G seems rather high too. Comment 4. Value high due to malfunction says 94Br37 (Auckland too.) The 94Br37 values given here and in next table are "calibration values" in eV_90; see their Table 2 (their original value 991756 slightly corrected for new fundamental constants). They take effect beam energy spread and Lewis effect into account. The effect of "ejection of atomic electrons from atom as nuclear process is taking place" result in 24(12) and 44(22) eV lower values respectively (as calculated for their 10 keV thick Al target) for value to be used in mass calculations. There are some reasons to consider also the 27Al+p resonance at 1317 keV. Most important: 83Ra04 uses 78Ma24's value to calibrate their value for S(p) for 35Cl from the 34S(p,g) reaction. But combined with 35S S(n) values, it leads to Q- value for 35S far below the directly measured ones, see section III J. Reversely, combining these date I find 27Al+p Er values used below. The value for the energy of this resonance found in the new paper 94Br37 is rather much lower than that of 78Ma24; this would reduce the difference. Finally, the values of 90En02 for the Ex's of the 28Si states involved in the two resonances would indicate an even lower energy for the 1317 resonance. In discussing the situation I choose to look primary at the differences between the two resonance energies, in the work of various authors. (Theoretically, comparing ratios might be more correct; but mathematically the difference is minor.) I use here un-recalibrated values. Ref. Er (eV) delta Er (eV) 78Ma23 1317 140( 70) -> 325 260( 80) 94Br37 1316 860( 30) 325 112( 34) 90En02 [1316 674(112)] <- 324 820(100) (from Eg's) 83Ra04 1316 319(224) -> 324 489(240) (via 35S S(n) of 83Ra04) 83Ra04 1316 485(207) -> 324 575(220) (via 35S S(n) of 85Ke08) 78Ma23 calibrates with 991 880(40) which 70Ro07 gives as average with earlier results. For 94Br37 see remark above. The 83Ro04 results were derived as mentioned above. As to 90En02: their values Ex are 12541 310(140) and 12854 430(140) eV, difference 313 400(y). Calibration essentially 198Au; little effect on difference. The calculation of the resulting delta Er depends scarcely on the adopted standard value Er=991830. With the 94Br37 atomic excitation differences: 991830-24->Q=956 106; +313 400=1269 226-> Er=1316 630+44. About the error. 90En02 report statistical errors in Ex of 50 eV, and gives a formula for the contribution of the calibration energy corresponding to 70 eV for both excitation energies. Very probably, the calibration error in the energy difference is rather smaller. The error due to different positioning of the detector for the different measurements must be smaller too (no value is given). The rest of the errors are due to the energy differences between full energy and escape peaks not being exactly equal to the electron mass. Their contribution to the error in the difference should also be smaller. I conclude that an error 100 eV_90 is probably not too pessimistic. This energy difference is rather significantly smaller than follows from the measurements of 78Ma24 or 94Br37. The work on proton resonances of 83Ra04 is added to get more information. In calculating the delta Er for the two 83Ra04 items I used the value 991830 eV_90 for the "85Ke08" case; for the 83Ra04 one the value 991910 adopted by themselves. Their delta Er errors contain a considerable common part. Though the reason for the discrepancy is not clear, it seems significant that these values are even lower. After the above considerations, I propose following values for T: 991 830(50), 1316 780(90) and difference 324 950(100). III D. The 7Li(p,n)7Be threshold I find following values: Ref orig ; eV recal.,eV_90 61Ry05 1880 480(250) 1880 267(250) absolute, magn. 61Be13 1880 500(800) 1880 487(550) absolute, magn. 63Ga09 1879 800(300) 1879 906(300) abs. velocity, next too: 70Ro07 1880 612( 90) 1880 638(90) (90Wa.A used the first) 85Wh03 1880 443( 20) 1880 428(20) Recalibration 61Ry05: by ratio of present 210Po E(a) with their value. Best 2001 guess for T calibration:: 1880 500(100). Taking into account the corrections discussed in III B. the value necessary to derive Q is 1880 700(150) -> Q=-1644 420(150) AME95 accepted only the 85Wh03 result. This may be debatable, in view of the discussion on other Auckland results. Moreover, the used Q=-1644 181(17) has been derived without taking into account the corrections discussed in III B. N.B.: 65Ry01, in his (p,n) recalibrations, does not do so either, as his value for this case shows. III E. Light A=4n-2 cases, general These cases allow a dependable analysis, since the Hardy group 87Ko34 measured accurately the differences between Q(3He,t) reactions for 14N, 26Mg, 42Ca, 50Cr and 54Fe. These differences equal the Q(p,n) ones but are uncontaminated by the possibility of resonances near thresholds, and the necessary corrections in deriving Q-values from thresholds. Also, for 26Mg, 34S and 42Ca, it is possible to derive Q(p,n)'s by combining results of (n,g) and (p,g) reactions on 25Mg, 33S and 41Ca. Values for several relevant reactions have been reported by the Auckland group. As discussed above, it is important to judge, whether these values can be trusted within the stated accuracies. Absolute values for the mentioned (3He,t) reactions except 42Ca but plus 34S have been reported by 77Vo02. Though they are less accurate than the data first mentioned, I judged it worth while to make a least squares analysis with these data (appendix.) An earlier analysis of most of these data was made by Hardy et al, 90Ha13. They recalibrated several earlier reported Q-values; gave the result as Q+ values for super-allowed transitions. I calculated them back to Q(p,n)-values (appendix) which are compared below with the values I now propose as "best" ones. III F. 34S(p,n), 33S(p,g) and 33S(n,g) 33S(p,g) 83Wa27 5142 500(200) rcl 5142 400(300) ** Er 1069 700(200) 1118 500(300) 1264 400(200) 1347 300(200) Q(p)=-1037 991 -1085 345 -1226 914 -1307 354 clbr Er 27Al+p 78ENVA (?30 high??) clbr Ex with 6129 270(50) (130 high); values not mentioned; but since authors as 90Endt, can take his values: Ex=6180 400(300) 6227 800(300) 6369 300(300) 6449 800(300) Q(p,g)=5142 409(361) 5142 455(424) 5142 386(361) 5142 446(361) aver 5142 421(187) (rcl: -100) 83Ra04 Q=5142 360(200) rcl 5142 420(200) ** (Orig "Gold st" see below discusion their S S(n)'s). 94Li20 Q=5143 290(70) rcl no change but error 200 see below. Raman reports a difference -17080(150) eV_90 with the 27Al+p standard. Their combination gives 991 690 (160) for the latter (see table above), in stead of the value 991 910(30) used by 83Ra02. I calculate: Er=991 830(50)-17080(150)-30=974720 ->Q(p)=-945 822(158) eV_90. (-30=atomic exc. corr.) With their Eg vs 16O difference: E(g)=6129 140(20)-41500(100)=6087 640 -> Ex=6088 243 ->S(p)=5142 421(188) In 33S(p,g)34Cl, Auckland, 94Li20, measures three resonances. Their lowest is 974 610(40) (they quote 90Wa22, I assume unit is eV_90). Agrees not badly with 83Ra04. For this resonance they find a ground-state transition at an energy 40 780(80) eV lower than the 16O line; thus E(g)=6088 360(82) and Ex=6088 929(83). In comparing with 83Ra04's value 41 500(100) eV for the energy difference, 94Li20 say "the discrepancy ... is hard to account for". Their own value is supported by the fact, that it agrees quite well with their two values for S(p) derived from the two other resonances. In measuring Ex for them, 94Li20 check the linearity with 79He19 values for 56Co and 108Agm gamma rays; but say that all energies "are on the 90Wa22 gold standard". Results for the lower energy gamma's: Ex=6640 970(40) and 7079 000(40)eV_90. In measurements in Florence they find 6640 970(30) eV_90, calibrating with the 6129153(30) eV 16O line (13 eV higher than 90Wa22). I find no reason for a recalibration change. It is unpleasant that their value is 850 higher than the agreeing ones of 83Wa27 and 83Ra04. 33S(n,g) 83Ra04 rcl 11417 120(100) see Section II E. 34S(p,n) 77Ba16 Q=-6274 270(560) ->T=6460 940(570) ((90Ha13 corrects to Q=-6274 093(550) -> T=6460 748(560)) 92Ba.A,W T=6459 760(230) / both Auckland: 94Li20 "Disturbed by resonance; at least 500 uncertain". 77Vo02 Q=-6274 563(400) ->T=6461 240(412) (3He,t), appendix AHW00c, from (n,g)-(p,g): 83Ra08 Q=-6274 700(213) ->T=6461 370(220) Raman 94Li20 Q=-6273 830(122) ->T=6460 480(126) Auckland AME95 accepts for Q(p,g) only 94Li20. AHW is very loth to believe that 83Ra08 could be that far wrong. III G. 26Mg(p,n), 25Mg(n,g) and 25Mg(p,g) 25Mg(p,g) 85Be17 Er= 316 160(110) and 389 240(110). (orig. values) clbr 19F 83AjSe; 23Na, 24,26Mg, 27Al 78Endt; 63Ry04 correct with 991830/991880: Er= 316 144(110) and 389 220(110) Q(p)=-303 899(105) -374 142(105). 82Al19 Ex=6610 367( 34) 6680 495(56) from their Table 2 clbr 79Gr01 thus 411 804.4 (compares with 16O too.) 86En04 Ex=6610 400(60), 6680 450(70) clbr 66Ga 88En01 thus 411 804.4 too Adopt 6610 370(40) 6680 450(50), thus Q(p,g)=6306 471(110) 6306 308(110) av. 6306 390(110) ** 91Ki04 Q=6306 400(80) rcl 6306 380(80) ** (viz. 6078 090(80)+ 228 305=6306 400(80).) Diff's with 27Al+p of 78Ma24, latter corr. to 991 860(30) 27Al+p 773 620(40) 922 940( 50) 1025 270(50) 1171 820(60) difference +1 188(20) +5 004( 19) - 192(11) -7 881(29) Er 774 810(40) 927 940( 50) 1025 080(50) 1163 940(70) Qp-744 785 -891 976 -985 348 -1118 821 Ex 7051 220(70) 7198 440(120) 7291 700(110) 7425 120(90) Q(p,g) 6306 435(81) 6306 464(130) 6306 352(121) 6306 399(114) Ex of 86En04 clbr 66Ga see sctn I $5a; but 91Ki (Utrecht too) makes above corrections to old 7291 330(90) and 7425 070(70) (NB: no corrections for atomic excitation.) The agreement is satisfactory. Combination with (n,g) gives value below marked "extra". Q-values for 26Mg(p,n) 69De27 -4787 040(480) eV (Utrecht) 75Fr.A -4786 190(1540)eV (Freeman) T=5209400(1600) to 228 305 84Ba.A -4785 660(220) eV (Auckland; replaced by next) \ level 94Br11 -4786 250(120) eV_90 (Auckland) T=5209460(120) to 228 305 98Ba83 -4785 980(180) eV_90 (Auckland) T(N(p,n)+difference) "extra" -4786 750( 79) eV (25Mg(p,g)-25Mg(n,g) ) same -4786.525( 43) eV_90 with 02Fr.A 26Mg-24Mg 77Vo02 -4786 760(600) eV (3He,3H) see appendix 69De27: diff. 1430 670(450) recoil corrected between E(g) at 25Mg+p Er=434 850(120) 85Be17 with 25Mg(n,g) to 2938 380(100) level 90Endt. 90Ha13 corrects to -4786 748( 500) 75Fr.A clbr 212Bi,Po(a) 6090 087; 8784 370 (1998: 6089 880, 8784 950); therefore not recalibrated. This paper discusses and corrects several older cases; see appendix. 90Ha13 corrects to -4786 248(1 500) III H. The matter of 14N(p,n) and 26Mg(p,n). The difference between the most recent Auckland values for Q(p,n) of 26Mg and 14N is 1139 154(107). N.B. The new Auckland 03To.1 14N result makes it 1140 430(208). Both differ uneasily from the 87Ko34 difference 1139 430(130) eV_90 between the 26Mg and 14N(3He,t) Q-values. (87Ko34 in fact finds a difference 81 690(130) eV for the transition to the 26Al state at 1057 740(23) eV (82Al19; see 16O gamma; 1057 731(12) (87Ko33, orig 1057 739(12) clbr. 79Gr01) and that to the 14O ground-state.) The Auckland difference becomes 1139 030(128), even worse, if a correction for atomic excitation is made in the 14N case (see below). And both Auckland values are much lower than the ones marked "extra", which for 26Mg is a combination of 25Mg(n,g) and 25Mg(p,g) (two well agreeing valus for each, see III G; correction for atomic excitation in the (p,g) case may shift this by about 50 eV) and for 14N it and the 87Ko34 difference. An early analysis of the situation is given by 90Ha13, who as said recalibrated earlier values. Auckland 94Br11 changes it! The mass difference 14N-12C is known with 1 eV precision from Penning trap mass measurements. Combined with experimental values for the 12C(3He,n)14O threshold T, some values (below) are derived for the 14N(p,n)14O Q-value (NB! no electron excitation correction included; maybe +30 eV). T(12C(3He,n)14O) Ref orig. eV recal (eV_90) -> Q(3He,n) Q(p,n) (eV_90) 61Bu04 1436 200(900) 1435 099(748) -1146 852(718) -5925 625(718) 62Ba26 1437 500(700) 1437 292(559) -1148 614(559) -5927 378(559) 70Ro07 1437 900(600) 1437 800(479) -1149 014(479) -5927 828(479) 73Cl12 (=75Fr.A) T(14N(p,n))=6355 600(1600)-> -5927 856(1500) 81Wh03 T(14N(p,n))=6352 970(80) -> -5925 404( 75) Auck 98Ba83 T*(14N(p,n))=6353 080(70) -> -5925 410(110) Auck new 87Ko34 difference + 26Mg(p,n) "94Br11" -5925 680(152) 87Ko34 difference + 26Mg(p,n) "extra" -5926 180(152) 77Vo02 Q(14N(3He,t))=-5161 300(800) -> -5925 063(800) 61Bu04 clbrated with 3H(p,n) T=1019 700(500) now 1018 918(2) (90Ha13 makes it 5925 733(600). ???) 62Ba26 T clbr. 7Li(p,n) T=1880 700(400) rcl with 1880 428(20) but see section III D: may be low (!). (90Ha13 makes it 5927 433(600).) 70Ro07 absolute measurement (90Ha13 rclbr 84AME masses -> 5927 933(500).) 77Wh.1 not used. If as 77Wh03, clbr 212Bi(a) (90Ha13 makes it 5925 833(400).) 81Wh03 Auck T=6353 040(80) corrected for 2 effects; if also for excitation of final atom see III B: -133(70) (Q=5925 280(99) Recalibration: new fund. constants; see 80Ba.B (not yet done) 98Ba83 T* is T for calibr. not for calculation Q(p,n). Recipy:" reduce (T) by 15 ppm, increase attr. error by 70 eV ... and 10 ppm for energy measrmnt syst effects". III I. 42Ca(p,n), 41Ca(n,g and 41Ca(p,g) In the analysis of 77Vo02 (3He,t) data, appendix, this value is the only one that disagrees with other, dependable results. Here: 41Ca(n,g) 89Ki11 11480 660(60) rcl 11480 630(52) clbr 13C=4946 340(50) 15N=10833 300(30) 41Ca(p,g) 89Ki11 Er=1836 930(149) 41Ca(p,g)42Scr-40Ca()41Scr deltaE(p)=5 730(50) (->delta Q(p)=-6 670(50) OK) 40Ca(p,g)41Sc Q=1085 095(94), see below 87Zi02 41Scr Ex=2882 430(100) rcl 2882 390(100) clbr 56Co Utr 89Ki11 41Scr Ex=2882 300( 60) rcl 2882 260( 60) av 2882 294(51) clbr D 2224 570(10) thus to 41Scr Q(p)=-1797 199(107) Er=1842 556(109) to 42Sc T=1848 286(120) Q(p)=-1803 873(117) 89Ki11 Ex 6076 410(80) rcl 6076 330(80) ->Q=4272 457(142) clbr 79He19 ess 411 804.41 AME95 Q=4272 410(120) 42Ca(p,n) 89Ki11 combination: -7208 220(128) 77Vo02 from 42Ca(3He,t) -7206 062(400) Conclusion. In view of the agreement of other 77Vo02 results, the discrepancy is unpleasant; but it is difficult to distrust the Utrecht (p,gamma) results. III J. 34S(p,g) and the 35S(B-) puzzle Discrepancies exist between measured values for S(n) and Q- of 35S and S(p) of 35Cl. The latter is calibratedf wityh the 1317 keV resonance of 27Al+p, for which the values do not agree nicely either. The values for Q- are not statistically compatible (discussed in AME95): 57Co62* 167 400(200) mgn.sp. cal. ThC 85Al11* 166 800(150) mgn.ifr 85Ap01 167 290( 30) mgn. sp. Error 4;30 (stat. ;syst) 85Ma59* 166 930(200) mgn.ifr. clbr. 139Ce 85Oh06 167 400(100) semicnd. Error not given; guess AHW 89Si04* 166 700(200) semicnd. Finds 17 keV neutrino 92Ch27 167 560( 30) mgn. sp. Two values;other: " * 167 550( 40) 93Ab11 167 350(100) semicnd. Error not given; this my guess 93Be21 167 228(100) mgn. sp. Error 9;100 93Mo01 167 270(100) semicnd. Error 5;100 95Bo43 167 600( 50) semicnd. No comment on high value. I propose not to use the values marked * (89Si04 reports evidence for a 17 keV neutrino now known not to exist; 57Co62 old, larger error; 85Al11 and 85Ma54 considerably lower than all remaining others). Weighted average of the remaining 7 167 322(18*2.52) (2.52=Re/Ri) Unweighted average 167 385(56) AME95's "unweighted average" 167 222(95) I propose to raise the errors of 85Ap01 and 92Ch to 100 -> 167 450(32*1.92) and adopt this with error 60 in the further discussions. Combining 34S(p,g) below with 34S(n,g) (see II F) of 83Ra04 167 048(205) of 85Ke08 167 208(210) 34S(p,g) 83Ra04 (from S(n) and Q-) Q=6371 103(117) 85Ke08 (from S(n) and Q-) 6370 943( 78) 76Sp08 6371 600(400) rcl 6370 700(400) ** Er 925 100(100) 2791 000(400) rcl 925 053 2790 859 clbr 991 880(40) 78ENVA Qp= -898 410 -2710 381 Ex 7270 300(500) 9082 600(1 100) rcl 7269 224(458) 9081 256 Q= 6370 814(460) 6370 875(1 170) clbr 56Fe(n,g) 7632 200(200) 7646 600(200) now Eg 7631 064(100) 7645 475(100) ->Q=6370 822(428*0.05) ** (Auth Q=6370 600(400) 90Endt : quite different data for the first resonance; for second Ex=9081 000(200), ref 81Bi05 -> Q=6370 719(450) 83Ra04 Q=6370 400(240) rcl Q=6370 699(204) ** (Orig. "Gold st" see discusion their S S(n)'s). See below. 83Ra04 sees Er -52110(100) below the 1317 27Al+p line, E(g) 293910(150) below 16O calibration line; thus (including 44 eV electron excn corrction): Er=1316780(90)-52110(100)-44 ->Er=1264626 ->Q(p)=-1228 193(131) eV_90. E(g)=6129140(20)-293910(150) ->E(g)=5835230 -> Q(g)=5835 753(151) eV_90. to level Ex=1763 150(40) eV (Endt1990) Au recal 1763 149 eV_90 Thus Ex=7598.902(156) -> S(p)=6370.699(204)check The agreement is not perfect (see above) but rather better than in AME95. III K. The 65Zn-65Cu and 71Ge problem An unpleasant difference exists between the 65Zn-65Cu mass difference derived from 6 excellently agreeing experimental E+ endpoints, yielding an average average E(B+)=324 820(1 086*0.64); and the value from 6 equally well agreeing values from (p,n) measurements. One might suspect, that the latter results are affected by a possible proton resonance. This could not affect the 89Sc24 PTB result: it is derived from TOF(n) if bombarded with a pulsed beam. But the average -2133 402(746*1.22) of the 5 others agrees with it. I have difficulty in believing that all measured E+ endpoints could be that far off; but it is also hard to think that the (p,n) results could be all wrong. Provisionally: accept the latter results. 65Cu(p,n) 56Ma14 Q=-2132 200(1 500) 65Ry01 rcl to Q=-2131 400(1 400) ->T=2164 493(1 379) 57Be44 T=2223 000(+2000-3000) say 2222 500(2 500) Ex from NDS936. clbr 1 7Li 1881 000, now 1880 500 rcl T=2221 909(2 500) ->Q=-2134 009(2 461) (65Ry01 rcl's Q=-2135 000(3 000) to -2134 000(3 000).) 63Ok01 T=2168 400(1 800) no rcl -> Q=-2135 248(1 772) clbr 7Li, 13C, 19F+p; values practically modern (65Ry01 rcl's 300 downward.) 64Jo11 T=2169 000(1 700) rcl 2168 760 ->Q=-2135 620(1 700) clbr see appendix 69Ov01 T=2168 000(800) rcl 2167 739(800) ->Q=-2134 608(788) see appendix rcl 76Fr13 89Sc24 Q=-2133 550(430) -> T=2166 670(440) PTB clbr 27Al+p Er's see 45Sc(p,n) 85Sc16. Q(p,n)=-2129 165(1 087)->T(p,n)=2162 222(1 070) from E+ 84Ko10 -2136 987( 929) -> T=2170 166( 944) from 71Ge data At a certain time, when there was a considerable interest in Q+(71Ge), its difference with Q+(65Zn) was measured: 84Ko10 found 1122 000(900). (In fact, it is the difference between Q(3He,3H) values; but that is the same.) Later, 3 well agreeing direct measurements gave an average Q+(71Ge)=232 640(230). Combination gives the "84Ko10" 65Cu(p,n)-value above, which differes even more from the E+ derived value! The conclusion seems unescapable, that the 84Ko10 result is at least some four estimated errors high, and should not be accepted. IV. Systematic overview (n,g) Q-value determinations 2003-07 We obtained many values from Firestone-Molnar 03Fi.A. Calibration with 35Cl, they mention 81Ke02. Two points. The 10 ppm systematic error of 81Ke02 was not taken into account; reason may be that they plan to recalibrate 35Cl(n,g). Below I entered the data AS GIVEN. That means that I alsa did not correct for the fact that above I reduced the 81Ke02 result by 8 ppm. But their 14N(n,g) is 2 ppm high. For bookkeeping copy: I earlier made choices about the way to accept experimental data; now comparing them with the 03Fi.A result gave me reasons to change some of them. 46Ti(n,g) 8880.5 0.3 8880.243 0.286 ama0710 with 03Fi.A 50Cr(n,g) 9260.63 0.10 9260.633 0.100 64Zn(n,g) 979.28 0.08 7979.286 0.080 71Ga(n,g) 6520.44 0.14 ........ 76Ge(n,g) 6072.3 0.4 ........ 78Se(n,g) 6963.11 0.07 ........ 83Kr(n,g) 10520.60 0.25 10520.599 0.250 85Rb(n,g) 8650.98 0.13 8650.992 0.129 87Rb(n,g) 6082.52 0.13 6082.519 0.130 96Zr(n,g) 5575.1 0.4 5575.168 0.398 .2 without Fi 5583.3(4.4) 106Pd(n,g) 107Ag(n,g) 7271.41 0.10 Without 85Ma54 input, output agrees with 03Fi.A 109Ag(n,g) 6808.20 0.11 6809.200 0.100 Fi not used 110Pd(n,g) 5726.3 0.4 ........ 115In(n,g) 9563.55 0.10 9563.413 0.110 Fi not used 122Te(n,g) 6929.16 0.12 6929.145 0.299 Fi not used 126Te(n,g) 6287.8 0.4 6287.839 0.400 131Xe(n,g) 8936.65 0.15 8936.620 0.150 176Yb(n,g) 5566.40 0.20 ........ 176Hf(n,g) 6385.8 0.8 6385.742 0.757 bad cases: 94Zr(n,g) The 105 keV discrepancy with "Audi" is alarming. The "Audi" item is essentially due to the 1979 Brookhaven Conference report of Kenny, Stelts and Chrien ( dependable Brookaven people) who measured 2 and 24 keV neutron capture. They give ONLY the resulting Q(n)'s, for 91,92,94Zr. Their values for the first two agree with 03Fi.A. The 94Zr result 6462.3 keV is emphatically said to agree with the earlier derived value 6475(5). Could value 6357.8 of 03Fi.A be misprint for 6457.8? 94Zr(n,g)95Zr 6357.8 0.3 6464.317 1.780 no (n,g) input used !!! 124Te(n,g) Difference 6569.39(0.14) with new 99Ho01 6568.97(0.03) much less but still not perfect 124Te(n,g)125Te 6569.39 0.15 6568.970 0.030 133Cs(n,g) 150 eV diff with two good earlier errors <30 ?? 133Cs(n,g)134Cs 6891.391 0.07 6891.540 0.014 151Eu(n,g) 400 diff with ILL value error 100 151Eu(n,g)152Eu 6307.11 0.09 6306.719 0.100 155Gd(n,g) 350 eV diff with McMaster error 70 155Gd(n,g)156Gd 8536.04 0.13 8536.391 0.070 163Dy(n,g) 03Fi (error 0.9) 3 keV lower than two others errors 0.07 163Dy(n,g)164Dy 7655.0 0.9 7658.612 0.364 175Lu(n,g) 200 eV diff withj ILL result both errors 200 175Lu(n,g)176Lu 6289.78 0.21 6287.983 0.150 194Pt(n,g) bad for the Hg matter! 194Pt(n,g)195Pt 6109.17 0.07 6105.044 0.120 203,205Tl(n,g) The discrepancy is with McMaster 74Co21. Remarkably the ratio's of the values of the two groups is the same! Conclusion .....? 203Tl(n,g)204Tl 6654.88 0.07 6656.094 0.291 205Tl(n,g)206Tl 6502.87 0.25 6503.817 0.385 204Pb(n,g) diff. is with 83Hu13. Remarkably, their values for 207Pb(n,g) agree. 204Pb(n,g)205Pb 6731.80 0.11 6731.549 0.149 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 2D(n,g)3T 79Br25 6257 270(200) rcl 6256 957(274) only one Eg in magn. spctrmtr. See appendix 6Li(n,g) 85Ko47 7250 020(90) rcl 7249 978(90) ** clbr. Cl+n of 82Kr12 03Fi.A 7249 940( 40) "U": ama0308 7249 980( 90) 7Li(n,g) 74Ju.A 2032 780(150) clbr etc. no details 91Ly01 rcl 2032 770(180) no original S(n) clbr.C+n 1261 760(30)->1261 788 H+n 2223 250(20)->same. Eg (no recoil) 980 600(200) 1052 000(200) 2032 500(300) Corr recal, recoil 980 675(200) 1052 085(200) 2032 776(300) 72Co09 980 800(100) level (says Ex). Avrg combined with 1052: 2032 760(219). Average 2032 766(177) 03Fi.A 2032 570(40) "U": ama0308 2032 780(120) !! 9Be(n,g) 66Gr18 6811 900(400) rcl 6812 120(400) see Na+n 81Ke02 6812 080(100) rcl same clbr N+n 80Gr12 86Ke14 6812 370(60) rcl 6812 330(60) ** clbr N+n 83Co09. Same authors as 81Ke02. 03Fi.A 6812 100( 30) "U" ama0308 6812. 330( 60) 10B(n,g) 86Ko19 11454 100(200) rcl same clbr N+n 10833 296 No improvement from use better Ex 03Fi.A 11454 150( 40) "U": ama0308 11454 100(200) 12C(n,g) 67Pr10 Sn=4946 470(170), also Eg=3683 940(170) clbr 24Mg+n, Pb+n, 60Ni(Bg) of 65Mu03 Used by some for calibration 79Br25 4946 760(270) rcl 4946 513(308) only one Eg in magn. spctrmtr. See appendix 03Fi.A 4946 311( 3) "U" ama0308 4946 306( 1) 13C(n,g) 67Th05 Eg 6093 000(2 000) to 2083 000 lvl S(n)=8176 000 above 8176 435.5(3.9) 03Fi.A 68176 610(180) "U": ama0308 8176 435( 4) 16O(n,g) 77Mc05 4143 240(300) rcl 4143 240(233) E(g)=1087 880(170)+2184 470(120)+870 890(220) clbr C+n N+n gives no values 93Tilley for sum last two 3055 360(160) Happens to be same value, though latter 870 730(100)! 03Fi.A 4143 060(100) "U": ama0308 4143 290(210) 17O(n,g) 03Fi.A 8043 500(1 000) "U": ama0308 8044 230(780) 19F(n,g) 83Hu12 6601 330(140) rcl 6601 280(140) ** clbr n+Al,Cl; n+Na(83Hu11) 87Ke09 6601 360( 50) rcl 6601 320( 50) clbr several a.o. Si+n; says "error includes 20 uncertainty in N+n S(n)" 96Ra04 6601 350(40) rcl 6601 337(40) clbr D=N, C=N of 90Wa22. Correction -2 ppm error incl. "new standard", 6 ppm for C 03Fi.A 6601 310( 50) "U": ama0308 6601 330( 30) 20Ne(n,g) 67Jo15 6760 000(3 000) rcl 6760 500(1 500) clbr no data AHW994 avr 2 Eg+Ercl+Ex(90Endt) 6760 473(1 541*0.22) 70Se14 6760 800(1 500) rcl 6760 ...(1 500) clbr .... AHW994 avr 2 Etr+Ex(90Endt) 6760 662(1 662*0.21) (NB! the third primary Eg is double,86Pr05) 86Pr05 6761 160(40) rcl same ** clbr N+n(86Ke14) 03Fi.A 6761 190( 50) "U": ama0308 6761 160( 40) 21Ne(n,g) 86Pr05 10364 400(300) no rcl in Qfile clbr see 20Ne(n,g) 03Fi.A 10364 900(400) "U": ama0308 10364 260( 40) Mass sp (22Ne-20Ne)-20Ne(n,g) 10364 276(44) 86Pr05 10364 246(54) 03Fi.A 22Ne(n,g) 86Pr05 5200 650(120) rcl same ** clbr see 20Ne(n,g) 03Fi.A 5200 640(170) "U": ama0308 5200 650(120) 23Na(n,g) 66Gr18 rcl 6959 215(400) from Eg=6395 100(400) to Ex see below (used for calibration) clbr: diverse. Finds 16O 6128 900(400) 74Gr37 6959 410(120) rcl 6959 500(120) Differences 54 990(70), 83 910(70) and 72 980(50) with N+n 5562, 5533, 6322 lines; combined with 1999 values E(g)=5617 031(70), 5617.290(70), 6395 385(50) As dicussed by 80Gr12 and confirmed by 83Hu11, the 5562 keV line is a triplet; we should not use the two discrepant values for it. With recoil 915 and 90Endt's value 563 200 for final state value rcl above. 80Gr12 6959 426(76) rcl 6959 457(76) (PrvCom authors to 83Ti02 says recoil correction wrong; should be: 6959 463(76).) This result is based on same comparison as 74Gr37 83Hu11 6959 730(140) rcl 6959 673(140) ** Clbr Al+n(82Sc14) Cl+n(82Kr12) Auth. know differ. with 80Gr12 but give no comment 83Ti02 6959 420( 80) no rcl see 80Gr12 Calbr Na+n of 80Gr12; not essentially different 03Fi.A 6959 592( 15) "U": ama0308 6959 570( 90) CALIBRATION LINE (e.g. for 199Hg(n,g) 74Gr37 Eg=6395 385(50) 83Hu11 Eg=6395 630(70) NB: error S(n) (140)!! AHW98a proposes: take average S(n)=6959 573(91*0.94) -E(level)=563 200(3)-Ercl 915 ->6395 458(90) 24,25,26Mg(n,g) see paragraph II D. 27Al(n,g) see paragraph IB. 03Fi.A 6761 190( 5) "U": ama0308 7725 090( 70) 28Si(n,g) 74Sp04 8473 600(600) forget 90Is02 8473 610(40) rcl same ** clbr N+n(86Ke14) 92Ra19 8473 560(40) rcl 8473 549(40) ** clbr 90Wa22 esp C+n 4945 303 97Ro26 8473 550.9(0.5) rcl 8473 600(30) clbr N+n; error see remark on their H+n result Sctn I 03Fi.A 8473 537( 23) "U": ama0308 8473 590( 20) 29Si(n,g) 90Is02 10609 210(40) rcl same ** clbr see 28Si(n,g) 92Ra19 10609 240(50) rcl 10609 226(50) ** clbr see 28Si(n,g) 97Ro26 10609 177.6(0.5) see 28Si(n,g) rcl 10609 239(30) 03Fi.A 10609 230( 30) "U": amaq0308 10609 230( 20) 30Si(n,g) 90Is02 6587 320(200) rcl same ** clbr see 28Si(n,g) 92Ra19 6587 400( 50) rcl 6587 391( 50) ** clbr see 28Si(n,g) 97Ro26 6587 397.0(0.5) see 28Si(n,g) rcl 6587 435(30) 03Fi.A 6587 390( 30) "U": ama0308 6587 420( 30) 31P(n,g) 85Ke11 7935 740(160) rcl 7935 733(160) ** clbr N+n(83Co09) 89Mi16 7935 700(40) rcl 7935 653(40) ** clbr Cl+n(82Kr12) NB!! AME interchanged the two values!! 03Fi.A 7935 596( 23) "U": ama0308 7935 650( 40) 32,33,34,36S(n,g) see paragraph IIC. 35Cl(n,g) see paragraph IB. 36Ar(n,g) 68Wi25 8791 100(240) (error stat. only?) clbr N+n(Bellmann Thesis Kiel); not available see value form masses below! 70Ha56 8789 400(1 200) rcl 8788 829(1 131) ** clbr. N+n(69Jo.A) Mass data 36Ar and 37Cl with 37Cl(p,n) -> 8787.41(0.22) 03Fi.A 8789 900(900) "U": ama0309 8787 420(210) 37Cl(n,g) 73Sp06 6107 700(80) rcl 6107 840(300) error ->400 for "syst" part. clbr n+N,F,56Fe,207Pb values table 1, for n+N average 23 pm low (56Fe as much high) 81Ke02 6107 850(100) rcl 6107 955(100) ** clbr see their Cl+n AHW995 unwtt avr 2 Eg+Ercl+Ex(90Endt) 6108.022(42) 03Fi.A 6107 730( 90) "U": ama0308 6107 950(100) 39K(n,g) 84Vo01 7799 550(80) rcl 7799 505(80) ** clbr Cl+n(82Kr12) 03Fi.A 7799 558( 14) "U": ama0308 7799 500( 80) 40Ar(n,g) 70Ha56 6098 900(800) rcl 6098 404(680) ** clbr N+n(69Jo.A) 03Fi.A 6090 100(400) "U": ama0308 6098 400(590) 40K(n,g) 84Kr05 10095 250(100) rcl 10095 190(100) ** clbr 82Kr12=Cl+n 03Fi.A 10095 255( 15) "U": ama0308 10095 170( 90) 40Ca(n,g) 69Ar.A 8364 300(500) rcl 8362 950(400) ** clbr N+n(69Jo.A) AHW996 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(90Endt) 8363 494(353*0.82) 70Cr04 8362 100(500) rcl 8362 532(500) ** clbr 53Cr(68Wh03) see analysis there AHW996 avr 6 Eg+Ercl+Ex(90Endt) 8362.937(254*0.50) 80Is02 8362 720(232) see appendix 03Fi.A 8362 860(50) "U": ama00308 8362 710(210) 41K(n,g) 85Kr06 7533 820(150) rcl 7533 776(150) ** clbr Cl+n(82Kr12) 03Fi.A 7935 596(23) "U": ama0308 7533 780(150) 41Ca(n,g) 89Ki11 11480 660(60) rcl 11480 630(52) ** clbr C+n 4946 340(50) N+n 10833 300(30) 42Ca(n,g) 69Ar.A 7932 900(1 000) rcl 7933 078(500) ** clbr see 40Ca(n,g) AHW996 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(90Endt) 7933 594(353*0.63) 69Gr08 7932 700(500) rcl 7933 143(438) ** clbr C+n 4945 020(150) 71Bi.A 7933 100(400) UCRLA-51060 ?? 03Fi.A 7932 730(160) "U": ama0308 7933 080(260) !! 43Ca(n,g) 69Ar.A 11131 300(500) rcl 11130 576(400) clbr see 40Ca(n,g) AHW996 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(90Endt) 11131 591(354*0.42) 72Wh02 11130 600(700) rcl 11130 129(700) clbr as 70Cr04 40Ca(n,g) 03Fi.A 11131 540(180) "P" ama0308 44Ca(n,g) 69Ar.A 7415 300(1 000) rcl 7414 849(400) ** clbr see 40Ca AHW996 avr 7 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS921) 7415 331(378*0.40) 80Is02 7414 829(227) see appendix 03Fi.A 7414 790(150) "U": ama0308 7414 780(300) 45Sc(n,g) 80Li07 8760 500(300) rcl 8760 612(300) clbr Cl+n of 78St25 "errors include syst part 200 eV" AHW994 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS932) 8760 709(109*0.63) 82Ti02 8760 770(140) rcl 8760 583(140) clbr Cl+n of 78St25 AHW994 avr 8 Etr+Ex(NDS932) 8760 679(35*1.17) 03Fi.A 8760 7745( 20) "U": ama0308 8760 580(140) 46Ca(n,g) 70Cr04 7276 000(500) rcl 7277 358(600) ** see 40Ca(n,g) AHW996 avr 4 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS865) 7277.711(204*2.76) 03Fi.A 7276 100(300) "U": ama0308 7277 410(600) !!!! 46Ti(n,g) 69Te01 8884 000(7 000) rcl 8875 100(3 000) clbr Cl+n 8584 000(6 000) AHW994 avr 6 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS74,1) 8879 600(2 040*0.59) Just for test old value. AME95 8877 000(1 000) 03Fi.A 8880 500(300) "P" 47Ti(n,g) 80Is02 11626 388(305) see appendix 84Ru06 11626 660(40) rcl 11626 650(40) ** cal N+n(80Gr12) 03Fi.A 11626 657( 14) "U": ama0308 11626 650( 40) 48Ca(n,g) 69Ar.A 5146 600(1 000) rcl 5146 566(700) ** clbr as 40Ca(n,g) AHW996 avr 2 Eg+Ercl+Ex(69Ar.A) 5146 500(700) 70Cr04 gamma's 5146 600(300) rcl 5146 382(500) ** clbr as 40Ca(n,g) 03Fi.A 5146 480(210) "U": ama0308 5146 410(280) 48Ti(n,g) 80Is02 8142 222(215) see appendix 83Ru08 8142 410(30) rcl 8142 389(30) ** clbr N+n(82Va13=10833 308(35) abv) "after corr. for 0.9 ppm higher S(n)" AHW999 avr 8 Eg+Etr 8142 422(8*2.1) 03Fi.A 8142 351( 14) "U": ama0308 8142 390( 30) 49Ti(n,g) 80Is02 10939 595(289) see appendix 84Ru06 10939 200(40) rcl 10939 189(40) ** see 47Ti(n,g) 03Fi.A 10939 201( 13) "U": ama0308 10939 190( 40) 50Ti(n,g) 71Ar39 6372 400(1 400) rcl 6372 256(1 200) ** AHW98c avr 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS916) 6372 670(447*0.96) clbr N+n(69Jo.A) About decreased error: see also agreement their 64Ni with later value 76Jo01 from (d,p), 6372 100(1 200) 03Fi.A 6372 600(600) "U": ama0308 6372 280(850) 50V(n,g) 78Ro03 11051 400(100) rcl 11051 179(100) ** clbr N+n(71Be34) 91Mi08 11051 110(170) rcl 11051 046(170) ** clbr Cl+n(82Kr12) 03Fi.A 11051 142( 24) "U": ama0308 11051 150( 90) 50Cr(n,g) 80Is02 9261 711(257) see appendix 03Fi.A 9260 630(80) "P" 51V(n,g) 84De15 7311 200(500) clbr S+n no ref no value 91Mi08 7311 220(260) rcl 7311 178(260) clbr see 50V(n,g) 03Fi.A 7311 273( 15) "U": ama0308 7311 180(230) 52Cr(n,g) 80Is02 7939 524(229) see appendix 80Ko01 7939 100(200) rcl 7939 006(200) clbr Fe+n 78St25 errors statist "add syst error 15(20)ppm " AHW994 avr 4 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS909) 7039.077(51*1.97) 03Fi.A 7939 100(230) "U": ama0308 7939 130(160) 53Cr(n,g) see paragraph IIC. 54Cr(n,g) 72Wh05 6246 300(400) rcl 6246 200(400) clbr 53Cr+n see paragraph IC. AHW994 avr 7 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS934) 6245 327(194*0.69) 03Fi.A 6246 280(170) "U": ama0308 6246 200(400) 54Fe(n,g) 80Is02 9297 911(262) see appendix 03Fi.A .9298 530(190) "U": ama0308 9297 850(290) !!! 55Mn(n,g) 80Is02 7270 530(198) see appendix 03Fi.A 7270 419( 26) "U": ama0308 7270 530(300) 56Fe(n,g) 70Sp02 7645 900(600) (=68Sp01) replaced by 73Sp06: 71Va.A 7646 630(160) replaced by 73Sp06: 73Sp06 7646 000(200) rcl 7646 180(300) see 37Cl(n,g) 76Al16 7646 290(170) rcl 7646 097(172) ** clbr diff. with 7115 000 line in 16O. This by diff.: 6129 140(30)-36130(100)+2*510982=7114 974(104) Auth. has in error "100 folded in to allow for possible boot-strapping error." ->140.) 93Ti does not report other good result. Ex=7114 974(140)+19590(100)+510982+551 recoil 78St25 7646 030(81) rcl 7645 960(200) ** clbr see Al+n, Cl+n AME95 not used, lab BNn like 76Al. DO use: other group! AHW98b avr 7 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS92a) 7646 052(39*0.38) NB! E=4406 110 probably doublet; not used "an 200 eV absolute error should be added" 80Is02 7646 127(208) see appendix ** 80Ve05 7646 000(200) rcl 7645 931(150) ** clbr. N+n(75Sm02) 97Ro26 7646 095.5(0.5) see 28Si(n,g) rcl 7646 140( 30) average of ** cases 7646 025(88*0.55) new: 03Fi.A 7646 530(190) "U" 7646 140( 30) (AME95 S(n)=7646 027(104).) CALIBRATION LINES: to levels NDS923a gs Etr=7646 025(100) Eg=7645 475(100) 14 413( 1) 7631 612(100) 7631 064(100) 366.759( 7) 7279 266(100) 7278 767(100) 1627 256(24) 6018 769(100) 6018 428(100) 1725 380(30) 5920 645(100) 5920 315(100) 57Fe(n,g) 80Is02 10044 603(269) see appendix 03Fi.A 10044 650(149) "U": ama0308 10044 540(290) 58Fe(n,g) 73Sp06 6581 000(200) rcl 6581 150(300) ** see 37Cl(n,g) 80Ve05 6581 000(200) rcl 6580 941(200) ** clbr N+n(75Sm02) 03Fi.A 6581 020( 60) "U": ama0308 6581 010(170) 58Ni(n,g) 75Be.C 9000 000(500) rcl 8999 320(500) clbr 56Fe(n,g) of 71Va.A. Do not use! 75Wi06 8999 300(400) rcl 8999 371(300) ** clbr N+n 68Gr14 AHW98c avr 57 Etr+Ex(NDS938) 8999 895(213*3.92) omit one strongly deviating g: 8999 310(228*1.88) 77Is01 8999 910(200) rcl 8999 375(200) ** clbr N+n(74Is06) AHW98b avr 8 Etr+Ex(NDS938) 8999 555(88*0.98) NB!! Ref. table 2 says Etr. In their 74Is paper they give Eg not Etr. ???? 93Ha05 8999 150(230) rcl 8999 098(230) ** clbr Cl+n(82Kr12) Ex(93Ha05) practically same as NDS938 02Ra.A 8999 080(50) 03Fi.A 8999 151( 15) "U" ama0308 8999 280( 50) 59Co(n,g) 84Ko29 7491 920(80) rcl 7491 877(80) ** clbr Cl+n(82Kr12) 03Fi.A 7492 050( 30) "U": ama0308 7491 880( 80) 59Ni(n,g) 75Wi06 11386 700(700) rcl 11387 550(400) ** clbr see 58Ni(n,g) AHW98c avr 7 Etr+Ex(NDS935) 11387 450(172*1.01) 02Ra.A 11387 730(50) 60Ni(n,g) 75Be.C 7821 600(500) rcl 7821 010(500) clbr see 58Ni(n,g). Do not use! 75Wi06 7819 300(400) rcl 7820 218(400) ** clbr see 58Ni(n,g). Ex,Eg rcl AHW98c avr 2 Etr+Ex(NDS99b) 7820 218(312*1.26) 77Is01 7820 140(200) rcl 7819 956(200) ** clbr. etc. see 58Ni(n,g) AHW98b avr 7 Eg+Ex(NDS99b) 7819 956(83*0.78) Here, Etr and (!) Ex rcl 93Ha05 7820 070(200) rcl 7820 024(200) ** clbr see 58Ni(n,g). Ex-NDS99b small 02Ra.A 7820 120(50) 03Fi.A 7820 055( 21) "U" ama0308 7820 130( 50) 61Ni(n,g) 70Fa06 10596 200(1 500) 75Wi06 10594 600( 700) rcl 10595 830(700) ** clbr see 58Ni(n,g) AHW98c avr 8 Etr+Ex(NDS906) 10 596 308(370*2.97) without one strongly deviating 10 595 736(380*1.81) 03Fi.A 10595 600(300) "U": ama0308 10597 820(470) !!! 62Ni(n,g) 77Is01 6838 450(200) rcl 6838 043(200) ** clbr see 58Ni AHW98b avr 4 Eg+Ex(NDS91c) 6838 227(175*0.94) NB! Ex(NDS91c) indeed smaller than ref NB! other Ex(NDS91c) from (n,g) ) 92Ha21 6837 920(180) rcl 6873 880(180) ** see 63Ni(n,g) 03Fi.A 6837 890( 30) "U" ama0308 6837 750( 70) 63Ni(n,g) 75Wi06 9655 900(400) rcl 9657 308(400) ** clbr see 58Ni(n,g) AHW98c avr 2 Etr+Ex(NDS914) 9657 222(312*2.17) 92Ha21 9657 640(240) rcl 9657 584(240) ILL ** clbr Cl+n 82Kr12. Excellently documented! For test only, with two highest strongest Eg: AHW98c avr 2 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS914) 9657 720(112*0.48) 63Cu(n,g) 83De28 7916 090(120) rcl 7916 057(120) ** clbr Cl+n(78St25) AHW991 avr 8 Etr+Ex(NDS967) 7916 129(25*1.24) NB! No mention corr. recoil. If Eg not Etr: avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS967) 7916 585(25*1.92) Thus probably recoil included. See 65Cu(n,g) 03Fi.A 7916 140( 40) "U": ama0308 7915 970(120) 64Ni(n,g) 71Ar39 6098 900(1 500) rcl 6098 503(1 200) ** clbr see 50Ti(n,g) AHW98c avr 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS936) 6099 069(500*0.52) 77Is01 6098 220(200) rcl 6097 857(200) ** clbr see 58Ni(n,g) AHW98b avr 2 Eg+Ex(NDS936) 6098 200(140*0.00) (Other Ex(NDS936) rel. large errors) 03Fi.A 6098 260(140) "U": ama0308 6097 860(200) !! 64Zn(n,g) 71Ot01 7979 200(800) rcl 7979 263(700) ** clbr see 67Zn(n,g). No Eg given 75De.A 7979 500(700) rcl 7979 174(490) ** clbr Al+n 72Is13: -41ppm (no further details.) 03Fi.A 7979 280(70) "P" 65Cu(n,g) 83De29 7065 970(110) rcl 7065 767(120) ** clbr; corr. recoil see 63Cu(n,g) 83De28 AHW991 avr 8 Etr+Ex(NDS984) 7065 831(38*0.97) NB! No mention corr. recoil. If Eg not Etr: avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS984) 7066 172(38*0.63) Thus probably recoil included. See 63Cu(n,g) 03Fi.A 7066 130(40) "U": ama0308 7065 800(120) 66Zn(n,g) 71Ot01 7052 400(700) rcl 7052 456(600) ** clbr see 67Zn(n,g). No Eg given 75De.A 7052 800(600) rcl 7052 512(397) ** clbr see 64Zn(n,g) 03Fi.A 7052 500(300) "U": ama0308 7052 150(320) 67Zn(n,g) 71Ot01 10198 100(500) rcl 10198 182(400) ** clbr N+n (68Gr14) "which agrees with 67Pr10 12C+n" AHW00b N=n 8(60) ppm low (C+n 33(34) ppm high). AHW98c avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS95b) 10198 017(274*0.37) 03Fi.A 10198 06(70) "U": ama0308 10198 250(400) 68Zn(n,g) 71Ot01 6482 200(900) rcl 6482 252(800) ** clbr see 67Zn(n,g). 75De.A 6482 100(600) rcl 6481 836(442) ** clbr see 64Zn(n,g) 03Fi.A 6482 07(100) "U": ama0308 6482 000(400) 69Ga(n,g) 70Li04 7655 000(1 000) rcl 7653 940(1 000) clbr C,N+n no values (pc and unpublished); assume same correction as 71Ar12 (same authors) AHW98c avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS931) 7654 442(832*0.25) 71Ar12 7655 100(800) rcl 7654 027(1 000) clbr N+n(69Jo.A). Same authors as 70Li04 AHW98c avr 7 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS931) 7654 525(393*0.88) 71Ve03 7651 000(1 000) rcl 7651 560(1 000) clbr C+n 4945 460(170). Orig. S(n) highest Eg only AHW98c avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS931) 7651 809(353*1.22) AHW98c for 71Ga(n,g) too 71Ve03! much below 70Li04 03Fi.A 7653 650(80) "P" 70Ge(n,g) 72Gr34 7415 900(???) rcl 7416 420(1 000) clbr see 74Ge(n,g). Orig S(n) in fig only. Just for test (compare 74Ge(n,g) ): AHW98b unwtd avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS933) 7416 643(326) 91Is01 7415 950(150) rcl same ** clbr N+n 86Ke14 03Fi.A 7415 925( 23) "U": ama0308 7415 950(150) 71Ga(n,g) 70Li04 6521 000(1 000) rcl 6521 070(1 000) see 69Ga(n,g) AHW98c avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS94a) 6521 494(603*0.46) 71Ve03 6519 000(1 000) rcl 6519 840(1 000) See 69Ga(n,g) AHW98c avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS94a) 6520 056(354*0.89) AHW98c for 69Ga(n,g) too 71Ve03! much below 70Li04 AHW00a For both no more info from AME 03Fi.A 6520 440(140) "secundary" 72Ge(n,g) 72Gr34 6783 400(900) rcl 6783 075(1 000) clbr see 74Ge(n,g) AHW98b unwtd avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS938) 6783 279(193) Regular decreasing: from 66 000 to 1386 100 states: 6783 948 and 6782 214. Compare 74Ge(n,g) 72Ha74 6780 900(2 000) rcl 6781 600(800) (error orig. S(n)=that in separate Eg) clbr see 76Ge(n,g) AHW98c avr 6 Etr+Ex(NDS938) 6782 054(816*0.47) 91Is01 6782 940( 50) rcl rcl same ** clbr N+n 86Ke14 03Fi.A 6783 120( 60) "U": ama0308 6782 940( 50) 73Ge(n,g) 85Ho.A 10196 000(??) rcl 10195 900(150) ** ref is PrvCom to NDS876 who finds 10196 000 AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS876) 10195 900(14*1.39) Average of the 8 most intense primary g's assuming E=Eg. If Etr (for comparison): AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS876) 10195 500(14*1.86) 91Is01 10196 310( 70) rcl rcl same ** clbr N+n 86Ke14 03Fi.A 10196 057( 13) "U": ama0308 10196 230( 60) 74Ge(n,g) 72Gr34 6505 900(1 100) rcl 6504 540(1 000) clbr O 6129 500 Pb+n 7367 700 W 4684 700 2223 300 1999: 6129 140 7367 774 4685 000 2223 248 -58 ppm +10 ppm (+64ppm)? -23 ppm 86Sr(n,g) of same authors(Kurchatov inst): -46 ppm AHW994 adopt -30 ppm for all AHW98b unwtd avr 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS994) 6505 735(72) for primary Eg's to levels below 1200 000; but: AHW98b unwtd avr 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS994) 6502 905(287) for primary Eg's to 1200 000 8635 140(100) rclb see appendix 79Ke.D 8635 700(700) clbr n+Bi, Ge, Fe of Stelts NIM "in press"; if 78St25, no change. No data on primary Eg's 81Su.A rcl 8634 637(75;77) say (150) ** Authors (Leningrad) give no Q clbr. and error see 27Al(n,g) AHW98b avr 6 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS926) 8634 637(34*2.24) 03Fi.A 8635 000(160) "U": ama0308 8634 750(120) 92Zr(n,g) 77Ba33 6735 900(2 300) rcl 6736 210(2 000) UkrSSR See 82Ba15 102Ru(n,g) NOT IN Qfile AHW98b avr 6 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS939) 6736 210(210*1.64) 72Gr23 6733 000(1 100) rcl 6733 735(1 100) ** clbr no data. But see 74Ge(n,g) of same group AHW98b avr 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS971) 6733 937(492*0.97) 79Ke.D 6734 700( 700) rcl 6733 960(700) see 91Zr(n,g); there abt 110 ppm high!! 03Fi.A 6735 300(700) "U": ama0308 6733 880(580) 92Mo(n,g) 91Is02 8069 760(90) rcl 8069 815(90) ** clbr see ,g) AHW991 avr 3 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS971) 8069 809(75*2.62) NB. only 3 Eg; lowest gives rather deviating S(n) 03Fi.A 8070 000(300) "U": ama0308 8069 810( 90) 93Nb(n,g) 88Ke09 7227 510(90) rcl unchanged ** clbr N+n(86Ke14) see 28Si 03Fi.A 7227 631( 13) "U": ama0803 7227 510( 90) 94Zr(n,g) 79Ke.D 6462 300(1 000) rcl 6461 570(1 000) see 92Zr(n,g) 03Fi.A 6357 800(300) "F" !!! ama0308 "other" 6464 321(1 781) !!!!! 94Mo(n,g) 91Is02 7369 100(100) rcl 7369 105(100) ** clbr see ,g) AHW991 no table Eg's 03Fi.A 7368 400(500) "U": ama0308 7369 100(100) 95Mo(n,g) 91Is02 9154 310(50) rcl 9154 316(50) ** clbr see 92Mo(n,g) AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS931) 9154 384(13*1.79) 03Fi.A 9153 900(90) "U": ama0308 9154 320( 50) 96Zr(n,g) 77Ba33 5574 000(5 000) See 92Zr(n,g). Only one line, assumed to feed 1/2+ gs; first excited level at 1103 NDS939 AME2000 Without this input, output 5583.8(4.4) 03Fi.A 5575 100(400) "P" 96Mo(n,g) 91Is02 6821 150(250) rcl 6821 155(250) ** clbr see 99Ru(n,g) AHW991 no table Eg's 03Fi.A 6821 500(400) "U": ama0308 6821 170(250) 97Mo(n,g) 91Is02 8642 550(70) rcl 8642 602(70) ** clbr see 99Ru(n,g) AHW991 avr 4 Eg+Etrcl+Ex(NDS92c) 8642 596(31*1.33) NB. reportedly most accurate Eg (by far) gives deviating S(n): 8642 560(35) 03Fi.A 8642 500(760) "U": ama0308 8642 600( 70) 98Mo(n,g) 91Is02 5925 420(150) rcl 5925 424(150) clbr see 99Ru(n,g) AHW991 no table Eg's 03Fi.A 5927 700(500) "U": ama0308 5925 430(150) 99Tc(n,g) 79Pi08 6764 400(1 000) Clbr no data; no primary Eg mentioned 99Ru(n,g) 88Co18 9672 730(60) rcl 9672 650(60) ** Clbr Al+n(82Sc14),Cl+n(82Kr12), Pb 83Hu13 low E gamma's: by BILL betaspctrmtr AHW991 avr 3 Etr+Ex(NDS975) 9672 727(56*0.43) 91Is02 9673 480( 50) rcl 9673 389(50) ** clbr 86Ke14 (thus +0.7(0.9)ppm) AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS975) 9673 382(9*3.41) 00Ge.1 9673 300(30) ** Clbr N+n 86Ke14 no change (03Fi.A 9673 413( 19) "U": ama0308 9673 320( 30) Comparison of energies given by the three, NB: 88Co18 Etr, 91Is Eg (says Sn determined "from primary transition energies, after recoil correction, to" Ex), 00Ge.1 Etr, (Ercl is 448 eV at 9133 000, 271 at 7103 000): Co 9133.16(98) 8446.23(21) 8310.63(16) 7610.17(14) 7574.06(19) Is 9133.39(04) 8446.56(02) 8310.96(20) 7610.43(02) 7573.94(05) Ge 9133.66(08) 8446.95(08) 8311.15(07) 7610.60(07) 7574.31(16) Co 7505.90(13) 7306.19(17) 7203.42(15) 7179.75(15) 7102.90(13) Is 7506.22(02) 7306.48(04) 7203.77(04) 7181.01(07) 7103.26(02) Ge 7506.46(06) 7306.57(09) 7203.68(09) 7180.28(09) 7103.41(05) Conclusion: 88Co18 is systematically lower, do not use. (ILn!). 100Mo(n,g) 79We07 5400 000(800) rcl 5399 600(700) clbr Fe+n no values 90Se17 5398 270(80) rcl 5398 230(80) ** clbr C+n 3683 921, 4945 326 03Fi.A 5398 270( 80) "U": ama0308 5398 230( 80) 100Ru(n,g) 82Ba69 6802 000(700) clbr see 102Ru(n,g) NDS9916 does not improve used Ex 03Fi.A 6802 040(2310) "U": ama0308 6802 160(690) 101Ru(n,g) 91Is02 9219 640(50) rcl 9219 640(50) clbr see 99Ru(n,g) AHW00b avr 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS983) 9219 631(11*3.5) 03Fi.A 9219 632( 15) "U": ama0308 9219 640( 50) 102Ru(n,g) 72Se.A 6232 200(300) clbr no data. Not used in Qfile 82Ba69 6232 400(300) rcl 6231 200(300) ** clbr no data AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS932) 6231 157(140*1.61) S(n)'s of 82Ba69 and 82Ba15 compared with others: 105Ru 150 ppm low (compared with debatable data), 153Sm, 155Gd 0, 68 ppm low. (Of same authors (UkrSSR) 77Ba33 93Zr seems 327 ppm high, but with very large error. Same authors 81Ba53 120,124Sn(n,g): no good comparisons.) Conclusion: make no calibration change. 03Fi.A 6232 000(110) "U": sama0308 6232 200(300) 102Pd(n,g) 70Bo29 7624 600(1 500) rcl 7624 680(1350) ** see 165Ho(n,g) AHW98b avr 2 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS932) 7624 735(661*1.75) "add to uncertainty, additional 700" 03Fi.A 7625 600(900) "U": ama0308 7624 700(1 480)) 103Rh(n,g) 70Ri15 6999 300(1 500) rc 6999 300(1 000) clbr 53Cr+n 7100 200, 6044 500 AHW996 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS919) 6999 220(75*4.37) 81Ke03 6999 000(100) rcl 6998 960(100) ** clbr Cl+n(81Ke02) statistical error 10 rest clbr AHW996 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS919) 6999 114(17*3.4) and this not even using data of two strong g's giving 6998 600(50) and 6999 815(50) 03Fi.A 6998 946( 24) "U": ama0308 6998 960(100) 104Ru(n,g) 74Hr01 5909 900(500) ** clbr no data. Same labo as next. 78Gu14 5910 100(200) rcl (??) 5910 200(300) ** clbr table PTB Waltz 1976 (??) AHW995 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS934) 5910 225(73*0.89) 82Ba69 5909 500(700) rcl 5909 300(600) see 102Ru(n,g) AHW98b avr 6 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS934) 5909 287(128*0.42) 03Fi.A 5910 110( 70) "U": ama0308 5910 080(190) 104Pd(n,g) 70Bo29 7094 100(700) rcl 7094 450(770) ** see 165Ho(n,g) AHW98b avr 3 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS934) 7094 480(203*1.63) "to uncertainty, additional 700" 105Pd(n,g) 70Bo29 9562 800(1 100) for comparison see 165Ho(n,g) "to uncertainty, additional 1 000" 87Fo20 9562 600(400)(=AME95;!!) rcl 9560 420(300) ** No orig S(n). clbr Cl+n(82Kr12) AHW94a avr 13 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS945) 9562 530(115*1.2) AHW991 in 2 keV n-capture! NB: ref. gives table Eg, does not discuss Ercl; max 466 03Fi.A 9561 400(400) "U": ama0308 9560 530(400) 106Pd(n,g) 6536 400(500) "P" 107Ag(n,g) 85Ma54 7269 600(600) clb 39K,45Sc,53Cr,nat Zn no values AHW00b avr 7 Etr+Ex(NDS978) 7269 905(172*1.50) ama036 Without this as input, output 7271 361(294) 03Fi.A 7271 410( 80) "secundary" 108Pd(n,g) 80Ca02 rcl 6153 800(300) ** thrml 6153 700(500) res.n 6154 100(400) BNn clbr Al, Fe no values or ref's probably 79Br25, 80Ve05 AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS91c) 6153 678(283*0.52) from strongest Eg -all errors 800 thrml n's AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS91c) 6154 276(530*0.31) from strongest Eg -all errors 1 500- for 2.96 eV resonance); as check 03Fi.A 6153 540(120) "U": ama0308 6153 800(300) 109Ag(n,g) 81Bo.A 6809 200(100) ** AnRpt Julich. no data. Increase error????? 03Fi.A 6808 200( 90) "U": ama0308 6809 200(100) !!!! 110Pd(n,g) 03Fi.A 5726 300(400) "P" 110Cd(n,g) 86Ba72 6975 500(500) rcl 6975 630(400) clbr no data; res.n 89 eV AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS908) 6975 720(205*0.67) 90Ne.A 6975 900(200) P-Monterey No data on calibration Abstract: S(n)=6975.9(2); error perhaps (2 000)? (Says "Subm. to PHRVC" not seen rec. ref -1997) 93Dr.A 6974 300(300) ** see 111Cd(n,g) 03Fi.A 6975 100(400) "U": ama0308 6975 850(190) 111Cd(n,g) 93Dr.A 9394 300(300) rcl 9394 246(300) ** clbr Cl+n prbl. 82Kr12 error "purely statistical". AHW00b Their 110Cd(n,g) low, their 112Cd(n,g) high. AHW037 could not find back these two. PrvCom?? 112Cd(n,g) 90Ne.A 6542 000(200) See 110Cd(n,g)! made B. 90Pi05 6540 133(400) calculated from (d,p). Error increased to 640. 112Sn(n,g) 75Sl.A 7741 900(2 300) rcl 7742 700(2 300) see 118Sn(n,g) 113Cd(n,g) 79Br25 9043 130(110+st=200) rcl 9042 760(200) ** orig.=magn. sp.; rcl 9042 804(200) pair sp. 9042 720(120+200) rclb see appendix 03Fi.A 9043 180(60) "U": ama0308 9042 760(200) 113In(n,g) 75Ra07 7273 900(1 200) rcl 7274 000(1 200) Garching!! clbr Pb+n 7367 730(500) H+n 2223 290(70) (Ex same as NDS958) 03Fi.A 7273 830(230) "U": ama0308 7274 520(1 160) 114Sn(n,g) 78Ra16 7545 300(2 000) rcl 7545 500(1 500) ORn clbr no data. Probably same as 76Ca24 120Sn(n,g) AHW992 avr 6 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS991) 7545 473(842*0.75) 115In(n,g) 72Ra39 6784 200(1 200) rcl 6783 780(1 200) Garching!! clbr as 113In(n,g) 75Ra07 AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS949) 6783 699(503*0.23) 74Co35 6784 400(1 100) clbr 69Ra.A AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS949) 6784 563(144*0.70) 03Fi.A 6784 720(170) "secundary" 115Sn(n,g) 91Ra01 9563 470(110) rcl 9563 410(110) clbr 83Ra04 table I 03Fi.A 9563 550( 30) "U": ama0308 9563 410(110) 116Sn(n,g) 75Sl.A 6942 500(2 000) see 118Sn(n,g) Same authors as 78Ra16 75Bh01 6944 000(2 000) rcl 6943 500(2 000) clbr Al+n 7723 800 Fe+n 7644 600, 7631 500 AHW991 avr 2 Eg+Ercl+v(NDS926) 6943 500(1 400) 78Ra16 6942 900(2 000) rcl 6943 300(1500) ORn ** see 114Sn(n,g) AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS926) 6943 267(781*0.60) 03Fi.A 6942 900(500) "U": ama0308 6943 960(1 180) !!!! 117Sn(n,g) 70Or.A 9326 500(2 000) 75Sl.A 9324 800(2 100) rcl 9325 700(2 100) see 118Sn(n,g) 03Fi.A 9327 900(1 100) "U": amaa0308 9326 470(1 410)) 118Sn(n,g) 75Sl.A 6483 000(2 000) clbr no data; little more information same authors as 78Ra, 76Ca etc; comparison for 116,118.120,122,124 suggests all 100 ppm low 78Ra16 6484 600(1 500) rcl same see 114Sn(n,g) AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS92a) 6484 666(580*0.45) 03Fi.A 6483 300(600) "U": ama9398 6485 460(1 460) 120Sn(n,g) 75Sl.A 6170 500(2 000) see 118Sn(n,g), same authors as 76Ca24 76Ca24 6170 300(2 000) rcl same ORn clbr Fe+n 7631.6, 7645.6; no change AHW991 avr 7 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS91a) 6170 188(828*0.17) 81Ba53 6170 500( 700) UkrSSR clbr no data; no primary Eg's See 82Ba69 102Ru(n,g) 03Fi.A 6170 100(400) "U": ama0308 6170 790(640) 121Sb(n,g) 72Sh.A 6806 600(...) rcl 6806 440(300) LAn Value no error) and E(g) see NDS86a; AME95 uses 6806 200(1 000) AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS943) 6806.488(109*1.07) (NDS86a: S(n)=6806 600 no error) Clbr see 187Re(n,g) 72Sh13 03Fi.A 6806 360( 70) "U": ama0308 6806 470(300) 122Sn(n,g) 75Sl.A 5945 200(2 900) see 118Sn(n,g). same authors as 77Ca08 (?? 09?) 75Bh01 5948 000(3 000) rcl 5948 600(2 000) see 116Sn(n,g) AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS93b) 5948 650(1 400) 77Ca09 5945 800(1 500) see 124Sn(n,g) AHW991 avr 6 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS93b) 5945 265(743*0.96) 122Te(n,g) 91Ho08 6929 100(500) rcl 6929 050(300) clbr n+N, Al, Fe 78St25 -8ppm AHW00b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS93b) 6929 102(22*6.5(!) ) 03Fi.A 6929 160(100) "U": ama0308 6929 140(300) 123Sb(n,g) 73Sh.A 6467 550(100) ** rcl no data see other Shera's AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS974) 6467 546(79*0.27) 81Su.A 6467 450(30;70) rcl 6467 400(100) ** clbr. and error see 27Al(n,g) AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS974) 6467 438(20*0.84) 03Fi.A 6467 580( 50) "U": ama0308 6467 470( 70) 123Te(n,g) 69Bu05 9425 000(2 000) rcl 9424 220(...) clbr N+n (66Barth.) 10830 000 70Or.A 9423 700(1 500) 95Ge06 no orig. S(n) Ltn rcl 9423 953(200) ** clbr n+Na, Cl; prbly 83Ti02, 82Kr12 AHW991 avr 6 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS974) 9424 084(133*0.69) Table says Eg; but if Etr -> -280 03Fi.A 9423 890(70) "U": ama0308 9424 140(300) 124Sn(n,g) 75Sl.A 5732 100(2 900) see 118Sn(n,g). Same authors as 77Ca09 77Ca09 5732 200(1 500) rcl 5733 100(1 500) ORn ** see 120Sn(n,g) 76Ca24 AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS994) 5733 146(907*0.36) NB! in 122Sn(nb,g) diff. with orig. S(n)value other sign! 81Ba53 5733 100( 600) See 82Ba69 102Ru(n,g) 124Te(n,g) 71Gr.A 6569 000(1 000) clbr no data. Russian. 98Ho16 6568 970( 110) rcl 6568 932( 110) ** clbr Cl+n(82Kr12) 99Ho01 6568 970( 30) same work 03Fi.A 6569 390(140) "U": ama0308 6568 970( 30) 124Xe(n,g) 82Ka.A 7603 300(400) Value in telex message no particulars (Kane; coll. Breitig, Cizewski) 125Te(n,g) 03Vo.1 9113 690(80) vEgidy THMunich 77Ko.A 9113 700(400) PrvCom Chrien no particulars 126Te(n,g) 72Mu.A 6289 000(3 000) no particulars. Coll. Chrien 03Fi.A 6287 800(400) "P" 127I(n,g) 90Is03 6826 120(50) rcl same clbr 10833 302(12) 03Fi.A 6826 215( 4) "U" ama0308 6826 120( 50) 128Te(n,g) 72Mu.A 6085 000(3 000) see 126Te(n,g) 03Wi.1 6082 420(110) 03Fi.A 6082 360(140) "U": ama03208 6082 420(110) 129I(n,g) 89Sa11 6500 363(40) rcl 6500 360(40) ** clbr n+Al(Sushkov unpbl), Cl(82Kr12), K(84Vo01) 129Xe(n,g) 71Gr28 9255 000(2 000) rcl 9255 330(1 000) Kurchatov ** clbr see 151Sm(n,g) 71Gr22 Assuming as there error 1 000 if int. >0.1: AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS897) 9255 792(354*1.81) 74Ge05 9254 700(1 300) rcl 9256 085(800) BNn clbr 152Sm+n 5739 700 (400) of 69Re04 see there AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS897) 9255 964(402*0.79) but compare 131Xe(n,g) 71Ge05 03Fi.A 9255 570(230) "U": ama0308 9256 040(580) 130Te(n,g) 72Mu.A 5927 000(3 000) see 126Te(n,g) 77Ko.A 5929 700(500) see 125Te(n,g) 80Ho29 5929 500(400) 2 E(g)+Ex(NDS948); NB! E(g)=average from ref. and 77RuZRR given in NDS948. No data clbr. 03To.1 5929 380(60) Czech + Egidy 03Li.A 5930 160(150) "U": ama0308 5929 380( 60) !!!! 130Ba(n,g) 82Ka.A 7493 500(300) see 124Xe(n,g) 131Xe(n,g) 71Ge05 8936 300(1 000) rcl 8933 770(800) clbr Na+n(66Gr18) AHW991 avr 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS922) 8934 600(291*2.60) (using Eg's error <1001) 71Gr28 8935 000(2 000) rcl 8934 400(1 000) see 129Xe(n,g) AHW991 avr 6 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS922) 8935 850(408*2.65) NB. without two lowest Eg giving quite high S(n): 8934 521(500*0.80) 03Fi.A 8936 650(120) "P" 132Ba(n,g) 90Is07 7189 960(360) rcl 7189 910(360) see 134Ba(n,g) 133Cs(n,g) 84Ke11 6891 584(17) rcl 6891 540(17) clbr N+n(83Ke11) 87Bo24 6891 584(27) rcl 6891 512(27) ** clbr Al+n(82Sc14) 03Fi.A 6891 390.9(2.3+10 ppm) "U": ama0308 6891 540( 14) 134Cs(n,g) 92Ul.A 8762 000(1 000) NDS964 has no info of Ulbich. No other info 134Ba(n,g) 90Is07 6972 210(180) rcl 6972 250(180) ** clbr N+n no value probl. 10833 297 AHW991 avr 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS984) 6972 172(53*2.46) without lowest, deviating Eg, 6972 299(62*1.73) 93Bo01 6971 780(170) rcl 6971 840(200) ** clbr "accurately known prominent background lines" as in 137Ba(n,g) 95Bo05 AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS984) 6971 840(157*1.15) 93Ch21 6973 240(220) No comment on difference with 90Is07 and 93Bo01 VERY UNFORTUNATE!! AHW95a PrvCom Chrien: clbr n+N Al Fe D 10829 180 7223 850 7645 450 2223 250 ess. no change AHW992 The recalibrated 90Is and 93-95Bo results for 134-6-7Ba+n agree very reasonably 03Fi.A 6971 870(120) "U": ama0308 6972 000(120) 135Ba(n,g) 90Is07 9107 840( 40) rcl 9107 740( 40) see 134Ba(n,g) 03Fi.A 9107 730( 40) "U": ama0308 9107 740( 40) 136Xe(n,g) 77Fo02 4025 200(600) rcl 4025 470(350) ** clbr 56Co of 71Ca14 E(g) with errors (400) + Erecoil to 601 050(70) NDS947 and 1841 490(250) averaged: 4025 472(308*0.66) 77Pr07 4025 500(300) rcl 4025 830(300) ** clbr 56Co(76Me.A). For strongest E(g)+Ercl+Ex AHW991 avr 3 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS947) 4025 825(92*2.14) 03Fi.A 4025 530(80) "U": ama0308 4025 720(260) 136Ba(n,g) 90Is07 6905 780( 30) rcl 6905 540(100) ** see 134Ba(n,g) AHW991 avr 4 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS977) 6906 552(27*4.24) 95Bo03 6905 590( 80) rcl 6905 700(120) ** see 137Ba(n,g) 95Bo05 AHW991 avr 6 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS977) 6905 720(89*1.30) 03Fi.A 6905 740( 80) "U": ama0308 6905 610( 80) 136Ce(n,g) 81Ko.A 7480 700(400) rcl 7481 30(400) ** Data see NDS904; no clbr; says S(n) "orig". AHW00b unwtd average 3 Eg+Ex(NDS947) 7481 320(221) (Other given E(g) to levels only known from (n,g)) If given not Eg as said but Eg: 181 lower AHW037 This I earlier expected because of their own Q(g). 03Fi.A 7481 580( 90) "U": ama0308 7481 300(400) 137Ba(n,g) 90Is07 8611 750( 40) rcl 8611 700( 40) see 134Ba(n,g) AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS935) 8611 690(19*2.01) 95Bo05 8611 500(..) rcl 8611 650(100) Auth.: Q Table 4 no error; AME95 (150) clbr "prominent background lines" no values AHW991 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS935) 8611 716(60*1.11) 03Fi.A 8611 630( 50) "U": ama0308 8611 720( 40) 138Ba(n,g) 80Ba.A 4723 430(110) rcl 4723 390(200) ** clbr Cl+n(76Sp06). error statistcal "syst 200 must be added mainly based on diff. with 78St25" 90Is07 4723 440( 40) rcl 4723 430( 40) see 134Ba(n,g) 03Fi.A 4723 200(100) "U": ama0308 4723 430 ( 40) 139La(n,g) 90Is09 5161 000(50) rcl 5160 970(50) clbr N+n(AME85) 10833 300(20) 03Fi.A 5161 004( 6) "U": ama0308 5160 970( 50) 140Ce(n,g) 70Ge03 5428 600(600) rcl unchanged ** clbr 52Cr+n(Kampe PrvCom (?=68Wh03?)) Then 4872 300(330) NDS934 4872 330(70) no improvement with new Ex Thus: make no change, (NB! error 700 in AME95 wrong) 80Ba.A 5428 060( 90) rcl 5428 012(200) ** see 138Ba(n,g) 03Fi.A 5428 190(60) "U": ama0308 5428 070(190) 141Pr(n,g) 81Ke11 5843 140(100) rcl same ** See appendix 03Fi.A 5843 155( 5) "U": ama0308 5843 140(100) 142Ce(n,g) 76Ge02 5145 900(500) rcl unchanged ** clbr 140Ce(n,g) of 70Ge03 NDS91a No better Ex 80Ba.A 5144 830(110) rcl 5144 784(120) ** see 138Ba(n,g) 03Fi.A 5144 810(60) "U": ama0308 5144 780(150) 142Nd(n,g) 82Is05 6123 620(130) rcl 6123 620(80) ** see appendix 03Fi.A 6123 410(70) "U": ama0308 6123 620( 80) 143Nd(n,g) 81Ke11 7817 350(100) rcl same See appendix. Accept only next of same group 82Is05 7817 110(120) rcl 7817 110(70) ** see appendix 91Ro.A 7817 000(80) rcl 7816 930(80) ** (paper not seen but usual GSI recal.) 03Fi.A 7816 940(170) "U": ama0308 7817 030( 50) 144Nd(n,g) 75Na.A 5755 300(700) not analyzed 77Mc09 5756 900(2 000) not analyzed 03Fi.A 5755 260(220) "U": ama0308 5755 570(640) 144Sm(n,g) 70Sm.A 6762 700(1 800) avrg n-capt; no data clbr; error guess AHW 79Wa22 6757 100( 300) rcl 6757 160(200) ** clbr C+n(AME75),Cl+n(78St25) both -9 ppm AHW98b avr 4 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS934) 6757 216(100*1.34) 145Nd(n,g) 76Bu14 7564 700(400) rcl 7564 917(250) clbr N+n(table II): 21(50) ppm low AHW00b 6 Eg+Erec+Elevel(NDS908) avrg 7564 766(112*0.48) 82Is05 7565 280(140) rcl 7565 280(90) ** see appendix 03Fi.A 7565 050( 90) "U": ama0308 7565 290(100) 146Nd(n,g) 75Ro16 5292 180(150) rcl 5292 194(150) ** clbr C+n(75Wa.A), N, Na(74Gr37). Unwgtd avr: AHW994 5 Eg+Erec+Elevel(NDS928) avrg 5292 242(50) 03Fi.A 5292 190( 40) "U": ama0308 5292 220(150) 147Sm(n,g) 69Re04 8140 000(1 200) rcl 8139 800(1 200) ** see 152Sm(n,g) AHW00b 2 Etr+Ex(NDS004) avr 8139 373(964*0.65) 70Bu19 8140 600(1 800) rcl 8141 100(1 500) ** clbr N+n(67Th05);C+n; average 60 ppm high avr 8Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS004) 8142 086(114*1.04) (E1's; themselves 8141 600(1 500) ) AvResCptr, Eg~1 000 high for E1 g's; 800(300) high for M1's!! NB! syst. deviation; higher S(n) for lower E(g) 71Gr37 8141 900(1 000) rcl 8141 760( 800) Kurchatov ** clbr refers to 71Gr22 151Sm(n,g) abstr says 8149 900(!). Eg error "of order of 1 keV". If as in 71Gr22 150Sm(n,g) e=1000 for int>0.1 : AHW991 avr 7 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS004) 8142 171(378*0.83) 03Fi.A 8141 300(300) "U": ama0308 8141 850(650) 148Nd(n,g) 76Pi04 5038 830(100) rcl 5038 764(100) ** see 146Nd(n,g) 75Ro16 AHW00b 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS94b) avr 5038.809(27.6*0.61) 03Fi.A 5038 820( 30) "U": ama0308 5038 760(100) 148Sm(n,g) 70Sm.A 5872 500(1 800) see 144Sm(n,g) 82Ba15 5850 800(600) see 152Sm(n,g). No reported Eg's agree with Ex(NDS94b)'s combined with: AME95 output without 148Sm(n,g): 5871 100(1 100) 149Sm(n,g) 69Re04 7985 200( 800) rcl 7984 850( 600) ** see 152Sm(n,g) avr 8 Etr+Ex NDS958: 7984 851(592*0.59) 70Bu19 7986 400(1 800) rcl 7986 700(1 500) ** see 147Sm(n,g) avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS958) 7987 715(119*0.97) (themselves 7986 400(1 500) ) 03Fi.A 7986 700(400) "U": ama0308 7987 000(1 120) 150Nd(n,g) 76Pi13 5334 600(200) rcl 5334 550(200) ** clbr n+C, Na, N(74Gr37) NB! N -31 ppm Na +23 ppm! NB! clbr really different from 76Pi04. NDS971 has no better Ex 03Fi.A 5334 552( 24) "U": ama0308 5334 550(200) 150Sm(n,g) 70Sm.A 5591 700(1 800) see 144Sm(n,g) 71Gr22 5596 000(1 000) rcl 5595 860(800) Kurchatov see 151Sm(n,g) AHW991 two groups of primary Eg giving rather different S(n): avrg 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex 5596 138(447*0.80) avrg 4 Eg+Ercl+Ex 5600 662(500*0.54) Of strongest 6 lines, only one belongs to 2nd group. 86Va08 5596 460(200) rcl 5596 420(200) ** AVR. clbr N+n of (???) AHW991 avrg 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS972) 5596 399(74*1.59) 03Fi.A 5596 440( 60) "U": ama0308 5596 500(200) 151Sm(n,g) 71Gr22 8258 000(1 000) rcl 8257 630(800) ** clbr C+n(67Pr10), O+n, N+n(69Jo.A) resp.: 33ppm, -, 66 ppm high. Use 50 ppm high AHW991 avrg 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS969) 8258 047(447*0.79) 151Eu(n,g) 85Vo15 6306 740(100) rcl 6306 703(100) ** clbr Cl+n(82Kr12). For test: AHW991 avrg 2 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS969) 6306 679(42*1.76) (from table 5 only; "errors relative; add syst 100") Further checks (e.e table 3) unnecessary. 03Fi.A 6307 110( 60) "U": ama0308 6306 720(100) !!!! 152Sm(n,g) 70Sm.A 5869 100(1 800) see 144Sm(n,g) 69Re04 5867 000(400) rcl 5867 097(350) ** clbr 56Fe(Spilling to be pd; Prbl 73Sp06) then *7646 100/7646 000 C+n(62Knowless. NOT CJP40,257!!) AHW991 avrg 2 Etr+Ex(NDS982) 5867 021(283*0.64) NB!! All 69Re04 values seem somewhat low; see also 129Xe(n,g) of 74Ge05 clbrtd with this. 71Be41 5868 200(...) rcl 5868 440(300) ** clbr not mentioned avr same 2 Eg+Ercl+Ex(982) 5868 438(212*0.59) Ercl not discussed in paper; table 2 suggests included in given Eg; then avrg 5868 220(212*.) 82Ba15 5868 400(700) rcl 5868 400(400) UkrSSR ** clbr no data. See 82Ba69 102Ru(n,g) avr 7 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS982) 5868 395(172*0.69) 03Fi.A 5868 400(100) "U": ama0308 5868 400(280) 152Eu(n,g) 85Vo15 8550 330(120) rcl 8550 280(120) ** see 151Eu(n,g) AHW991 avrg 2 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS982) 8550 189(71*1.12) (from table 5 only; see also table 3) 152Gd(n,g) 85Vo15 6247 310(350) rcl 6247 270(350) ** see 153Gd(n,g). Only one Eg seen 93Sp.A 6247 140(140) Same as next: 96Sp.A 6247 040(140) rcl 6246 889(140) ** clbr Al+n 82Sc14 Cl+n 82Kr12 AHW991 avrg 8 Etr+Ex(NDS982) 6246 940(51*0.80) 03Fi.A 6247 480(170) "U": ama0308 6246 940(130) !!! 153Eu(n,g) 87Ba52 6442 200(300) rcl 6442 163(300) ** clbr Cl+n(82Kr12) 03Fi.A 6442 200(400) "U": ama0308 6442 230(300) 153Gd(n,g) 85Vo15 8895 310(300) rcl 8895 250(300) ** see 151Eu(n,g). "errors relative; add syst 100" AHW991 avrg 3 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS982) 8895 304(182*1.35) 93Sp.A 8894 540(200) Same as next: 96Sp.A 8894 540(200) rcl 8894 469(200) ** see 152Gd(n,g) AHW991 avrg 8 Etr+Ex(NDS98b) 8894 503(36*0.52) 154Sm(n,g) 70Sm.A 5814 200(1 800) see 144Sm(n,g) 71Gr42 5813(2) rcl 5807 300(500?) Kurchatov inst clbr no data; Eg taken from level scheme's; error (1 000) if intensity >0.2%; using these: AHW991 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS944) avr 5807 280(447*0.82) 82Ba15 no orig. rcl 5806 770(600) ** see 152Sm(n,g). No S(n) authors AHW991 Eg=4986 800(600) to 819 880(NDS944)->5806 766 NB! only other Eg mentioned does not fit 82Sc03 5807 200(300) rcl 5807 020(250) ** clbr Al+n(78St25) AHW991 avrg 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS944) 5807 074(54*1.10) "addit. syst. error 200 should be added" 154Eu(n,g) 86Pr03 8151 300(300) rcl unchanged clbr no data (ILL); NDS no improvement 154Gd(n,g) 70Bo29 (6452 900(1 600) ) see 165Ho(n,g) 86Sc25 6435 170(300) rcl 6435 110(300) ILL ** clbr n+Al, Cl(78St25) NDS no improvement 03Fi.A 6435 290(1 900) "U": ama0308 6435 090(300) 155Gd(n,g) 70Bo29 8535 400(800) see 165Ho(n,g); for comparison 81Ke11 8536 340(150) rcl same See appendix. Accept only next of same group 82Is05 8536 390(120) rcl 8536 390( 70) ** same authors see appendix 82Ba28 8536 800(500) clbr refers to 157Gd(n,g) 78Gr14 no data on recoil 03Fi.A 8536 040( 90) "U": ama0308 8536 390( 70) 156Gd(n,g) 71Gr42 6360 000(1 000) rcl 6359 600(500?) see 154Sm(n,g) AHW991 6 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS966) avr 6359 553(408*1.20) 70Bo29 6359 800(600) see 165Ho(n,g); for comparison 87Sp.A 6359 86(150) rcl 6359 803(150) ** no clbr no primary e(g)'s probably clbr as 96Sp.A see 152Gd+n 157Gd(n,g) 70Bo29 7936 800(800) see 165Ho(n,g);for comparison "add to errors Eg additional 800" 78Gr14 7937 100(500) rcl same for comparison. clbr Na+n(74Grsame7937 084(140) See appendix. Accept only next of same group 82Is05 7937 390(120) 7937 390(70) ** same authors see appendix 03Fi.A 7937 390( 50) "U": ama0308 7937 390( 70) 158Gd(n,g) 71Gr42 5942 000(1 000) rcl 5942 700(500?) see 154Sm(n,g) AHW991 6 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS945) avr 5942 691(408*1.23) 87Sp.A 5943 120(150) rcl 5943 066(150) ** see 156Gd(n,g). Not in NDS945 96Po.A no orig. S(n) rcl 5942 924(100) ** reson. n's Dubna clbr Al, Fe+n(whom?) says GAu AHW991 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS945) avr 5942 978(66*1.11) 03Gr.1 5943 100(200) 159Tb(n,g) 74Ke01 6375 100(300) rcl 6375 450(200) ** Freiburg clbr N+n see 176Lu(n,g) 72Mi16 AHW992 8 Etr+Ex(NDS969) avr 6375 050(130*0.75) 03Fi.A 6375 130( 70) "U": ama0308 6375 500(290) 160Gd(n,g) 71Gr42 5635 400(1 000) see 154Sm(n,g). NDS008: final levels only from this source 160Tb(n,g) 75He.C 7696 300(600) (KFK rpt I have not; not in NDS either) 160Dy(n,g) 86Sc16 6454 470(90) rcl 6454 400(90) ** clbr Al+n 82Sc14 03Fi.A 6454 340( 60) "U": ama0308 6454 400( 90) 161Dy(n,g) 82Is05 8196 990(120) rcl 8196 990(60) ** see appendix 03Fi.A 8193 000(3 000) 162Dy(n,g) 82Is05 6270 980(110) rcl 6270 980(60) see appendix 89Sc31 6271 040(90) rcl 6271 004(90) ** clbr Cl+n(82Kr12) 03Fi.A 6271 140( 30) "U": ama0308 6270 990( 50) 163Dy(n,g) 82Is05 7658 110(120) rcl 7658 110(50) ** see appendix 99Fo.A 7658 900(60) ** no data yet 03Fi.A 7655 000(900) "U": ama0308 7658 610(360) 164Dy(n,g) 79Br25 5716 603(31+stt=140) rcl 5716 357(200) V!! rclb see appendix AHW992 avr 6 Etr+Ex(NDS922) 5716 563(19*3.85); 82Is05 5715 960(110) rcl 5715 960( 60) ** see appendix 90Ka21 5715 760(300) rcl 5715 700(300) ** clbr Al+n(82Sc14) AHW992 avr 6 Etr+Ex(NDS922) 5716 563(21*1.12); to same 6 Ex as 79Br25 "addit. syst. err (200) should be assumed." 03Fi.A 5715 950( 30) "U": ama0308 5715 960( 60) 164Er(n,g) 70Bo29 6650 100(700) rcl 6650 100(500) ** see 165Ho(n,g) AHW98b avr 6 Eg+Er+Ex(NDS922) 6650 130(96*0.75); auth "Eg uncertain by additional 600" (of this, 350 from clbr) 165Dy(n,g) 83Ke.A 7043 500(400) rcl 7843 443(400) ** clbr no data see other ILL 165Ho(n,g) 70Bo29 6242 700(600) rcl 6242 650(500) ** clbr N+n(68Gr14). AR; Eg "assumed corrected for non-zero En". Ex(auth) nearly NDS929 AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Er+Ex(NDS929) 6242 688(71*0.69); auth "add to error Eg additional 600" (of this, 350 from clbr) 82Is05 6243 690(110) rcl 6243 690(60) ** see appendix 84Ke15 6243 680(20) rcl 6243 640(20) ** same authors 03Fi.A 6242 677( 6) "U": ama0308 6243 640( 20) 166Er(n,g) 70Bo29 6436 000(600) rcl 6436 350(500) ** see 165Ho(n,g) AHW991 avr 7 Eg+Er+Ex(NDS89c) 6436 313(147*1.04) 70Mi01 6436 150(480) rcl 6436 510(400) ** clbr N+n(68Ma04). no mention recoil AHW991 avr 5 Eg+Er+Ex(NDS89c) 6436 185(213*0.58) 03Fi.A 6436 460(180) "U": ama0308 6436 440(310) 167Er(n,g) 70Bo29 7770 900(600) see 165Ho(n,g) 70Mi01 7771 240(480) rcl 7771 430(400) ** no orig. S(n), is AME95. See 166Er(n,g) AHW993 avr 7 Eg+Er+Ex(NDS942) 7771 039(225*0.83) 79Br25 7771 330(85+sst=200) rcl 7771 048(200) ** rclb see appendix No improvement with NDS942 85Va.A 7771 140(390) rcl 771 000(500) ** see 179Hf(n,g) of 90Bo52 same authors 03Fi.A 7771 450( 30) "U": ama0308 7771 060(190) 168Er(n,g) 70Bo29 6002 700(800) rcl 6002 500(700) ** see 165Ho(n,g) AHW993 avr 2 Eg+Er+Ex(NDS91a) 6002 552(485*0.51) 70Mu15 6003 100(300) rcl 6003 500(300) ** clbr N+n(68Ma04) AHW994 avr 8 Eg+Er+Ex(NDS91a) 6003 202(176*0.67) 03Fi.A 6003 160(140) "U": ama0308 6003 410(280) 168Yb(n,g) 68Mi08 6867 210(460) rcl 6866 760(400) ** clbr table in ref.; 60(50) ppm high AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Er+Ex(NDS91a) 6867 176(197*0.69) E(g with errors <900) 68Sh12 6867 200(500) rcl 6867 180(400) ** clbr N+n(Greenwood ANL+pc. copy p.1109; =68Gr14?) AHW98b: avr 4 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS91a) 6867 237(303*0.35) 03Fi.A 6866 970(110) "U": ama0308 6867 010(280) 169Tm(n,g) 66Sh03 6595 000(2 500) clbr. mgn. Comptonsp. abs magn; ±2 500 AHW98b avr 5 Eg+Er+Ex(NDS961) 6594 687(267*1.26) (Eg with errors <1 050) 70Or.A 6592 100(1 500) 96Ho12 6591 800( 900) rcl 6591.740(900) ** clbr Cl+n(78St25) 2 (and 24 keV) n's; auth's est avrg E(n) 1 200 03Fi.A 6591 950(110) "U": ama0308 6592 200(720) 170Er(n,g) 71Al01 5681 500(500) rcl 5681 570(400) clbr N+n(69Jo.A) AHW00b avr 5 Etr+Ex(NDS925) 5681 969(618*0.43) NB: Ex have rather large errors 03Fi.A 5681 600(500) "U": ama0309 5681 550(490) 170Yb(n,g) 72Wa10 6614 700(800) rcl 6614 270(600) ** clbr N,C+n(69Jo.A) AHW993 avr 2 Eg+Er+Ex(NDS925) 6614 696(1061*0.13) 03Fi.A 6616 600(400) "U": ama0308 6614 510(570) !!!! 171Yb(n,g) 71Al14 8020 900(800) rcl 8020 270(700) ** clbr N,C+n(69Jo.A) AHW993 avr 8 Etr+Ex(NDS956) 8020 788(354*0.38) 75Gr32 8020 100(500) clbr no data. MTR Idaho 85Ge02 8019 270(350) rcl 8019 670(300) ** clbr Cl+n(72Lo26) AHW993 avr 8 Eg+Etr+Ex(NDS956) 8019 285(82*0.26) AHW037 checked. 03Fi.A 8019 270( 40) "U": ama0308 8019 850(280) 172Yb(n,g) 71Al01 6367 500(500) rcl 6367 290(400) ** AHW993 avr 3 Etr+Ex(NDS956) 6367 700(640*0.66) clbr and test see 170Er(n,g) 03Fi.A 6367 200(600) "U": ama0308 6367 360(400) 173Yb(n,g) 71Al14 7464 500(800) rcl 7463 620(700) ** clbr N,C+n(69Jo.A) AHW993 avr 8 Etr+Ex(NDS956) 7465 102(367*0.38) 82Is05 7464 630(110) rcl 7464 630(60) ** see appendix 87Ge01 7464 580(350) rcl 7464 800(300) ** clbr as 171Yb(n,g) 85Ge ILL AHW991 avr 7 Eg+Er+Ex(NDS911) 7464 426(87*0.47) 03Fi.A 7465 500(400) "U": ama0308 7464 630( 60) 174Yb(n,g) 82Is05 5822 350(120) rcl 5822 350(70) ** see appendix 03Fi.A 5822 500(400) "U": ama0308 5822 350( 70) 174Hf(n,g) 71Al01 6708 800(500) rcl 6708 360(400) ** AHW993 avr 6 Etr+Ex(NDS938) 6708 704(539*0.24) clbr and test see 170Er(n,g) 03Fi.A 6708 800(600) "U": ama0308 6708 380(500) 175Lu(n,g) 85Ho08 gives no S(n); only low energy Eg 91Kl02 6287 910(150) rcl 6287 960(150) ref. uses Eg's of 85Ho08; subtracts 3 600 for better energy 176Lum; and 300 for "remaining energy differences". "errors Eg conservatively estimated 1/3 of energy spread." 03Fi.A 6289 780(200) "U": ama0308 6287 980(150) 176Yb(n,g) 72Al19 5566 800(1 200) rcl 5565 130(900) ** clbr N+n of 67Arnell=Greenwood pc, among them 5269 600(300), 5562 600(400) thus 90 ppm high AHW993 avr 3 Etr+Ex(NDS933) 5565 627(563*0.34) Their 178Hf(n,g) is only slightly higher than later 03Fi.A 5566 400(190) "secundary" 176Lu(n,g) 71Ma45 7070 800(400) rcl 7071 200(400) Ltlnd ** clbr no data. Value from fig. AHW98c avr 8 Etr+Ex(NDS933) 7071 245(152*1.43) without one deviating value: 7071 021(164*0.51) 72Mi16 7072 400(300) rcl 7073 090(400) Freiburg ** clbr N+n(68Ma04) AHW98c avr 8 Etr+Ex(NDS933) 7072 736(160*0.66) UNFORTUNATE DIFFERENCE 03Fi.A 7072 850( 90) "U": ama0308 7072 660(890) 176Hf(n,g) 03Fi.A 6385 800(800) "primary" ama0308 6385 740(760) 177Hf(n,g) 86Ha22 7626 300(300) rcl 7626 256(300) ** clbr Cl+n(82Kr12) 03Fi.A 7625 800(160) "U": ama0308 7626 240(300) 178Hf(n,g) 72Al19 6099 500(1 500) rcl 6099 160(1 000) clbr see 170Er(n,g) 70Al01 AHW993 avr 8 Etr+Ex(NDS984) 6099 560(354*0.42) 89Ri03 6099 060(100) rcl 6099 010(100) ** clbr n+Al(82Sc14) +Cl(82Kr12) 03Fi.A 6098 946( 22) "U": ama0308 6099 020(100) 179Hf(n,g) 74Bu22 7387 700(300) rcl 7387 300(400) ** clbr n+B(Thomas pc), C(67Pr10), N(68Gr14) AHW98b avr 7 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS941) 7387 356(118*2.85) Rather systematic difference! 90Bo52 7388 110(390) rcl 7387 800(500) ** clbr no data AHW98b avr 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS941) 7387 836(278*1.92) assuming error single g's all 600 NDS941 finds 7387 700(300) gives no comment 03Fi.A 7387 850( 90) "U": ama0308 7387 520(330) 180Hf(n,g) 71Al22 5695 500(700) rcl 5695 220(600) ** clbr n+N, C(69Jo.A) AHW993 avr 6 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS911) 5695 591(263*0.29) (NB: 72Al19 includes recoil; diff 90 eV) 02Bo.1 5694 800(100) not recal; error AHW 03Fi.A 5695 580(170) "U": ama0308 5694 900(100) 180Tam(n,g) 81Co17 7652 300(500) rcl 7651 840(500) ** clbr N+n(81Ke02)=80Gr12 AHW98b avr 2 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS911) 7651 837(354*0.67) 84Fo.A 7652 180(200) rcl 7652 119(200) ** clbr no data; no primary Eg; ILL 181Ta(n,g) 69Wa05 6063 000(600) BNn clbr no data AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS953) 6062 926(262*0.35) 71He13 6062 900(500) rcl 6063 016(400?) ** clbr Na+n(66Gr18) AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS953) 6042 706(177*0.22) 77St15 6063 000(600) rcl 6063 050(530) ** clbr Cl+n(72Lo26) e.o. Only Eg 6062 600(600) S(n) 6063 012 81Co17 6063 300(500) rcl 6063 120(500) ** see 180Tam(n,g) AHW98b avr 2 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS953) 6063 118(354*0.31) 182 eV diff. with ref not understood 83Fo.B 6062 950(200) Forster, PrvCom ILL 03Fi.A 6062 890( 60) "U": ama0308 6063 000(160) 182Ta(n,g) 83Fo.B 6934 180(200) Forster, PrvCom 182W(n,g) 67Sp03 6190 800(1 500) rcl 6191 640(2 000) does not give S(n)'s; unrcl=AME95 clbr 16O 6127 800(1 200); 219 ppm low NB! their 183+n 310 ppm high, 186+n 360 ppm low! AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS897) 6190 290(1 123*0.43) 70Or.A 6190 100(1 500) 93Pr.A 6190 760(120) Ltn cbr no data; no list Eg's 03Fi.A 6190 890( 30) "U": ama0308 6190 770(120) 183W(n,g) 67Sp03 none rcl 7413 940(2 000) see 182W(n,g) AHW98b avr 7 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS899) 7412 312(1 370*0.353) 74Gr11 7411 100(600) rcl 7411 230(450) ** clbr 160 6129.0(.4) Al,Fe,Pb+n 72ANCR-1088 and unpblshd AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS897) 7411 182(184*0.49) for thermal; for 2 keV n's (-2 050->7411 280) AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS897) 7413 335(218*0.42) 75Bu01 7411 900(300) rcl 7411 840(250) ** clbr N+n 5269 200, 5533 200, 6322 000 (±200?) avr. 30 ppm low AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS897) 7411 621(109*1.38) 03Fi.A 7411 150(170) "U": ama0308 7411 600(260) 184W(n,g) 87Br05 none rcl 5753 680(200) ** see 186W(n,g). For 2 keV n's: AHW98b avr 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS952) 5755.73(63*1.66) 03Fi.A 5754 620(210) "U": ama0308 5753 680(300) 184Os(n,g) 74Pr15 6625 400(900) rcl unchanged clbr "strong 188 and 190Os Eg" no ref's 74Pr seems to disregard Ercl. S(n) derived from one Eg. If I assume error in all Eg's 900: AHW98b avr 3 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS89a) 6624 420(520*1.08) 03Fi.A 6624 520(250) "U": ama0308 6624 460(900) 185Re(n,g) 70Or.A 6178 600(1 500) 69La11 6179 500(3 000) rcl 6179 860(800) ** clbr N+n(66Gr.A) "Error in Eg contains contribution 3 000 from calibration." AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS911) 6179 856(1 061*0.11) NDS979 recalibrated to 6179 800(800) using next ref; 73Gl06 only low E Eg's) 03Fi.A 6179 340(130) "U": ama0308 6179 610(760) 186W(n,g) 67Sp03 none rcl 5465 180(1 000) see 182W(n,g) AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS911) 5463 989(1 294*) 87Br05 none rcl 5466 300(200) clbr no data; no orig. S(n). From 2 keV neutrons: AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS911) 5468 347(116*0.96) NB! Eg syst. 1 200 not 2.05 higher than next item! 92Be17 5467 250(40) rcl 5467 218(150) ** clbr Cl+n no ref. (82Kr12 I think) Ltn Own S(n) from 10 most intense Eg to known levels error (40) statistical only 03Fi.A 5466 590( 60) "U": ama0308 5466 970(370) 186Os(n,g) 74Pr15 6291 000(2 000) rcl 6291 000(1 000) ** see 184Os(n,g) AHW98b avr 3 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS911) 6291 140(520*0.32) 03Fi.A 6289 400(800) "U": ama0308 6290 830(910) AMA036 without 74Pr: 6289 553(2 209) 187Re(n,g) 72Sh13 5871 600(300) rcl 5871 770(200) ** clbr n+N(68Gr14) n+Cl (73Sp06=76Sp06) (N +9 ppm, Cl + 28ppm, take +15 ppm) AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS901) 5871 678(116*0.22) 03Fi.A 5871 750( 60) "U": ama0308 7989 500(300) 187Os(n,g) 83Fe06 7989 300(300) rcl 7989 630(250) ** clbr Cl+n(78St25) n+N(76Sp06) AHW98b avr 7 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS901) 7989 720(113*0.59) 03Fi.A 7989 580( 70) "U": ama0308 7989 500(300) 188Os(n,g) 76Be50 5920 800(2 000) rcl 5920 830(1 500?) ** clbr N+n(68Ma04) AHW98b avr 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS904) 5920 530(990*0.15) 92Br17 5920 600(500) rcl ??? "from primaries (not given) in 2.05(0.02) keV n's to lowest 1/2-,3/2- levels" clbr no data 03Fi.A 5922 000(400) "U": ama0308 5920 430(490) 189Os(n,g) 79Ca02 7791 500(1 000) rcl 7791 847(500?) ** clbr n+Fe 7645 600 7631 600; +Al 72Is03 AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS90a) 7792 159(354*0.49) 03Fi.A 7792 310(110) "U": ama0308 7791 120(920) 190Os(n,g) 77Be15 5758 500(2 000) for clbr see 184Os(n,g) 74Pr15 77Ca19 5758 700(1 500) rcl 5759 000(1 000) BNn same authors. clbr n+Al, Fe(doublet); no ref's from thrml n's, "uncertainty absolute Eg about 1 keV" 77Ca from 2 keV n's 5759 400(1 500) AHW98b unwtd avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS95a) 5758 902(101) with thrml n"s. Same with 2 keV n's AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS95a) 5761 300(224*0.30) minus 2050: 5759 250 91Bo35 5758 730(160) rcl 5758 670(160) ** clbr n+Al(82Sc14, I think) 03Fi.A 5758 810( 90) "U": ama0308 5758 630(160) 191Ir(n,g) 91Ke10 6198 100(200) rcl 6198 076(200) ** clbr n+N(86AjSe) Eg=6141.10 to 191Irm list Eg's permits no improvement 03Fi.A 6198 140( 30) "U": ama0308 6198 060(200) 192Os(n,g) 78Be22 5583 500(2 000) rcl 5583 620(2 000) clbr no data; but saw n+C 4945 200 now 4945 300 3683 800 3683 894 79Wa04 5583 430(200) rcl 5583 400(200) ? Same authors but 2 keV n's Authors do not give S(n). clbr n+Al, Fe no ref. no values. 78St25? AHW98b avr 7 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS90c) 5585 433(43*1.36) 03Fi.A 5584 010(120) "U": ama0308 5583 420( 200) 192Ir(n,g) 85Co.B 7771 950(200) rcl 7772 000(200) ** clbr no data PrvCom to AHW. Fed: levels 5/2- to 9/2+ thus from 4+ gs not from 241 y 11- Irn. "Errors sttstcl, a 100 syst should be added". Highest Eg contaminated by Al+n; may make energy too high." AHW00b avr 5 Etr+Ex(NDS984) 7771 979(53*1.85) (AHW00b avr 6 Etr+Ex(NDS984) 7772 072((46*2.26)!) 192Pt(n,g) 68Sa13 S(n) 6247(??) rcl 6247 800(2 000) see 195Pt(n,g). From 2 resonances. AHW98b avr 6247 to g, 6061 to 187.81 NDS90c 3 other Eg but Ex derived from them ama017 other: 6255.3(1.9) not nice In view of this compare their results with 81Ho.C:194 3600 high 195 O.K. 196 2100 high with 03Fi.A 440 high 120 l0 2100 high 193Ir(n,g) 82Ra.A 6067 000(400) PrvCom AHW AHW00b no details, better not use. 98Ba85 6066 900(200) clbr refers to their next ref 98Ba95 but there also no data 03Fi.A 6066 710( 70) "U": ama0308 6066 900(200) 194Ir(n,g) 87Co08 7231 920(60) rcl 7231 860(60) ** clbr n+Al 82Sc Cl 82Kr Pb 83Hu13 194Pt(n,g) 68Sa13 no orig S(n) rcl 6108 730(2 000) see 195Pt(n,g). One Eg=6109 000 at Er=377 . 81Ho.C 6105 111(64) rcl 6105 060(120) ** clbr N+Al,Cl 81Sc.A=(82Sc14,82Kr12) AHW00b avr 5 Etr+Ex(NDS993) 6105 109(63*0.78) AHW98b Analysis of extra lines in a 196Pt+n run. Orig. err. sttstcl; full 120. 03Fi.A 6109 170( 40) "U": ama0308 6105 040(120) !!!!!! 195Pt(n,g) 68Sa13 no orig S(n) rcl 7921 800(2 000) clbr no data; no errors. Unweighted average: AHW00b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(79Ci04) 7921 832(736) 79Ci04 no orig S(n) rcl 7922 080(200) clbr N+n(75Sm02) 10829 200(130) AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(auth) 7922 376(210*0.57) Also from 2 keV n's ->S(n)=7921 890 from AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(auth) 7923 837(197*0.26) NDS981 "from lstsqrs" 79Ci: 7922 500(120) 81Ho.C 7921 890(150) rcl 7821 836(150) see 194Pt+n. Same authors as 79Ci04 Take average 7921 960(200) ** 03Fi.A 7921 920( 70) "U": ama0308 7921 910(200) 196Pt(n,g) 68Sa13 no orig S(n) rcl 5848 100(2 000) see 195Pt(n,g). From Er=303, 565 eV. Unwtd avrg: AHW00b avr 4 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS95b) 5848 550(950) (but subtract avrge Eres) 78Ya07 5846 300(400) rcl 5846 400(400) ** clbr no data AHW995 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS95a) 5846 420(174*0.35) 81Ho.C 5846 024(866) rcl 5845 977(900) ** see 194Pt+n 83Ca04 5846 700(500) rcl 5846 647(500) ** clbr Cl+n ~82Kr12 Only highest Eg 03Fi.A 5846 000(700) "U": ama0308 5846 360(290) 196Hg(n,g) 78Zg.A 6785 100(1 500) rcl 6785 334(1 500) PrvCom but probably as 74Br02 198Hg(n,g) same group 197Au(n,g) 79Br26 6512 320(210) rcl 6512 350(110) Ststcl error 90,+200 for clbration. NDS906: Ex litlle different; 91Ma65 too. (Does NOT give own S(n).) 93Eg.A had earlier given comments (re-)clbr see 198Au 03Fi.A 6512 320(100) "U" ama0308 6512 330(110) 198Pt(n,g) 83Ca04 5556 100(500) rcl 5556 050(500) clbr Cl+n ~82Kr12 Only highest Eg 198Au(n,g) 79Br26 7584 010(210) rcl 7584 270(100) ** error 60, +200 for calbr caibr: (NB! 78St error +200 see Al+n) C +n 4945 420( 30) 75Sm02 now 4945 300 Al+n,Cl+n 78St25 AHW98b avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS946) 7584 340(26*0.96) 198Hg(n,g) 75Lo03 6664 962(250) rcl 6665 240(500) Auth's give no S(n). Resonance neutrons. clbr etc see 199Hg(n,g). Assumed: incl E(recoil) Average from 5 E(g) +Elevel(NDS946) value above, Re/Ri<1. Error separate Eg (500), except for highest E(g) (NB!!: this is the S(n) 6665 300(900) used in AME95!) "errors statistical only" 199Hg(n,g) 67Sc30 8028 800(500) rcl 8029 077(300) ** enriched 199Hg. Errors stat; +400 clbr +200 rest clbr 23Na(n,g) 6395.1 AHW995 avr 7 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS878) 8028 737(107*0.40) 74Br02 8028 800(500) adopted from 67Sc30 important essentially only for level energies clbr low Eg bent crystal with K(alpha) lines of 70Be54 75Lo03 8029 410(500) rcl 8030 605(500) Resonance neutrons. Clbr 199Hg+n values of 67Sc30 "in good agreement with" Pb,56Fe+n 68Ma and 68Sp01. Auth's give no S(n). Do not trust? AHW995 avr 8 Etr+Ex(NDS878) 8030.265(177*1.69) 79Br25 8028 790(65+sst=150) magn. sp. rcl 8028 510(180) 8028 540(60+200) pair sp. (abstract: only mgn sp vl) rclb (from 411 804.41) see appendix 03Fi.A 8028 370( 40) "U": ama0308 8028 440(170) 200Hg(n,g) 70Or.A 6229 600(1 500) assignment of single g, based on mass spectrscpc data. Not used in AME95, as recommendable 201Hg(n,g) 67Sc30 7755 100(1 500) rcl 7755 427(1 410) clbr see 199Hg(n,g) Measured only gs Eg 75Br02 7754 550(100) rcl 7755 035(500) clb 199Hg(n,g) of 74Br02=67Sc30 Auth. do not give S(n) AHW995 avr 10 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS973) 7754 707(353*0.50) NB: I assumed E(recoil) not included; if not:- 160 eV 75Lo03 7756 125(246) rcl 7756 450(500) clbr etc see 199Hg(n,g) AHW995 avr 7 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS973) 7756 125(.167*1.42) average S(n)=7756 125(.167*1.42) error separate Eg (400) clbr an comments see 199Hg(n,g) 03Fi.A 7753 930(1 500) "U": ama0308 7754 640(450) 203Tl(n,g) 74Co21 6655 800(300) rcl 6656 000(200) ** clbr N+n(68Ma04). Auth's give Etr not Eg no errors. Unwtd avr: AHW00b 6 Etr+Ex(NDS907) 6655 667(71) 03Fi.A 6654 880( 40) "U": ama0308 6656 090(290) !!!! 204Pb(n,g) 83Hu13 6731 570(150) rcl 6731 530(150) ** clbr see 207Pb(n,g) AHW98b avr 7 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS937) 6731 575(51*1.37) 03Fi.A 6731 800( 90) "U": ama0308 6731 550(150) 205Tl(n,g) 74Co21 6503 400(400) rcl 6503 720(300) ** see 203Tl(n,g) AHW98c 2 Etr+Ex(NDS999) 6503 393(216) 03Fi.A 6502 870(240) "U": ama0308 6503 820(390) AHW037 Note 74Co/03Fi same as for 203Tl(n,g) 205Pb(n,g) 96Ra16 8086 670(60) rcl 8086 662(60) ** clbr D+n, C+n 90Wa22 (-1 ppm) 206Pb(n,g) 81Ke11 6737 950(150) rcl same see appendix (AHW992 sees it not in ref. and cannot find it in another McMaster ref. either.) 81Su.A 6737 328(160;61) rcl 6737 280(170) ** their table 2; only one weak Eg=6737 210(160) clbr. and error see 27Al(n,g) 83Hu13 6737 760(180) rcl 6737 720(180) clbr see 207Pb(n,g). One Eg only 03Fi.A 6737 740(100) "U": ama0308 6737 710(180) 207Pb(n,g) 64Mu03 see 67Pr10 67Sp05 7371 000(2 500) 67Va08 7369 700(3 000) 68Ma04 Eg=7367 500(1 000) (of 67Greenwood, PrvCom) 69Ra.A 7367 730( 500) 71Gr28 AHW does not see it there 72Gr.A 7368 010(40;66) one Eg only; their table 2 clbr. and error see 27Al(n,g) 72Gr34 7367 700(....) Quotes 67Sp05, 67Va08 72Ma03 7367 700( 700) 81Ke11 7367 950(150) rcl 7367 787(150) see appendix 81Su.A 7368 010( 40;66) rcl 7367 958(100) ** their table 2; only one Eg=7367 870(40) rcl and error see 27Al(n,g) 83Hu13 7367 870(110) rcl 7367 810(110) ** clbr n+Na(83Hu11) and n+Al(82Sc14) 83Ma55 same as 83Hu13 98Be.1 7367 817(98) rcl 7367 774(98) ** clbr 35Cl 82Kr12 CLBR: this gamma is several times used for calibration. Average of last 3: S(n)=7367 849(59*0.97); Eg=7367 709(60) 03Fi.A 7367 920( 70) "U": ama0308 7367 860( 50) 209Bi(n,g) 71Mo03 4604 500(300) clbr no data; no Eg given 83Ts01 4604 480(140) rcl 4604 680(140) ** clbr N+n(81Ke02)=80Gr12 AHW98c avr 2 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS921) 4604 682(71*1.21) 03Fi.A 4604 630( 50) "U": ama0308 4604 640(130) 226Ra(n,g) 81Vo03 4561 410(270) rcl 4561 430(270) ** clbr n+Al, Cl 78St25. No errors; unwtd avr: AHW98c avr 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS924) 4561 479(285) without M1 g's which deviate, in opposite directions AHW98c avr 3 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS924) 4561 467(43) 230Th(n,g) 87Wh01 5118 050(200) rcl 5118 000(200) ** clbr n+Al 78St25; C 'prvcom" 232Th(n,g) 74Ke13 4786 350(250) rcl 4786 692(200) ** error 85(StTS)+part calibration clbr N+n 68Ma04 AHW995 avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS901) 4786 453(83*0.97) 03Fi.A 4786 340( 30) "U": ama0308 4786 680(250) 234U(n,g) 72Ri08 5297 600(500) rcl 5297 090(400) ** clbr N+n not said what or from who. (68Ma04?) AHW98c 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS936) 5296 828(110*0.44) 77Ko15 5297 800(300) rcl 5297 380(250) ** clbr N+n(74Gr37). Error "uncrtn by additnl 200" NB: certain Eg taken from 72Ri08!! Same authors. AHW98c 6 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS936) 5297 542(145*1.44) Without distrusted 4517 600(200) 5297 966(210*0.80) 235U(n,g) 70Ka22 6545 000(2 000) clbr no data. Statstcl error 2 000 74Ju.B 6545 100(500) ** see 239Pu(n,g) AHW98c avr 2 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS915) 6545 115(281*1.17) 75We.A 6545 200(1 000) rcl 6545 420(400) ** see 239Pu(n,g) AHW98c avr 3 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS915) 6545 415(319*0.42) 236U(n,g) 79Vo05 5125 800(500) rcl 5125 930(500) ** clbr Cl+n 76Sp06 AHW98c unwtd avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS955) 5126 449(82) for 8 individual resonances, Er<125 eV ref reports 5126 530(500) for individual resonances, "Qn=5125 380(600), 5125 190(600), for .. 2 keV, 24 keV filtered n's respectively"; their final Qn is average. AHW00b best guess: their Qn corrected for clbr 237Np(n,g) 79Io01 5488 100(200) rcl 5488 374(200) ** clbr "as 72Mi16 176Lu(n,g)" = N+n of 68Ma04 Separate Eg: Ex(NDS029) are from this paper. 238U(n,g) 72Bo46 4806 400(400) rcl 4806 550(300) ** clbr N+n(68Gr14) esp. 3677 700(250) 5269 200(350) = +11, -9 ppm resp. AHW98c avr 8 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS928) 4806 555(71*0.27) (Avr: stst errors! Author's: addit. 300 (clbr?) ) 79Br25 4806 440(200) rcl 4806 300(210) ** rclb see appendix 238Pu(n,g) 75Ma.A 5647 000(500) see 240Pu(n,g) 75We.A 5646 672(500) see 239Pu(n,g). Highest Eg+Ercl 239Pu(n,g) 70Ch.A 6534 100(1 000) ** 74Ju.B no orig.S(n) rcl 6534 300(500) ** clbr no data; no S(n) of auth. AHW98c avr 3 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS904) 6934 252(346*1.00) 75We.A no orig.S(n) rcl 6934 150(400) ** clbr no data AHW98c avr 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS904) 6934 159(281*0.56) Comparison of all 75We.A with others: 200 higher than 74Ju.A(2x); 200 lower than 98Wh01 (one g only) and 75Ma.A (little info) 240Pu(n,g) 75Ma.A 5241 300(700) clbr no data, no Eg's 75We.A 5241 410(400) see 239Pu(n,g). Highest Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS945) 98Wh01 5241 570(30) rcl 5241 520(30) ** clbr. 12C+n 27Al+n(78St25) 241Pu(n,g) 72Ma.A 6309 500(700) clbr no data , 75We.A no orig.S(n) rcl 6309 500(400) ** see 239Pu(n,g) AHW98c avr 5 Eg+Ercl+Ex(NDS857) 6309 488(236*0.94) 241Am(n,g) 88Sa18 5537 700(100) rcl 5537 642(100) ** clbr Al+n(82Sc14) 242Pu(n,g) 76Ca25 5034 200(3 000) rcl 5032 000(2 000)?? clbr "32S+n 5420 line" no ref. But earlier ref's: 66Va10 5.42 MeV 67Ke07 5425(2) keV NDS928 no better Ex 85Ke08 5420 960(30) 243Am(n,g) 84Vo07 5277 950(70) rcl 5277 900(70) ** S(n) of 244Amm; clbr Al+n(78St25); Auth. best Ex 248Cm(n,g) 82Ho07 4713 700(400) rcl 4713 366(250) ** clbr Al+n(72Is13). NB: in abstract error (300), in text (400) including 300 for clbr AHW98c avr 8 Etr+Ex(NDS99b) 4713 554(109*1.23) V. Further (p,g) recalibrations and tests See section III A. 7Be(3He,n) 67Ba.A T=8993 000(7 000) -> Q=-6287 660(4 890) "recent beam energy recalibration" AHW968 rcl. to 8988 000(7000) ->Q=8284 200(5 000) AHW001 reason??? 71Mo01 T=8980 000(5 000) rcl 8974 335 -> Q=-6275 150(3 500) ** clbr 6Li(a,n) T=6624 600(2 000) ama011 6621 420(590) other Q=-6283 300(3 200) from 12C(3He,6He) 12C(p,g) 77Fr20 Q=1943 310(320) rcl 1943 240(320) ** no resonance; set to 340 460(40) 19F+p res. E(g) cal D+n 2224 640(40) 77He26 Q=1944 010(220) rc1 1944 130(500) ** no resonance! Ep clbr 27Al+p 773 700(30) now 773 640 90Endt E(g) clbr ThC=2614 470 (56Co=3253 820) now 2614 533 (3253 417) AME95: error 220 too small repl by 500 13C(p,g) 56Ma87 Er=1746 900(800) rcl no change Q(p)=-1621 189(742) cal 7Li(p,n) 86AjSe to "9172.18(.12,Z)" level -> Q=7550 991(752) ** 63Bo07 Er=1747 060(530) rcl 1746 746(530) El.Stat. see Section III A; but finds 991910(30) 1317 190(40) thus avrg 180 ppm high -> Q(p)=-1621.091(492) 86AjSe to "9172.18(.12,Z)" level -> Q=7551 089(506) ** AME95 7550 563( 1) 14N(p,g) 72Ne05 Er=1058 000(500) rcl 1057 925 ->Q(p)=-986 908 clbr 991 900(100) Ex=8284 100(800) rcl 8285 466 ->Q=7298 558(950) ** clbr 56Co 70Ph01 see comparison with 15N(p,n) NB: their Ex 12C is 182 ppm low, 16O 172ppm low 16O(p,g) 75Ro05 "Average of Q of many comb's" Q=600 350(280) Non reson; clbr see 17O(p,g) From (d,n) 599 750(500) 17O(p,g) 75Ro05 Er=1098 900(400) no rcl (!!) Q(p)=-1037 410(378) clbr 991 880(40); 7Li(p,n) T=1880 590(80) Ex=6643 600(400) rcl 8843 559 -> Q=5606 150(600) clbr 40K, 56Co 70Ph01; if essntl 198Au Aurh's Q=5606 200(600) ama011 "other" 5609 220(1 650) 19F(p,g) 59Ku79 Er=340 600(900) Q(p)=-323 460 clbr det of known resonances. Unimportant 96Till Ex=13171 300(2 100) 85Uh01 Er=223 990(70) Q(p)=-213 566 clbr. absolute voltage 96Till Ex=13060 700(2 100) AHW012 Both Ex not usable, derived from Q(p,g) and Er's AME95 Q=-12843 490(70) (new Ne doublet) -> better Ex: 13166 950(900), 13067 480(100). (?!!?) 20Ne(p,g) 69Bl03 Er=1168 800(400) (->Qp=-1112 737) clbr. 40Ar(p,g) Er 1101 800(300) of 64Bl19 (abs. mgn.) 89Sm06: 1102 400(500) but not happy 72Du17 Er=1169 1311 1504 no clbr Ex=3543 600(400) 3679 200(900) 3862 300(800) clbr 40K ThC Says Q=2430 700(500) 75Ro08 Er 1168 800(400) [1311 000(1000) 1504 000(1000) old??] Ex=3544 800(600) 3681 000(1500) clbr 56Co Aver. Ex 3543 969(333*1.66) ->Q=2431 232(684) ** 90Endt 3544 000(600) ->Q=2431 263(721) 21Ne(p,g) 70An06 Er=701 800(500) rcl 701 772(500) ->Q(p)=-669 643(477) clbr 991 870(60) 20Ne 11680(400) Ex=7408 200(1 200) Ex revised using E(ex) for lower levels of 90Endt: Ex=7407 900(1 000) Q=6738 280(1170) ** author's Q=6738 500(1 700) AME95 7408 805(586) 22Ne(p,g) 71Pi08 Er=896 800(500) Ex=9653 200(1 400) forget Q=8794 000(1 500) no better 90Endt Ex. 89Ba24 Er=981 040(70) rcl 980 991 Q(p) -938 033 clbr 991 880(40) 78ENVA Ex 9732 350(150) rcl 9732 293 ->Q=8794 260(166) ** cal 66Ga; assume as 198SAu Author's Q=8794 260(170) 90Endt Ex=9732 250(150); from following S(p) Ex=9732 129(72) AHW99c Penning 22Ne and new 23Na -> S(p)=8794 096( 19) 23Na(p,g) 67Mo17 Er=1416 790(70) rcl 1416 690 Q(p)=-1357 195 clbr 991 900(40) now 991 830(50) with Ex below -> Q(p,g)=11692 949(170) ** 85Uh01 Er=308 750(60) Q(p)=-295 799 -> Q=11692 431(306) ** clbr. absolute voltage 90En02 Ex=13050 220(140) 11988 300(300) ?) clbr 79Gr01 (24Na(B-)); 81Wa07 (24Al(B+) both 411 804.4 rcl Ex= 13050 144 11988 230 thus above avr 11692 794(148) 24Mg(p,g) 55Hu23 Er=225 500(200) 418 400(500) no details clbr. 59An33 Er= 418 800(140) 823 100(500) 1200 000(1000) clbr 990 800 -> 991 830 rcl 419 235 823 956 1201 247 Q(p) -1152 815(950) 59Ku79 Er=222 900(500) 418 700(500) clbr essentially 990 800 59Wa08 ref ZENAA not found For 1201 247 resonance: 71Ev01 Ex=3424 300(600) ->Q=2271 585(1 123) ** clbr 60Co, ThC Author says Q=2271 400(1200) 72Pi07 Ex=2673 400(900), 3062 000(700), 3424 200(800) clbr 56Co of ..... (not mentioned;70Ph01??) -> Q=2271 187(911), 2272 083(860), 2271 536(1281) aver. Q=2271 717(562) ** author's Q=2271 300(800) 85Uh01 Er=222 890(80) Q(p)=-213 915 clbr absolute voltage. 78ENVA Ex 2485 300(800) from reactions ->Q=2271 385(800) ** 26Mg(p,g) 59An33 Er 808 800(500) 338 300(120) rcl 809 641(X) 338 652 (120) (X:for comp. with 78Ma24) Q(p) -326 021 ** clbr 27Al+p of 56Bu27 NB! 78Ma recal's to 338 400(100); BUT: comparison Er 809 and 838 with 78Ma gives same corr. factor! Ex not given. 63Va24 Er 809 400(600) 338 000(300) rcl 338 209(300) rcl: compare higher resonance with next item Q(p)= -325 600(300) ** 78Ma24 Q=8271 000(500) rcl 8271 300(500) from measuremnts at Er=338 400 (not own value) and Er=809 940(50) rcl 809 899(50) Q(p) -779 675(50) clbr 991 880(40) 78ENVA Ex: only value derived from author's Q. The latter derived from not mentioned Eg to 4410 400(400) level. clbr 66Ga 74He.A see $5a above. 90Endt Ex=4410 200(400) Then rcl 9050 944(500) ->Q=8271 270(502) ** 85Uh01 Er=292 060(90) clbr absolute voltage 90Endt Ex=8553 000(300); probably calc. from Q ama011 S(p)=8271 280(150) 26Al(p,g) 84Bu09 Er=286 600(300) ->Q(p)=-275 908(289) clbr 12C(p,g) 77Fr20 Ex=7740 800(900) level -> Q=7464 892(945) clbr 6629 700(50) AME95 (made above U since:) Q-7463 061(194) 27Al(p,g) 74Ho36 11586 040(260) average of earlier data; do not use sctn III C Er=991 830(50) Q(p)=-956 127 with: 90En02 Ex=12541 310(140) rcl 12541 237 -> Q=11585 110(150) ** clbr 24Na 79Gr01 24Al 81Wa07, both 411 804.4 Do not use the 1317 resonance! 78Ma23 Er 1089 740(70) rcl 1089 680(80) -> Q(p)=-1050 452. clbr. 991 880(40) 78ENVA Ex 12635 000(400) rcl 12635 340(300)->Q 11584 890(310) ** clbr 66Ga(eg) of 74He.A; see $5a above author's Q=11584 850(400) (Check using differences with 66Ga lines in their table 2, the new 66Ga energies and correcting for decay, pertinent level energy differences become 1778 672(140), 4497 435(190), 4099 897(190) and 2259 289(120), sum 12635 293(326).) AME95 Agreement with the other now better! 27Al(p,a) 67St30 measuring (magnetic) the p and alpha resonance energies leading to the levels at 12073 000 and 12732 000: Er(p) 504 750(100) 1183 140(290) Q(p) -486 591 -1140 547 Er(a) 2436 200(600) 3199 700(800) Q(a) -2087 800 -2742 074 Q(p,a) 1601 208(608) 1601 527(851) avrg 1601 316(495) ** Author says 1600 900(500) 78Ma23 measuring (magnetic) the Er's for p and alpha's leading to same levels see their table 7. Q=1600 140(210) rcl 1600 059(210) ** clbr 991 880(40) 78ENVA Disagrees with above! for comparison: AHW001 24Mg(n,g)25Mg(n,g)26Mg(p,g)27Al -> 1600 509(500) (=28295 659-7330 690-11093 190-8271 270) AHW012 23Na-28Si-23Na(p,g)+27Al(p.g) -> 1601 081(212) with other 27Al(p,g) 1600 861(343) 28Si(p,g) 73Ba35 Er: uses values 67En 1381 700(1 700) (calcltd!) Ex 4080 600(300) says ->Q=2747 100(1700) clbr: no details 59Ku79 Er 368 900(700) rcl 369 283 clbr essentially 990 800 74By01 Er 370 700(800) rcl 370 674 clbr 991 900(40) average 369 886(526*1.3) ->Qp=-357 050 74By01 Ex=3105 900(300) (=90Endt) -> Q=2748 850(550) ** clbr 40K,ThC 29Si(p,g) 85Re02 Er: four resonances errors (400) Ex no values given says ->Q=5594 500(400) clbr ThC, 6129 270(50) 96Wa33 Ex 4 levels; cal 27Al(p,g) 90En02; ->Q=5594 500(500) If same Ex, not independent. 31P(p,g) 72Co13 Er=811 300(500) rcl 811 259 Q(p)=-785 708 Cal 991 880(40) 78ENVA Ex not given; their Q Q=8864 900(900): ->9650 669(748) clbr ThC etc. rcl Q 8864 942(900) (??) 73Ve08 Er= 1399 300(800) 1410 600(800) rcl 1399.142 1410 441 Q(p)=-1355 055(480) -1365 998(480) clbr 13C+p 1747 600(900); AME95 -> 1747 403(120) (if to 9172 250(120) 91AjSe) Ex 7000 800(1400) 7112 800(1400) clbr 56Co; their Q 8863 900(1400) -> 10219 140(1150) 10230 090(1150) 90Endt Ex=10220 500(800) 10231 500(800) (pobl. calc from AME83 Q=8864 500(600)) 74Vi02 Er 541 400(500) 811 400(500) 887 900(500) Q(p) -524 368 -785 866 -859 956 clbr 991 880(40) 78ENVA Ex not given; clbr ThC, 56Co their Q Q=8865 100(900): ->9389 470(748) 9650 970(748) 9725 060(748) 90Endt Ex 9388 900(800) 9650 300(800) 9724 300(800) (pobl. calc from AME83 Q=8864 500(600)) 32S(p,g) 59Ku79 Er 579 800(1100) 587 300(1100) for 27Al+p 631 500(600) 773 000(1 000) rcl 580 368(970) 587 876(970) 76Al01 Er 579 800(600) 587 900(500) clbr 27Al+p 632 600(200) 773 700(30) 73EnVa; but 632 230(40) 773 640(40) 90Endt rcl 579 608(600) 587 706(500) Ex 2839 000(300) 2846 300(300) clbr ThC 2614 710(50) 40K 1460 810(40) Authors: Q= 2276 800(700) 2276 300(600) aver. 2276 500(500). recal 2277 089(670) 2276 538(583) 2276 766(440) 59Ku rcl 2276 352(1020) 2276 374(1020) 2276 363(721) 35Cl(p,g) 72Ho40 Er 1073 300(300) rcl 1073 217 > Q(p) -1043 163 clbr 991 907(49) Ex 9550 000(400) rcl 9549 238(370) ->Q=8506 075(476) clbr. 56Fe(n,g) 7646 630(160), 1998 7646 010(80) their Q 8507 100(500) 71Sm01 35Cl and recent 36Ar mass result -> 8507 020(50) 36S(p,g) 84No05 Er=996 220(190) rcl 996 170-> Q(p)=-969 102(185) clbr 991 880(40) 78ENVA Ex 9355 580(190) rcl 9355 525 ->Q=8386 472(205) clbr 411804.4 AHW900 Authors E(exc) +0.23 for better recoil correction 01Wa.1 Value agrees well with 36S(n,g)+36Cl(n,g) 36Ar(p,g) 88De03 Er=917 520(70) rcl 917 474(70) -> Q(p)=892 501(68) clbr 991 880(40) 78ENVA Ex 2750 270(60) rcl 2750 131(60) ->Q=1857 630(92) clbr 411804.4 own Q 1857 570(90) 37Cl(p,g) 68En01 Er=1088 700(500) rcl 1088 656 Q(p)=-1059 777 clbr 991 870(60) Ex 5644 300(800)+rcl=5644 750 to level 5658 300(200) 90Endt -> 11303 050(837) clbr 6129 300(400) -> 11302 755 Q=10242 978(877) ** their own Q 10242 500(1100) 74Al05 Er 1089 500(600) says 90Endt clbr 991 900(40) Ex not given; calc. from Q(p,g) 71Wap-Gove 38Ar(p,g) 70Ma31 Er=1394 300(1 000) rcl 1394 244 Q(p)=-1358 189(1 000) clbr 991 870(60) 90Endt Ex=7739 100(500) rcl same Q=6380 911(1 120) ** clbr 78Ma04 411 795 and 511 006 84Ha27 Er=1394 300(600) rcl 1392 861(600) Q(p)=-1356 842(600) clbr 991 880(40), 1317 140(70) But says no value of his; from 78EnVa But I don't see it there!! Q=6382 257(780) ** 39K(p,g) 90Ki07 Er 5x, 783 230(120) to 1765 580(140) clbr 991 860(30) to 1949 380(70) Ex 9091 700(60) to clbr 411 804.4 Also reports 7658 ...(50) for 40Cai 40Ar(p,g) 64Bl19 Er 1101 800(300) clbr absol. magnetic. No Eg given 70Ko28 Er 1101 000(300) rcl 1100 811 clbr 992.0 compared with next, all 1100 ppm low very unfortunate! 78EnVa Ex=8870 000(5 000) calculated from Q(p,g) 89Sm06 a.o. Er=1102 400(500) rcl 1102 344 Qp -1075.284 clbr 27Al+p 78EnVa; a.o. 991 880(40) Ex several (not given) Qorig 7807 900(300) from this for above Er: Ex=8883 184; rcl 8882 996 clbr 88Y, 228Th; 6129 270(50) 82Al19 rcl Q=7807 712(500) AME95 without 40Ar(p,g) input -> output 7808 430(530) AHW985 does NOT feel happy about this South-African work but has to admit that 64Bl indicates 70Ko is low. Proposed: 7808 400(500) for combined three references 40Ca(p,g) 87Zi02 Er 647 280(50) rcl 647 247(50) Q(p)=-631 331(49) clbr 27Al+p 654 650(40) based on 991 880(40) 78ENVA Ex 1716 440(80) rcl 1716 425(80) ->Q=1085 095(94) clbr 56Co 79He19 ess. 411804.4 auth: Q=1085 070(90); no mention Lewis effect etc. 42Ca(p,g) 65Br31 Er around 1200 no mention clbr Ex not given either. clbr 16O 6131 000(4 000) Q 4937(5) thus Ex around 5100 With new 16O 6129 140(20) -> Q 4934 453(3 727) 69Wa19 Table with 6 Er's (500) and Ex (1 000); AHW995 unweighted average 4930 450(1 640); without the only Er with error (2 000): 4929 590(1 710) Auth's 4929 000(2 000) clbr p 991 900(40) g 6129 value,error not givven 43Ca(p,g) 71Po.A Er 1066, 1132, 1144, 1289 no data on calibr, nor on Ex but says Q=6694 000(2 000) AHW012 From (n,g)-Q+, 6702 000(3 540) AHW012 (p,g) error optimistic?? 44Ca(p,g) 74Sc02 no Er no Ex Q=6888 000(1 200) rcl 6887 820(1 200) ** clbr Er Al+p X(0.7) Ex 6129 300 use latter "The gamma energy sums agree within 1 200 with Er's if Q is taken 6888" rcl Q=6887 820(1 200) hm AME95 without this input: 6890 900(1 400) 46Ti(p,g) 86De13 Er 985 980(50) rcl 985 930(60) -> Q(p)=-964 781(60) clbr 78ENVA 991 880(40) now 991 830(50) Ex 6132 390(50) rcl 6132 357(50) -> Q=5167 576(80) cal 411804.4 author's Q 5167 570(70) accept this. ** 48Ca(p,g) 68Vi01 Er=1975 000(2 000) clbr no data ->Q(p)=-1934 343(2 000) 73St03 Ex=11563(3) _>Q=9628 657(3 605) ** clbr no data 90Endt Ex=11560(3) (also 11568(3) but weaker in (p,g).) 48Ti(p,g) 72Ki06 Er 1007 400 1387 700 1563 300 no error clbr 27Al+p 991 820 1381 300 Ex 7744 200 8115 800 8289 100 "error limits 1 500" clbr 56Co(Bg) of 70Ki Author's Q 6756 800(1 500) 50Ti(p,g) to IBA level at 9407 490(250) (NDS976) (not recal.) 70Kl05 Er=1371 400(<2000) rcl 1371 303 clb 991 900(40); 58Ni+p 1424 100(700) Q(p)=-1344.188 -> Q=8063 301(2 000) ** NDS976 to IBA level at 9407 490(250) (not rcl own Q=8059 300(3 000) 70Ma36 Er=1371 000(2 000) ->Q(p)=1343 891 ->Q=8063 599(2 000)** clb: no data I see Ex=9402 000(3 000) No author's Q NB: 7%, 45%, 9% Er 1366,1371,1377 50Cr(p,g) 72Fo25 Er=1059 100(200) 1070 800(200) clbr 78ENVA 991 880(40); abt 50 ppm high Ex 6309 100(300) 6320 500(300) clbr 56Co (no ref.; prbl abt 70 ppm high; then:) Q=5270 540, 5270 470(360) avrg 5270 500(250) ** author's Q=5270 800(300) 51V(p,g) 74Ro44 Er=912 000(2 000) -> Qp=-894 322(2 000) clbr 27Al+p 633 000, 774 000, 923 000 no ref. (O.K.) Ex=11395 000(2 000?) -> Q=10500 678(2 800) ** clbr "g's in 27Al(p) at 992" NDS944 Ex=11399 000(4 000); from S(p), no help. author's Q 10500 000(2 800) AHW011 ama "other' 10503 720(1 220) 52Cr(p,g) 70Ma25 Er=1005 800(1 000) rcl 1005 759 -> Q(p)=-986 630(1 000) clbr 991 870(60) Ex=7545 900(500) rcl 7545 703 -> Q=6559 073(1 120) ** clbr 6129 300(400) now 6129 140(20) own Q=6561 300(1 700) 79Sw01 Er=1005 200( 200) ->Q(p)=-986 080 clbr 73EnVa 23Na+p 1008 770(100) to same level (gives no Ex) NDS998 Ex=7546 800(300) ->Q=6559 720( 360) ** AHW012 could not locate source for this Ex 53Cr(p,g) 75We10 Er=1208 400(600) rcl 1208 339 Q(p)=-1185 779(590) clbr 991 880(40) Eex=8746 from figure clbr 228Th, 56Co no values author's Q=7559 600(1 000) corresponds to Ex=8745 430(800), rcl with 198Au ->8745 379 Q=7559 600(1 000) (!) NDS934 only values Ex in neighbourhood with errors 10 000 54Cr(p,g) 78We12 Er=1098 900(300) 1130 300(300) 1641 400(800) Ex=9146 500(600) 9176 900(6000 9677 500(900 clbr both as 53Cr 75We10; thus no change in author's Q=8067 200(400) 54Fe(p,g) 72Ma26 Er=1803 500(500) 1886 700(500) clbr 7Li 1880 600(70) 2001: 1880 500(100): rcl 1803 404(500) 1886 600(500) Qp=-1770 330(491) -1851 999(491) Ex=6833 500(2 000) 6916 000(2 000) clbr 6129 300(400) 2001: 6129 140(20): rcl 6833 322(2 000) 6915 819(2 000). Avrg with below: 6833 285( 894) 6916 147( 485) Q=5062 955(2 060) 5064 148( 697) Avrg 5064 025(660) ** auth 5063 000(2 000) 5064 000(2 000) 77Er02 1803 resonance double; upper one feeds gs (OK) 77Er02 Er=same Ex=6833 900(1 000), 6916 800(500) clbr 6129 700(280) rcl 6833 276(1 000) 6916 168(500) resulting Q see above NDS91c Er 6917 270(220) -> Q=5065 173(540) 80Ha36 Er 1162 390(300), 1476 200(400) clbr Al+p 991 880, 1317 140(70) (not quite nice!) rcl 1162 204(300), 1475 963(400) Q(p)=-1141 278(295) -1449 381(393) Ex 6205 430(200) 6513 090(200) clbr 6129 170(43) (AHW Q=5064 204(276)) rcl 6205 400(200) 6513 058(200) Q= 5064 122(358) 5063 677(441) avr 5063 945(278) ** Qauth=5064 200(400) 55Mn(p,g) 92Gu03 Er=1455 180(70) rcl 1455 077 -> Q(p)=-1428 876(70) clbr Na+p 1416 790(70) rcl see 23Na+p Ex=11 612 920(110) rcl 11612 674 _>Q=10183 800(170) ** clbr 6129 270(50) Qauth=10183 600(170) 56Fe(p,g) 70Ob02 Er=1262 100(500) rcl 1262 ...(500) clbr Al+p 1262 200(300) 98Endt 1262 750(70); but also 1317 140(70) not 1316 780 Ex=7266 700(500; error if follows from Q) clbr 60Co 88Y 228Th of 68Ma04 avrge of 5 resonances: orig.Q=6026 700(700) AHW: above ->Ex=7266 574(490) Q=6026 574 (71Le21 this is upper one of double resonance) AHW974 Therefore Q corrected to 6027 700(1 000) ** 71Le21 Er=1261 700(400) (upper resnc) and others clbr 27Al+p 991 820, 1381 300(300) Ex=7268 300(1 900) NDS92c no better Ex clbr 6129 300(400) now 6129 140(20) average Q(auth)=6029 300(1 500) ** AHW974 rcl's E(p) and E(g) cancel nearly AME95 Other data point to Q=6028 600(750) 57Fe(p,g) 70Er03 gives no good Er, Ex's. States Q==6952 000(3 000) "average several Ep's and Eex's." clbr 992 000(500), 19F+p 1346 600(1 100) 40K 1460 750 ThC 2614 500 ; 1628 700 AHW012 but also in view of below no improvement suggested. ama011 other 6955 391(1 326) 58Fe(p,g) 74Ke14 Er=2232 500(2 000) -> Q(p)=-2194 316 clbr 27Al(p,g) no value given clbr 13C+p 1747 600(900) NDS938 Ex=9553 130(120) ->Q=7358 814(2 000) ** author's Q=7359 700(3 000) ama011 "other" 7364 107(636); do not care to rcl! But 'other" includes next item 75Br29 Q-Q(56Fe(p,g)=1336 500(700) ** clbr delta Ex with 60Co -> Q=7363 200(1 400) larger error due to target thickness, Notices that own Q and Ex gives Er abt 5 000 higher than 74Ke14 58Ni(p,g) 63Bo07 Er 1423 640(430), 1843 450(560) clbr see 13C(p,g), rcl: Er 1423 614(430), 1843 417(560) Q(p)=-1399 279(420), -1811 896(550) (and 1843 450(560)) electrostatic anal. 70Ho34 Ex=4817 500(1 000), 5230 100(1 000) (no data on calibration.) NDS938 Ex=4817 600(500), 5230 700(400) Q= 3418 321(653) 3418 804(680) avr 3418 553(471) ** author's Q=3418 000(1 400) 70Fo09 Er=1843 400(600) clbr no data. With above Ex -> Q=3418 720(900) (Not independant!) author's Q=3419 000(2 000) 75Kl06 Er 3547 000(?) rcl 3547 090() Q(p)=-3486 290() clbr 13C(p,n) T=3235 700(700) AME95 3235 765(291) Ex 6903 000 (?) (errors given only for their Q) NDS938 Ex 6902 900 (500) -> Q=3416 710 author's Q 3417 000(2 000) 62Ni(p,g) 86De14 Er 1261 740(70) 1374 890(70) 1509 570(80) 1636 400(90) clbr 991 880(40) 78ENVA rcl: Er 1261 700(70) 1374 850(70) 1509 520(80) 1636 350(90) Q(p)=-1241 527 -1352 866 -1485 380 -1610 179 Ex 7363 890(80) 7475 230(50) 7607 610(70) 7732 650(70) clbr 411804.4 rcl: Ex 7363 840(80) 7475 180(50) 7607 560(70) 7732 600(70) Q= 6122 313(106) 6122 314(86) 6122 180(106) 6122 421(114) aver 6122 304(51*0.90) ** author's Q=6122 350(90) 64Zn(p,g) 75We24 Er = 1906 900(600) 1940 500(600) 2023 900(700) clbr 27Al+p 1909 400(500) 98Endt 1908 500(400) rcl 1906 001 1939 585 2022 946 Q(p)=-1876 876 -1909 946 -1992 031 Ex = 5819 800(...) 5852 000(...) 5933 900(...) clbr 56Co of ?; 16O 6129 400(180) 2001 6129 140. -> 5819 553 5851 752 5933 648 Q 3942 677 3941 806 3941 617 If all errors 1000: -> avr 3942 033(577*0.57) ** NDS936 no better Ex Author's Q=3941 700(1 000) 87Vi01 Q=3943 000(1 000) clbr Er 27Al+p 991 880, 1316 880 clbr Ex 6129 140(50) "Q average several states"; no Er, Ex given. 70Ge(p,g) 75Li14 Q=4619 000(5 000) clbr ? (same as 74Wa08 74Ge(p,g)?) AHW012 Unfortunately no better info on 71As 74Ge(p,g) 74Wa08 Er 2531 000(2 000) clbr 27Al+p no details Ex 9398 600(5 000) -> Q=6901 600(5 000) ama011 Q=6898 940(960) 86Sr(p,g) 71Um03 Er 2917 000(1 400); Q=5785 400(3 300) clbr 13C Er=1747 600(900) Ex not given, no clbr, error 3 000 ama011 "other" 5783 920(1 510) 88Sr(p,g) 75Be.B Q=7078 000(4 000) clbr see 90Zr(p,g). See remark below 88Sr(n,g)+89Sr(B+) 7064 440(4 000) (Other 7039 440(5 000):V) ama011 in addition, "other" 7071 290(3 400) 89Y(p,g) 75Be.B Q=8351 000(4 000) clbr see 90Zr(p,g). See remark below 89Y(n,g)+90Y(B-) 8354 840(2 100) 90Zr(p,g) 71Ra08 Er no info, says error (1 200) Eg no value clbr 6129 of Marion techn. rept Q= 5167 000(5 000) 75Be.B Q=5167 000(4 000) clbr 13C(p,n) T=3235 700(700) now T=3235 765(291) clbr 58,60Ni(n,g) via 56Fe(n,g) of 71Va.A but no values Er and Ex given. See remark below Supersedes 71Ra08 same group 90Zr(n,g)+91Zr(p,n) (2 values) 5149 900(6 000) 5156 100(3 400) 92Mo(p,g) 75Be.B Q=4081 000(5 000) clbr see 90Zr(p,g). See remark below 83Ay01 Q=4086 500(1 000) clbr 27Al+p Ep=1799 500(90) 2045 300(80) 16O Eg=6129 140(50) 92Mo(n,g)-Tc Q+ ->4095 350(3 000) (other 4102 450(5 000):V) 151Sm(p,g) 75Jo.A Q=5604 000(4 000) AME95 5601 058(550) (list ended) Remark on 75Be.A. The 4 values would be somewhat valuable if trustworthy. Their E(p) errors are estimated only 1 000, which seems acceptable. Their E(g) they estimate about 4 000. If due to a general calibration difficulty, one might hope that comparison with other data on the same nuclides could suggest an improvement. But in fact the comparisons above suggest that their 88Sr is 7 000 high, 89Y 4 000 low, 90Zr 13 000 high, 92 Mo 5 000 low. These data makes one wonder, whether errors may have been made in assignment of transitions to the "known" final states. Conclusion: do no longer use. VI. Systematic overview threshold determinations and tests 7Be(3He,n) 67Ba.A T=8993 000(7 000) rcl Q=-6281 900(4 896) 71Mo01 (same group): "new beam energy calibration", -> "T= 9 000(5 000) lower (C less stable) than" above value 71Mo01 T=8980 000(5 000) rcl 8975 635 ->Q=-6276 058(3 496) ** clbr 6Li(a,n)9C T=6624.6(2.0); ama011 Q=-3975 386(980)-> T=6621 380(1 630) 9Be(p,n) 50Ri59 T=2059 000(2 000) clbr 7Li 1882 000(2 000) now 1880 500(100) ->T=2057 359(1 000) -> Q=-1850 352(1 000) ** 65Ry01 rcl to -1850 500(1 000) 55Ma84 T=2060 000(3 000) clbr 7Li 1881 100(500) now 1880 500(100) ->T=2059 343(3 000) -> Q=-1852 136(3 000) ** 65Ry01 rcl to -1852 000(3 000) 10B(p,n) 89Ba28 T=4876 910(100) rcl 4876 880(100) ->Q=-4430 170(90) ** Auckland. Replaced by next. 98Ba83 T=4877 030(130) (eV_90!) -> Q=-4430 300(120) Auckland; clbr 7Li 1880 428(20) but see section III A. 11B(p,n) 50Ri59 T=3015 000(3 000) rcl 3012 597(3 000) rcl see 9Be(p,n) -> Q=-2759 733(2 750) ** 65Ry01 rcl to 2760 000(3 000) 61Be13 T=3016 400(1 500) see section III A 65Ry01 rcl to 3016 500(1 500) rcl now T=3016 379(1 500) -> Q=-2763 204(1 370) ** 65Go05 Q(11B(3He,t))=-2002 300(1 200) rcl -2002 123(1 190) ** clbr 210Po E(a)=5304 800(600) now 5104 330(70) (for comparison:) ->Q(p,n)=Q=-2765 886(1 200) AHW011 The (p,n) result may be less dependable!! 12C(p,n) 69Ov01 T=19657 900(4 800) rcl 19655 541(4 800) ** see appendix rcl 76Fr13 -> Q=-18119 868(4 420) 13C(p,n) 61Be13 T=3235 300(1 500) see sectn III A 66Ma20 rcl to 3235 410(1 100) rcl now T=3235 277(1 100) -> Q=-3002 346(1 022) ** 64Bo10 T=3237 100(1 600) ->Q=-3004 148(1485) ** rcl (??) 66Bo20 T=3235 400(2 400) 66Ma20 rcl to 3235 510(1 100) see sectn. III A: rcl now T=3235 380(1 100) ->Q=-3002 441(1 022) ** AME95 Q=-3002 799(270) -> T=3235 765(291) from 12C(n,g) and (p,g) Given here for use in 15N(p,n); 58Ni(p,g);75Be.B 14C(p,n) 73Hi.A T=670 900(90) -> Q=-625 880(84) ** clbr? (abstract only!) AME95 Q=-625 878( 4) 15N(p,n) 72Je02 T=3773 200(1 500) clbr 13C(p,n) 3234 700(700) 19F 4234 300(800) above 3235 765(291); AME95 19F unchanged; thus replace +0(750) by +500(550): rcl 3773 700(1 411) They give also: 3772 100(1 500) abs. velocity. Auth. averages! Same with rcl 3772 950(1 030) Q=-3535 130(960) ** 72Sh08 T=3775 100(800) rcl 3775 600(616) Q=-3537 610(580) ** clbr same as 72Je02 AHW011 unwilling to accept reduced error Q. (p,g)-(n,g) -> Q -3536 740(950) 16O(d,n) 60Bo21 T=1829 600(600) rcl same clbr abslt elctr-sttc Q=-1625 020(533) ** 65Ry01 says clbr -1880 200(900) -> Q=-1624 600(500) 18O(p,n) 50Ri59 T 2590 000(4 000) compare their other data 64Bo13 T 2573 720(770) rcl 2573 512 Q(p) -2436 967( 729) ** cal 27Al+p 991 910 18F Q+=1657 000(2 000) -> -2439 353(2 000) Better omit 18F(B-)?? 19F(p,n) 61Be13 T=4233 200(2 000) see section III A: 66Ma60 rcl to 4233 340(1 500) now T=4233 170(1 500) -> Q=-4019 605(1 424) ** 61Ry04 T=4234 700(1 000) -> Q=-4021 057(950) ** absol magn. No correction error constants here: only 15% of error. clbr 210Po(a) 5304 930(600) now 5104 330(70); but: 61Ry05 :same authors T(p,n) rather good -> no rcl 69Ov01 T=4233 700(700) rcl 4233 192(700) ->Q=-4019 630(665) ** see appendix rcl 76Fr13 20Ne(p,n) 71Go18 T=15419 000(6 000) rcl 15413 850(6 700) clbr 24Mg(p,n) T=15286 300(2 900) now 15281 200(4 100) 71Wi07 T=15419 000(7 000) absol magn. same authors see appendix rcl 76Fr13 rcl 15417 150(7 000) -> Q=-14672 137(6 661) 23Na(p,n) 55Ki28 T=5053 000(10 000) ->Q=4840 478(10 000) 65Ry01 clb 1880 400 yet rcl -4838 000(10 000) 58Bi41 T=5051 000(6 000) ->Q=-4839 048(6 000) 65Ry01 clb 1881 000 yet rcl -4837 000(6 000) AHW012 their 13C(p,n), 19F(p,n) about 6 000 high. 58Go77 T=5062 000(7 000) ->Q=-4849 009(7 000) AHW012 clb 1881 200 rcl ->Q=-4847 204(6 700) 62Fr09 Q=-4835 000(3 000) clbr 19F -4019 500(2 000); see above rcl Q=-4835 842(2 500) ** 65Ry01 rcl -4836 000(3 000) -> T=5048 420 63Ok01 T=5056 000(5 400) -> Q=-4843 174(5 173) ** rcl see Section III K, no change. 65Ry01 rcl to Q=-4845 000(5 000) 74No07 Na(p,g) and 24Mg(p,d) -> Q=-4839 494(1 500) 24Mg(p,n) 69Ov01 T=15286 300(2 900) rcl 15279 366(2 900) ** see appendix rcl 76Fr13 -> Q=-14 659 947(2780) 25Mg(p,n) 69Fr08 T=5263 000(6 000) rcl 5262 368(6 000) rcl ?? forget: AME95 -5059 337(667) 27Al(p,n) 58Go77 T=5798 000(5 000) rcl 5798 843 -> Q=-5589 550(4 820) clbr see 23Na(p,n) 66Bo20 T=5794 300(4 700) 66Ma60 rcl to 5794 500(2 400) but see section III A: now T=5794 259(2 400) -> Q=-5585 148(2 313) ** 75Fr.A rcl's to Q=-5585 100(4 500) 69Ov01 T=5802 100(1 000) rcl 5801 404(1 000) see appendix rcl 76Fr13 ->=-5592 031(964) ** 76Fr13 T=5803 700(3 300) 77Na24 T=5803 300( 260) 85Wh03 T=5803 690( 120) 94Br37 same authors; say measurement contains error. 94Br37 T=5804 190( 100) -> Q=-5594 716(96) ** See table 2: value in eV_90. Corretions: "non-uniform loss +200(50) atomic ionisation -100(50)" 94Br37 T=5804 090(70) without atomic corrections: 28Si(p,n) 69Ov01 T=15668 900(4 200) rcl 15667 020(4 200)_ see appendix rcl 76Fr13 ->Q=-15118 327(4 053) ** 71Go18 T=15666 000(6 000) rcl 15660 773(6 000) clbr see 20Ne(p,n) ->Q=-15112 301(5 788) ** 30Si(p,n) 75Fr.A T=5181 000(5 000) ->Q=-5012 161(4 840) ** clbr see Section III G, no change AME95 -5014 678( 401) 32S(p,n) 69Ov01 T=13899 000(14 000) rcl 13897 332(14 000) ** see appendix rcl 76Fr13 ->Q=-13469 926(13 570) 71Go18 T=13902 000(9 000) rcl 13897 362(9 000) ** clbr see 20Ne(p,n) ->Q=-13470 059(8 720) 35Cl(p,n) 75Fr.A T=6942 300(1 600) ->Q=-6747 318(1 560) ** clbr see Section III G no change 77Wh03 T=6943 000(1 000) -> Q=-6747 944(972) ** clbr 212Bi(a) of 73Rytz no change 78Az01 T=6946 000(1 800) rcl 6947 070 ->Q=-6751 890(1750) clbr 27Al(p,n) T=5803 300(300) now 5804 190(100) 36Ar(p,n) 71Go18 T=13976 000(8 000) rcl 13971 611(8 000) clbr see 20Ne(p,n) ->Q=-13588 348(7 780) ** 37Cl(p,n) 50Ri59 T=1640 000(4 000) rcl 1640.690(4 000) 65Ry01 clbr 1882 000(1 900) rcl Q=-1595 537(3 890) 52Sc09 T=1640 300(2 000) rcl 1639 167(1 000) clbr 1882 000(1 900) -> Q=-1595 654( 970) ** 65Ry01 rcl to Q=-1595 500(1 000) 64Jo11 T=1640 500(2 500) Q=-1596 998(2 430) rcl see appendix forget 66Pa18 Q=-1597 000(1 000) rcl Q=-1596 830(1 000) ** clbr T(7Li(p,n))=1880 700 now 1880 500(100) 98Bo30 Q+-1596 220(200) -> T=1639 742(205) from) PTB; clbr their table 2 27Al+p 991 756; now 991 830 thus no change 1316 870 1316 780 35Cl(a,n) 76Sh24 T=6531 100(1 800) rcl 6533 450(1 420) clbr 27Al+p T=5802.1(1.0) Q=-5862 087(1 274) not so nice: ** 75Sq01 Q=-5989 300(2 900) rcl -5989 099 to 38Kxm at 130 400(360) clbr 212Bi(a) 6090 087(37) now 6089 883(37) ** -> Q=-5858 700(2 900) ama011 "other" 5858 841(624) 38Ar(p,n) 78Ja06 Q=-6694 990(750) (-> 6825 390(750) to 328Kxm) rcl -6695 650(700) ** measured n not B+, clbr mgn. spcmtr clbr 10B(p,n), 14N(p,n) 90Ha13 rcl to 6826 053(600) to 38Kxm using -4430 040(100) and -5925 530(190) now -4430 300(120) -5925 410(110) 98Ha36 T=7008 520(120) to 38Kxm Auckland Q=-6826 738(116) author's Q=-6826 724(120) ** 39K(p,n) 70Ke08 7492 000(6 000) 78Ra15 7503 800(1 900) rcl 7504 821(1 900) clbr 27Al 5803 300(300) ** -> Q=-7314 878(1 852) 40Ar(p,n) 66Pa18 Q=-2286 500(1 000) rcl -2286 257(1 000) ** clbr 1880 700 now 1880 500(100) 40Ca(p,n) 69Ov01 T=15491 100(2 900) rcl 15489 141(2 900) see appendix rcl 76Fr13 ->Q=-15105 353(2 830) ** 41K(p,n) 64Jo11 T=1239 500(1 500) rcl 1239 368(1 500) clbr see appendix ->Q=-1209 614(1 500) ** Note: delta-J=2, yes transition ! 70Kn03 Q=-1203 800(500) ** TOF n's E(p) clbr 27Al+p 1213 000; 1262 200(300) AHW012 Compared with Endt1990, using also 1316 780; conclusion: no change. 43Ca(p,n) 60Mc12 Q=-3005 000(10 000) see 44Ca(p,n) 67Mc07 Q=-2998 000(10 000) AME95 -3003 172( 1 883) thus do not care 44Ca(p,n) 60Mc12 Q=-4412 000(15 000) rcl -4411 000(15 000) clbr 1880 700 method: E(p)+TOF, should be good 67Mc07 Q=-4447 000(10 000) AME95 -4435 629(1 890)thus do not care 45Sc(p,n) 70Kn03 Q=-2843 600(4 000) clbr see 41K(p,n) 85Sc16 T=2908 580(520) rcl 2908 231(520) TOF; clbr 27Al+p resonances 78EnVa that is, about 120 ppm high -> -2844 414(509) ** authors Q=-2845 400(520) AHW98b should be -2844 756(509) wrote authors 9804 AHW012 no answer; checked my value again! 46Ti(p,n) 76Sq01 T=8007 700(1 800) rcl 8008 229(1 800) clbr 212Po 8784 370(70) now 8784 950(120) -> Q=-7835 765(1 760) ** Freemn corrects to Q=-7835 200(1 800) 90Ha13 corrects to -7835 053(1 800) from (3He,t) 77Vo02 -7832 760( 600) 48Ca(p,n) 67Mc07 Q=-534 000(15 000) but see 44Ca(p,n). N.B.: spin difference 6 ! 68Mc10 Q=-506 000(7 000) ** method: E(p)+TOF, should be good; clbr Ep not given 95AME "other" -492 800(8 300) 49Ti(p,n) 60Mc12 Q=-1383 000(9 000) see 44Ca(p,n) 64Jo11 T-1412 100(1 000) ->Q=-1383 624(1 000) ** clbr see appendix AME95 other -1385 600(1 500) 50Ti(p,n) 60Mc12 Q= -2991 000(10 000) see 44Ca(p,n) AME95 -2990 670(1 130) 50Cr(p,n) 75Fr.A T=8586 700(1 900) -> Q=-8416 231(1 765) clbr see Section III G no change 90Ha13 rcl to -8416 053(1 800) AME95 Q=-8415 340(280) 51V(p,n) 50Ri50 T=1562 000(6 000) 59Go68 T=1564 000(2 000) rcl 1563 828 Q= 1533 494(1962) ** clbr 991 000(1 000), 7Li 1881 000(1 000) 1998 991 830 1880 500 interpolate to ratio at actual T 64Jo11 T=1563 800(1 800) rcl 1563 634 ->Q=-1533 313(1 800) ** clbr see appendix 70Kn03 Q=-1533 700(1 500) ** clbr see 41K(p,n): no change 89Sc24 Q=-1535 110(240) rcl 1534 926(240) ** method Er+TOF(n) (->T= clbr 27Al+p Er's see 45Sc(p,n) 85Sc16. 52Cr(p,n) 66Ri09 Q=-5479 000(10 000) from Q-values to two excited levels - but their Ex OK. Authors: "error 10 000 since long extrapolation; in differences much smaller". Comparison their values 13C, 27Al, 58Ni, 60Ni: average no change, error might be halved. Then why here so far different? : From (n,g)-(p,g) -5494 013(2 020) 53Cr(p,n) 64Jo11 T=1406 700(1 600) rcl 1407 404 ->Q=-1381 127(1 600) ** clbr see appendix AME95 -1379 367( 442) 54Cr(p,n) 52Lo06 T=2202 000(5 00) rcl 2200 245(4 580) clbr 1882 000(1 900) ->Q=-2159 890(4 600) ** AME95 -2159 405(1 031) 54Fe(p,n) 69Ov01 T=9204 100(1 800) rcl 9203 000(1 800) to 54Com! see appendix rcl 76Fr13 ->Q=-9033 890(1 800) 74Ho21 8 000 high due to resonance 74Ho21 T=9192 400(1 800) rcl 9193 007 ->Q=-9023 730(1 767) ** incl. correction for resonance(s) clbr 212Po 8784 370(70) 73Ry.1 AME95 8784 950(120) 90Ha13 makes Q=-9022 853(1 800) AME95 output Q=-9025 433(221) 55Mn(p,n) 59Go68 T=1034 000(2 000) rcl 1034 300 Q=-1015 686(1 964) ** clbr see 51V(p,n) 64Jo11 T=1033 000(800) rcl 1033 206 ->Q=-1014 612(800) ** clbr see appendix AME95 -1013 730(100) 56Fe(p,n) 62Ne08 Q=-5353 000(10 000) 65Ry01 rcl to Q=-5351 000(10 000) forget AME95 -5348 353(2 000) 57Fe(p,n) 64Jo11 T=1648 000(2 000) rcl same ->Q=-1619 350(2 000) ** clbr see appendix 70Kn03 -1618 200(2 000) ama011 "other" -1617 993( 630) 58Ni(p,n) 64Ma.A Q=-9351 000(5 000) 66Bo20 T=9516 000(7 800) 66Ma60 rcl to T=9516 320(3 500) but see section III A: now T=9515 935(3500) -> Q=-9352 571(3 440) ** 66Ri09 Q=9346 000(10 000) see 52Cr(p,n) 69Ov01 T=9511 000(1 700) rcl 9509 859(1700) see appendix rcl 76Fr13 -> Q=-9246 600(1 700) ** 59Co(p,n) 51Mc48 T=1887 500(2 000) ->Q=-1855 762(2 000) ** T=7 000(2 000) above 7Li(p,n) T=1882 000(2 000) 57Ch30 T=1895 000(5 000) rcl 1892 987 ->Q=-1861 165(5 000) ** clbr 1882 500(900) 64Jo11 T=1887 100(1 600) rcl 1887 477 ->Q=-1855 753(1 600) ** clbr see appendix 98Bo30 PTB TOF Q=-1855 330(200) ** see 37Cl(p,n) 60Ni(p,n) 69Ov01 T=7027 800(1 600) rcl 7026 857 ->Q=-6910 334(1 600) ** 76Fr13 rcl see appendix 61Ni(p,n) 64Jo11 T=3074 000(4 000) rcl same ->Q=-3023 964(3 940) ** clbr see appendix AME95 -3019 559(1 198); above made U 62Ni(p,n) 66Bo20 Q=-4733 000(10 000) 66Ri09 T=4812 000(10 000) -> Q=-4734 800(10 000) see 52Cr(p,n) (decrease error??) AHW012 average 3 62Cu(B+) -> -4728 950(4 970*1.43) 63Cu(p,n) 55Br16 T=4213 000(4 000) ->Q=-4146 500(4 000) 55Ki28 T=4213 000(8 000) rcl 4205 800(8 000 clbr two 19F+p Er's average 1.7 ppm high ->Q=-4139 500(8 000) ** note: values for 8 other n uclides do not suggest lowering error 63Ok01 T=4216 700(4 400) ->Q=-4150 157(4 400) ** rclb see Section III K, no change ama011 "other" -4149 784(1 918) 64Ni(p,n) 92Bo02 Q=-2458 330(310) rcl -2458 220(310) clbr 27Al+p 991 880, 1318 140; 2200 200(200) first also excited with H2. TOF PTB last one Meyer NP 250()253 notices "remarkable discrepancy" with earlier Q's 63Ni(n,g)-63Cu(n,g) -2457 007(270) ?? 64Zn(p,n) 72Da.A Q=-7951 000(4 000) no further data. AHW inclined to trust Cary Davids, though difference with next ones unfortunate 74Ro16 -7931 763(8 000) from (3He,t) 71Be29 -7970 600(7 000) from (3He,t)65Gai not so good! 65Cu(p,n) see section III K. 67Zn(p,n) 64Jo11 T=1810 200(1 400) rcl same Q=-1783 347(1 379) ** clbr see appendix 68Zn(p,n) 55Br16 T=3749 000(6 000) rcl 3747 804 ->Q=-3692 964(6 000) ** clbr 1881 100(500) 57Ch30 T=3762 000(5 000) rcl 3758 003 ->Q=-3703 013(5 000) ** clbr 1882 500(900) 64Jo11 T=3762 000(5 000) rcl same ->Q=-3706 960(5 000) ** clbr see appendix Q+ -> -3703 453(1 200) 69Ga(p,n) 64Jo11 T=3050 000(4 000) rcl same -> Q=-3006 033(4 000) ** clbr see appendix 92Bo.A Q=-3009 640(550) rcl -3009 500(550) 92Bo.A TOF PrvCom see 92Bo02 -3009 640(550) 70Zn(p,n) 59Go68 T=1457 000(2 000) rcl same ->Q=-1436 130(1 972) ** clbr see 51V(p,n) 64Jo11 T=1460 000(3 000) rcl 1459 839 ->Q=-1439 112(3 000) ** clbr see appendix AME95 -1437 074(1 599) 72Ge(p,n) 76Ki12 auhtor's Q=-5140 000(5 000) clbr no data 74Ge(p,n) 63Ok01 T=3389 100(5 700) -> Q=-3343 500(5 600) ** clbr see Section III K, no change. 64Jo11 T=3394 000(5 000) rcl same -> Q=-3348 322(5 000) ** clbr see appendix 70Fi03 no T Q=-3346 000(5 000) clbr no data. But data on 65Cu, 70Zn, 75As and 80As agree within half the claimed precision with new data 73Ki11 average Q=-3346 960(2 400) ** From Q=3520 000(3 000) for excit. of Ex=173 080(100) From Q=3530 000(4 000) for excit. of Ex=182 980(100) clbr no info authors's Q Q=-3347 000(3 000) 75As(p,n) 59Go68 T=1960 000(2 000) rcl 1959 784 Q(p)=-1933 780(1 974) ** clbr see 51V(p,n) NDS908 to 286 576 level -> Q=-1647 204(1 974) ** 64Jo11 T=1669 500(1 100) rcl same ->Q=-1647 322(1 086) ** clbr see appendix 77Se(p,n) 58Jo01 Q=-2145 000(4 000) ** clbr see 51V(p,n) 63Ok01 T=2175 200(4 000) Q=-2147 000(4 000) ** clbr see Section III K, no change. 78Se(p,n) 61Ri02 T=4396 000(10 000) Q=-4339 810(10 000) clbr p+19F 4233 000(3 000), O.K. 61Sc11 Q=-4430 000(10 000) Q=4430 000(10 000) to isomer Ex=180 820, but sees B+ below above T clbr no data. 63Ok01 T=4411 900(7 500) Q=-4355 500(7 400) ** clbr see Section III K, no change 70Fi03 Q=-4356 000(5 000) clbr see 74Ge(p,n) 80Se(p,n) 64Jo11 T=2686 000(3 000) rcl same ->Q=-2652 541(3 000) ** clbr see appendix 92Bo02 Q=-2652 930(310) rcl -2652 810(310) ** clbr see 64Ni(p,n) 87Sr(p,n) 71Um03 T=3060 000(1 400) to 87Yxm at 380.79 (Auth. used 381 400(400)-> Q=-2643 500(1 800) ) clbr 13C(p,n) 3235 700(700) now T=3235 765(291) rcl 3060 061(1 210) -> Q=-2644 183(1 200) ** 89Y(p,n) 63Ok01 Q=-3612 800(4 000) ** T=3654.8(4.1), and 4247.5(4.1) to 587 840 isomer no rcl see Section III K. 64Jo11 T=4255 000(6 000) to 587 840 ->Q=-3619 416(6 000) ** clbr see appendix no change The two agree with 89Zr Q+ 91Zr(p,n) 70Ki01 Q=-2045 000(6 000) clbr p+7Li, 19F, 27Al no values 71Ma47 Q=-2038 800(3 400) clbr no data 92Zr(p,n) 74Ku01 Q=-2790 700(2 300) clbr no data 75Ke12 Q=-2792 000(5 000) clbr no data 96Ru(p,n) 70As08 T=7300(10) and 7310(10) to 96RhM and 7425(10) to state AME93. 124.72 above 96Rhm at Eexc=52.0. Averaging: Q=-7227(10) to 96Rhm, 7175 to its gs Measured: thresholds to known gamma-rays, clbr no data 98Ru(p,n) 70As08 Q=-5844(10) rcl -5832(10) T=6000(10) to 106.75level see their 96Ru(p,n) 106Cd(p,n) 84Fi05 Q=-7312 700(15 000) T=7535(10) (error statistical only) to 151 100 level clbr no data. Final error: from author's M-A 108Cd(p,n) 84Fi05 Q=-5929 000(12 000) T=-6191 000(8 000) to 198 380 level ->Q=5935 240 T=-6244 000(9 000) to 266 060 level ->Q=5920 065 average 5928 542(6 000*1.26) see 106Cd(p,n) Higher-A ones copied from Qfile; most not worth checking: P 75Ch05 -1190 5 93Nb(p,n)93Mo 73Mc04,* -5027.8 7. 94Mo(p,n)94Tc NDS925** T=5158(7) to 94Tcm at 75.5(1.9) TOF no clbr V Oak 70Ki01 -2490 6 95Mo(p,n)95Tc see 91Zr(p,n) 74Do09 -3760 10 96Mo(p,n)96Tc 78Ke10 -3754 6 96Mo(p,n)96Tc P ANL 74Co27 -1102 6 97Mo(p,n)97Tc P ANL 74Co27 -2458 10 98Mo(p,n)98Tc 83Do11 -3115 15 102Ru(p,n)102Rh 79De44 -5061 4 104Pd(p,n)104Ag P 79De44 -3756 5 106Pd(p,n)106Ag P Tky 80Ad04,W -3376 6 112Cd(p,n)112In P Oak 73Ra13 -1809 6 113In(p,n)113Sn 5531 6 T P Oak 71Ke21 -2525 20 117Sn(p,n)117Sb Oak 77Jo03 -4439.0 3. 118Sn(p,n)118Sb 4477 3 T P Oak 71Ke21 -1369 15 119Sn(p,n)119Sb P Tkm 63Ok01,W -3462.9 7.1 120Sn(p,n)120Sb 3492.1 7.2 T Wm AHW975*W To low spin state??? P 65Me12 -7110.0 30. 144Sm(p,n)144Eu 7160 30 T T h i s i s a l l. 65Ry01 other than (,gamma) recalibrations (Only the ones still of some interest. Some, not recalibrated by Rytz, added for completeness.) 9Be(p,d) 51Wi26 Q=558 000(2 000) rcl 557 555(1 000) clbr 1882 000(1 900) Rytz says Q=557 500(1 000) 53Co02 Q=560 000(3 000) rcl 559 970(2 000) clbr Po 5304 600(2 900) Rytz says Q=560 000(2 000) 66Re02 Q=559 000(1 100) rcl same clbr no data Rytz says NOTHING 67Od01 Q=559 600(600) rcl same clbr Po 5304.5 Rytz says NOTHING 10B(a,d) 56Do41 Q=1341 000(1 000) rcl 1340 287(800) clbr 1881 400(600) ama011 1339 928(386) Rytz says Q=1340 300(800) 14C(d,a) 56Do41 Q=362 000(1 500) rcl 361 808(1 400) clbr 1881 400(600) Rytz says Q=361 800(1 400) 18O(d,a) 55Pa50 Q=4237 000(9 000) rcl 4235 039(7 000) clbr 13C(d,p) Q=2723 000(no err) now 2721 740 Rytz says Q=4236 000(7 000) 67Sp09 Q=4244 000(4 000) rcl Q=4244 000(4 000) clbr Po 5304.2 Rytz says NOTHING ama011 4245 229(2 739) 18O(d,p) 54Mi89 Q=1730 000(8 000) rcl 1727 000(8 000) clbr 12C(d,p) 2712 000 14N(d,p) 8615 000(10 000) now 2721 740(1) 8608 700 57Ah19 same authors recalibrate, new Po, to 1731 000 Rytz says Q=1727 000(8 000) 54Th30 Q=1732 000(8 000) rcl same clbr ? abstract only Rytz says NOTHING 57Ah19 Q=1734 000(5 000) rcl 1731 000(5 000) clbr see 54Mi89 above Rytz says Q=1731 000(8 000) 64Ma.B Q=1733 000(5 000) rcl 1727 000(8 000) V! clbr ? (Mexico) Rytz says NOTHING 64Sp12 Q=1727 000(5 000) rcl same clbr Po 5304.2 Rytz says NOTHING 22Ne(t,p) 61Si03 Q=5587 000(10 000) rcl Q=5586 898(10 000) clbr 12C(t,p) 4640 000(1 000) 16O(t,p) 3706 000(1 000) now 4640 940( 10) 3705 780( 80) Rytz says Q=5584 000(10 000) The A=9 IMME cases Important as "classic" deviation of purely quadratic IMME; which would require that 1/3 of difference masses 9Li and 9C, 1318.92(0.97) (ama010718) equals difference 9Bei and 9Bxi. For them, 79Ka15 give 25740.6(1.7) and 27071.1(2.5) diff. 1330.5, indeed clearly different from the value derived from 9Li and 9C. In the 79Ka15 paper the latter difference/3 was 1315(2), even somewhat more different. This makes me wonder whether modernizing their calibration of the IBA masses might make a change too. They calibrate the 11B(p,3He)9Bei reaction with a nearby peak from the same reaction on 12C leading to the 5163.9(0.6) level in 10B. For the reaction energy to its ground-state they used the value from our AME1971, -19694.7(0.4). The ama010718 value is -19693.0(0.4), and AHW does know of a better value for the 10B Eexc (which is adopted in Ajzenberg-1988 which adopts the 79Ka15 value. Thus, the latters Q for 11B(p,3He) must be increased by 1.7 keV. They do not give this Q but from their 9Bei M-A and AME1971 mass values, I calculate it to be -33374.1(1.7) so the value to be adopted now is -24715.1(1.7). Resulting Eexc=14393.1(1.7). The calibration for 11B(p,3H)9Bxi is less clear but it seems likely, that the same correction must be made. Thus their Q=-26064.3(2.3) (again not given but calculated as above) must be increased to -26062.6(2.3) -> Eexc=14654.7(2.3). The change in the IMME matter is immaterial. (Analysis triggered by the Tilley et al evaluation for A=9.) VII. Appendices: Test's. T E S T 's M a c M a s t e r 80Is02. clbr 15N 10833 400; rcl below with this value (-9 ppm). "The statistical... error is given. This error is applicable for intercomparison of (these) Q values". I compare them with AME95 for cases where they did not contribute too strongly to that result. orig rcl AME rcl-AME relative ppm H 2224 520(120) 2224 499(...) 2224 576( 2) -77 -35 9Be 6812 100(100) 6812 035(203) 6812 330( 60) -295 MMn -43 14N 10833 480( 50) 10833 376(285) 10833 301( 2) +75 +7 24Mg 7330 500(120) 7330 430(225) 7330 650( 50) -220 -30 25Mg 11092 900(120) 11092 794(312) 11093 073( 40) -279 -25 27Al 7725 200( 60) 7725 126(209) 7725 046( 56) + 80 +10 28Si 8473 700(100) 8473 619(242) 8473 555( 28) + 54 + 6 29Si 10609 700(140) 10609 599(309) 10609 379( 31) +220 +21 32S 8641 600( 70) 8641 518(235) 8641 577( 27) -59 - 7 35Cl 8579 800( 40) 8579 718(226) 8579 696( 67) +22 + 3 40Ca 8362 800( 80) 8362 720(232) 8362 ... used 44Ca 7414 900(120) 7414 829(227) 7414 ... used 47Ti 11636 500( 40) 11636 388(305) 11636 591( 40) -203 -17 48Ti 8142 300( 40) 8142 222(215) 8142 363( 50) -141 -17 49Ti 10939 700( 50) 10939 595(289) 10939 130( 40) +465 +42 50Cr 9261 800( 90) 9261 711(257) 9261 ... used 52Cr 7939 600(100) 7939 524(229) 7939 050(200) (+474) +60 53Cr 9719 000(100) 9718 907(272) 9719 ... used 55Mn 7270 600( 60) 7270 530(198) 7270 ... used 54Fe 9298 000(100) 9297 911(262) 9298 ... used 56Fe 7646 200( 60) 7646 127(208) 7646 020(111) +107 +14 57Fe 10044 700( 70) 10044 603(269) 10044 ... used Average deviation: -11/15=-0.8 ppm. Perhaps better not use H(low), 52Cr,56Fe(AME lare errors) -> -78/12=-6.5 ppm. Still not bad sum of 15 squared relative deviations 11160 average error 27.3 ppm not using those 3: sum of 12 6139 22.6 Decision: errors in 3rd column above: root quadr. sum 26 ppm and stat. (AME95 said: "based on comparisons, all errors increased to 300") 81Ke11. "Because present energy scale based on a 35Cl S(n)=8579 820(100) (from 81Ke02), all estimates and absolute errors reflect this calibration." AHW00b: this S is 22 ppm high; their n+C, 207Pb are 9 ppm low, 14 ppm high; compared with their own 82Is02 143Nd 30 ppm high, 155,157Gd 5, 21 ppm low. Conclusion: do not use latter three; the others without change. 91Is02. See the analyses above. Bad agreement in 99Ru(n,g) with Laue-Langevin result 88Co18 +75(8) ppm but a new ILL 88Co18 agrees much better. 90Is02 on Si's. Agrees nicely with 92Ra19 ORn and 97Ro26 PTB. 91Is01 0n Ge's. No nice others to compare with. 82Is05. Clbr: "To determine the absolute error, the value of sigma sub mean was added in quadrature with the error in the energy scale based on .. 10833 300(110)(81Ke02) " But, evidently, the latter error is taken to be 110 everywhere, not (E/10833)*110. (NB: 81Ke02 refers for this value to 80Gr02 who gives the same value as the 80Gr02 one discussed above: error (38) not (110).) In AME95, the values are corrected down to agree with the 90Wa22 15N value. With the 1999 15N value, the values need not be changed; and its contribution to the total error is negligible. It seems unwise, though, to accept only the statistical error (first error in last column below); thus I added a calibration error 50 to all and so get the second list of errors error. Comparison with other precise: only 144Nd, 163Dy. (second 166Ho from same auhors). The 3 others some 70 lower; does not say much. 143Nd 6123 620(130) 6123 620(60)(80) 144Nd 7817 110(120) 7817 110(50)(70) 146Nd 7565 280(140) 7565 280(90)(100) 156Gd 8536 390(120) 8536 390(50)(70) 158Gd 7937 390(120) 7937 390(50)(70) 162Dy 8196 990(120) 8196 990(40)(60) 163Dy 6270 980(110) 6270 980(30)(60) 164Dy 7658 110(120) 7658 110(50)(70) 165Dy 5715 960(110) 5715 960(30)(60) 166Ho 6243 690(110) 6243 690(30)(60) 174Yb 7464 630(110) 7464 630(30)(60) 175Yb 5822 350(120) 5822 350(50)(70) T E S T ILL Beta Spectrometer Bill 79Br25 First 199Hg(n,g)200Hg. Bent crystal for low energy gamma's. Calibr 411 804.41. Combinations to 2002 049 level. Then combination with gamma's of 74Br02, recalibrated with the above; to 3288 720(150) level. Higher gamma's with magnetic spectrometer, calibrated with the above, also using differences between Q(n,g) and level energies as derived above; least squares to derive Q see 199Hg(n,g) above. The Eg's thus obtained are calibrations for the other magn. sp. results. Also Ge pair spectr.; cal. (n,g) to 13C; 28Al, 36Cl of 78St25: the average of the two means that no calibration correction is necessary. 79Br25 gives a table of calibration lines with the remark only stat. error; does not here add syst. one. Since the calibration lines have "an addit. syst. error of 200 should be added"; this is no longer true. Compared with other data, I find the magn. sp. results for following final nuclides high by: 3H 4ppm 13C 92(55) ppm 28Al 31 ppm 92Zr 37ppm. Furthermore, compared with the pair sp. they are again high by: 114Cd 45 ppm 200Hg 31 ppm. In view of this discussion, it seems likely that the magn. sptr. results are 36(20) ppm high. 79Br25 gives in their abstract ONLY the magn. sp. result. This is no longer recommendable. T E S T Muenich (3He,t) reactions 77Vo02 990308 I made least squares tests of most of these data combined with the 87Ko03 differences and some results of combinations of (p,g) and (n,g) reactions. Already much earlier, I guessed that the calibration of these data needed to be reconsidered. The paper itself gives no data allowing to make such corrections. (Energy measurements of 19 MeV deuterons by time of flight; these are used to calibrate magnetic spectrometer; contribution energy measurement to error about 200 eV; I did not take this part out below in changing the errors.) I now decided to make several least squares analysis, among them some adding a calibration factor as an unknown. Furthermore, I added data on parallel (p,n) reactions from Auckland, and also differences between (n,g) and (p,g) reactions (Utrecht, Oak Ridge, McMaster). With all these data, Re/Ri=2.74, bad. Adding a calibration factor makes it scarcely better. Something seems to be wrong with the 77Vo value for 42Ca which differs much trom the Utrect-Oak Ridge 41(n,g)-41(p,g) combination. Taking this out improves the results somewhat. But a good result, Re/Ri=1.04, is only reached by taking out the Auckland results and using no calibration factor. (Taking out the Utrecht etc. values instead, gives Re/Ri=1.87) Conclusion: accept the 77Vo02 results unchanged (NB: I checked the 77Vo precursor 74Ha35; nothing still important). T E S T Chalc River (p,n) recalibrations. In 90Ha13 Hardy et al. revise some experimental data. In table 2 they give the resulting Q+'s for super-allowed transitions. I calculate from them the corresponding ground-state Q(p,n)'s where necessary for comparison with the data I discuss above. case ref Q+ Q(p,n) Ex gs Q(p,n) 14N(p,n) 61Bu04 2830 600( 600) -3612 953 2312 780 -5925 733( 600) 62Ba26 2832 300( 600) -3614 653 -5927 433( 600) 70Ro07 2832 800( 500) -3615 153 -5927 933( 500) 26Mg(p,n) 69De27 4232 700( 500) -5015 053 228 305 -4786 748( 500) 75Fr.A 4232 200(1500) -5014 553 -4786 248(1500) *) 34S(p,n) 77Ba16 5491 740( 550) -6274 093 0 same 38Ar(p,n) 78Ja06 6043 700( 600) -6826 053 130 400 -6695 653( 520) 46Ti(p,n) 76Sq01 7052 700(1800) -7835 053 0 same 50Cr(p,n) 75Fr.A 7633 700(1800) -8416 053 0 same &) 54Fe(p,n) 74Ho21 8240 500(1800) -9022 853 0 same *) 90Ha13 gives value for a Fr69; probably same *) 90Ha13 gives value for a Ho77; probably same T E S T Oak Ridge (p,n) results 64Jo11 (Comparison with later results) N.B. AHW012: check "now" for revisions! T(p,n) eV clbr ->Q(p,n) keV ppm 37Cl(p,n) 1640 500(2 500) B -1596.9(2.5) now -1596.18(0.38) - 450 41K(p,n) 1239 500(1 500) A -1209.7(1.5) now -1203.74(0.28) -4950 49Ti(p,n) 1412 100(1 000) ABC -1383.6(1.0) oth -1385.6 (1.0) +1440 51V(p,n) 1564 100(1 800) A -1533.7(1.8) now -1535.09(0.24) + 910 53Cr(p,n) 1406 700(1 600) BC -1380.4(1.6) now -1379.37(0.44) - 750 55Mn(p,n) 1033 000( 800) AB -1014.4(0.8) now -1013.73(0.10) - 660 57Fe(p,n) 1648 000(2 000) C -1619.3(2.0) now -1618.40(0.42) - 560 59Co(p,n) 1887 100(1 600) AB -1855.3(1.6) now -1854.84(0.56) - 250 61Ni(p,n) 3074 400(4 000) C -3023.9(4.0) now -3019.56(1.20) -1440 65Cu(p,n) 2169 000(1 700) AB -2135.8(1.7) now -2134.30(0.35) - 700 67Zn(p,n) 1810 200(1 400) ABC -1783.3(1.4) oth -1880.79(2.91) -1330 68Zn(p,n) 3762 000(5 000) C -3707.0(5.0) now -3703.48(1.20) - 950 69Ga(p,n) 3050 000(4 000) C -3006.0(4.0) now -3009.64(0.55) +1210 70Zn(p,n) 1460 000(3 000) A -1439.3(3.0) now -1437.07(1.60) -1550 71Ga(p,n) 1033 000(2 000) AB -1019.5(2.0) now -1014.28(0.32) -5150 73Ge(p,n) 1205 000(15000) A -1188.588 now -1190.24(3.58) forget 74Ge(p,n) 3394 000(5 000) C -3348.2(5.0) oth -3343.18(1.80) -1500 75As(p,n) 1669 500(1 100) AB -1647.3(1.1) oth -1645.10(0.91) -1340 80Se(p,n) 2686 000(3 000) C -2652.5(3.0) now -2652.91(0.31) + 150 89Y(p,n) 4255 000(6 000) C -4207.3(6.0) oth -4201.23(2.79) -1440 106Pd(p,n) 3790000(13000) C -3754.0(13 ) now -3747.61(2.85) forget clbr A 1880 700 -110 ppm B 51V(p.n) 1564 400(1 100) +940 ppm (really!) C 11B, 19F, 37Cl(p,n) +630, -160, -210 ppm T E S T PTB 97Ro26 (n,g) results. These have been calibrated with values recommended in 90Wa22. No details are given; but their table gives values for H+n and 14N+n that are indeed almost numerically identical with the 90Wa22 values. Behind each value, in keV with 4 digits behind the decimal point, stands (5). I suppose it means that the SYSTEMATIC error is 0.5 eV - since the error in the 14N+n calibration energy is 20 eV. Unfortunately, the corrections in the H+n and 14N+n even have opposite sigm (see table); thus it is not completely clear what correction has to be made. The ppm correctiont is certainly not a linear function of S(n) between the H+n and 14N+n corrections: the main gamma lines in the spectrum of the latter occur at about 5 MeV and must evidently be correcte with the 14N+n correction. Without further information, it seems most appropriate to use the latter correction everywhere. Below I give the original results in eV; those corrected as described; and some average of earlier results (the one for 31Si+n is not from 31Si(n,g).) A further problem is: which errors should be assigned to the thus corrected results? Since the error in the new N+n calibration value is so small, they may be of the order of a few eV. But not having enough details, and in view of the deviating correction for H+n, I think they should provisionally not be estimated smaller than 30 eV. orig rcl earlier H+n 2224 572.7 (2224 585.5 !)2224 566.1(0.4) 14N+n 10833 233.9 10833 296.4 10833 296.4(1.0) ----------------------------------------------------- 28Si+n 8473 550.9 8473 599.8 8473 580 (28) 29Si+n 10609 177.6 10609 238.8 10609 218 (30) 30Si+n 6587 397.0 6587 435.0 6587 391 (50) 31Si+n 9203 218.0 9203 271.1 9203 220(2 160) 56Fe+n 7646 095.6 7646 139.7 7646 025 (88) T E S T 65Ry01 (p,n) recalibrations. Rytz, on my request, took the trouble to recalibrate older reported reaction energies using the best values, at his disposition, for calibration energies. Unfortunate often, the original authors did not mention the values they accepted for the calibration energies. Rytz took the trouble to find out what was most probably the adopted value; a thing I have also been obliged to do for many cases abobe. In this special case, I do not think I can improve Rytz' guesses. Rytz did not limit his work to (p,n) reactions. Of the other ones, most are nowadays no longer used in atomic mass calculations; I do not care to change them to more recent calibrations, the more so since the calibration values he adopted for them do not deviate much from more recent ones. I plan to check the remainder. But for completenes, I did check his (p,n) recalibrations above. T E S T 69Ov01 Freeman's (p,n) recalibrations 76Fr13 Joan Freeman was not satisfied with the "self-consistent" set of (p,n) threshold energies reported in 69Ov01 by the Yale group. She gave new values with increased errors. Comparison with present-day T-values suggest she was too pessimistic: 69Ov01 76Fr13 2001 2001/69Ov01 12C(p,n) 19657.9( 4.8) 19651.2(6.1) 19656.1 (1.0) - 92 ppm 19F(p,n) 4233.7( 0.7) no value 4234.8 (0.3) +260......2003 27Al(p,n) 5802.1( 1.0) 5800.1( 1.5) 5804.09(0.10) +343 32S(p,n) 13899 (14) 13894 (16) 13897.4 (9.0) -125 54Fe(p,n) 9204.1( 1.8) 9201.0( 2.5) 9193.6 (0.2) (-1141)& 58Ni(p,n) 9511.0( 1.7) 9507.8( 2.7) 9509.3 (2.2) -179 60Ni(p,n) 7027.8( 1.6) 7025.8( 2.5) (7026.9 (1.6) derived) (54Fe: influenced by resonance; 19F, 27Al: somewhat special) ("Concistency" means that an equal-ppm correction must be applied to Brho-, thus to p-values. For these low energies dE/E=2p/p: thus the same is true for energies.) thus 76Fr's about -300 ppm correction seems exaggerated; -120 ppm seems more realistic. References perhaps not in Rfile: 52Mu45 PHRVA 88, 775 Muller,D.E. et al 55Co.1 RMPHA 27, 363 Cohen,E.R., J.M.W.DuMond 55Hu23 PHRVA 97, 567 Hunt,... 56Bu27 HPACA 29, 83 Bumiller,... et al 57Co62 PPSOA 70, 769 Conner,R.D. et al 59An33 NUPHA 13, 310 Andersen,S.L. et al calibr? 59Ku79 PHYSA 25, 600 Kuperus,J. et al 59Wa08 ZENAA 14a, 784 Wagner 60Be11 AFYSA 17, 125 Bergvall,P. 61Ry04 HPACA 34, 819 Rytz,A. et al 61Ry05 HPACA 34, 966 Rytz,A. et al 62Le.1 PHRVA 125, 937 Lewis,W.B. 62Ry01 HPACA 35, 341 Rytz,A., H.Staub, H.Winkler, W.Zych 62Ry02 HPACA 35, 546 Rytz,A. et al 62Wa11 PHRVA 125,2012 Walters,W.L. et al 63Co.A P-Vienna 152 Cohen,E.R., J.M.W.DuMond 63Ga09 PHRVA 131,1759 Gasten,B.R. 63Li10 NUPHA 49, 609 Lindstroem,B., I. Marklund 63Ry04 NUPHA 43, 229 Rytz,.A 64Bl19 HPACA 37, 733 Bloch,R., et al 64Bo10 PRVCB 134, 591 Bondelid et al NB PhRv B! 65Co.1 RMdPh 37, 537 Cohen,E.R., J.M.W.DuMond 65Mu03 NUPHA 63, 353 Murray.G., R.L.Graham, J.S.Geiger 65Pr06 CJPHA 43,2086 Prestwich,W.V. et al 66Gr.A ANL 7282 Greenwood,R.C. (ed. Strauss-Larsson) 66Gr10 PYLBB 21, 702 Greenwood,R.C. S(D)=2224 610(70) no N+n 66Gr18 PYLBB 23, 482 Greenwood,R.C. 66Ma60 RMPHA 38, 660 Marion, J.B. 66Pa03 NUPHA 75, 515 Palmer,D.W. et al 66Va10 NUPHA 80, 321 VanMiddelkoop,G., H.Gruppelaar 67Jo15 AFYSA 35, 423 Jonsson,L, R.Hardell, S.F.Arnell 67Ke07 NUPHA 96, 658 Kennett,T.J., N.P.Archer, L.B.Hughes 67Mo17 NUIMA 335, 219 Mourad,... et al 67Sc30 PHRVC 164,1548 Schult,O.W.B. et al 67Sp05 NUPHA 102, 209 Spil;ling ewt al 67Pr10 PHRVC 161,1080 Prestwich,W.V., R.E.Cote, G.E.Thomas 67Th05 NUIMA 56, 325 Thomas,G.E., D.E.Blatchley, L.M.Bollinger 67Va08 NUPHA 97, 209 Van Middelkoop, G. et al 68Bo21 PHRVL 21, 233 Bollinger,L.M., G.E.Thomas 68Gr14 PYLBB 27, 274 Greenwood,R.C. 68Gr.A P-Argonne 303 Greenwood,R.C. 68Ma04 NUDAA 4, 301 Marion, J. B. 68Pr10 PHRVC 174,1329 Prestwich.W.V.,............. 68Si.1 NUIMA 61, 245 Simpson,O.D., L.G.Miller (2 kev n's method) 68Sp01 NUPAB 113, 395 Spilling,F. et al 68Wh03 NUIMA 66, 70 White,D.H. et al 69Fr08 NUPAB 132, 593 Freeman, J.M. et al 69Jo.A P-Studsvik 199 Jonson,l. and R. Hardell IAEA 199 69Ra.A MITNE/85 Rasmussen et al (=70Or.A) 69Se08 NUPAB 139, 375 Selin,E., R.Hardell 69Wa05 NUPAB 132, 161 Wasson,A.O, ... Chrien 70Be54 AFYSA 16, 75 Bergval et al 70Ho34 CPHMA 40, 77 Holmberg,P., A.Kiuru 70Ko28 IANFA 34,1752 Kopanets,E.G. et al 70Ph01 NUPAB 149, 647 Phelps,M.E., et al 70Ri15 PRVCA 2,1793 Rimawi,K. et al 70Se14 PHSTB 2, 169 Selin,F. 71Ba54 IANFA 74,1775 Barchuk,I.F. et al 71Be34 AKENA 17, 145 Bellman,D. Atomkernenergie 71Ca14 NUPAB 166, 349 Camp,D.C., G.L.Meredith 71Ra08 ZEPYA 243, 105 Rauch,F. 71Va.A P-Teddington131 VanderLeun,C., P.deWit 72Co09 NUPAB 181, 174 Costa,G., F.A.Beck, D.Magnac-Valette 72Du17 PHSTA 5, 169 Dubois,J., W.S.Rodney, M.S.Shapiro, H.Winkler 72Dz13 YAFIA 15,1093 Dzafar,J.D. et al 72Gr.A 72ANCP Greenwood et al; also NUIMA 57(67)46 72Is13 CJPHA 50,2845 Ishaq,A.F.M. et al 72Lo26 NUIMA 105, 453 Lopez,G.D., G.E.Thomas 72Ma26 NUPAB 187, 337 Martin,D.J. et al 72Ma03 PRVCA 5, 178 Mariscotti,M.A.J. et al 72Mi16 HPACA 45 95 Michaud,B., J.Kern, L.Ribordy, L.A.Schaller N+n 72Se.A P-Budapest 116 Seyfarth,H. et al 73Sp06 NUPAB 215, 260 Spits,A.M., J.A.Akkermans 73Ro40 NCIAA 17a, 721 Rossi-Alvarez,C., G.B.Vingiani 73Ry.1 ADNDT 12, 487 Rytz,A. 73St03 PRVCA 7,1418 Struve,H., H.C.Thomas, M.J.Bennett, D.D.Armstrong 73Va.A P-Kentucky Van der Leun,C. et al see 76Al16 74Al05 NUPAB 220, 284 Alderliesten,C. et al 74Br02 PHRVA 9, 366 Breitig, D. et al erratum p. 2088 74Gr37 NUIMA 121, 385 Greenwood,R.C., R.G.Helmer 74Ha35 PRLTA 33, 320 Hardy,J.C. et al 74He.A "g-ray ctlgue" Heath,R.L 74Ho21 PRLTA 51, 345 Hoath,S.D. et al 74Ho36 PHFEA 9. 15 Holmberg,P., I.Forsblom, T.Sundius 74Is06 NUIMA 121, 193 Ishaq,A.F.M. et al 75Fr.A P-Teddingt 126 Freeman,J.M. et al 75Be.C ??? (first wrongly assigned 75Be.B) 75Ro08 NUPAB 241, 460 Ro......... 75Ro16 NUPAB 246, 380 Rousille,R. et al in Rfile 75Sm02 PRVCA 11,1392 Smith,L.G., A.H.Wapstra 75Wa.A P-Petten 686 Wapstra,A.H. 76Bu14 PRVCA 14, 75 Bushnell, D.L., G.R.Tasotto,T.K.Smither 76Fr13 NUIMA 134, 153 Freeman,J.M. 76Me.A P-ELansing 40 Meyer,R.A., K.G.Tirsell, G.Armentrout 76Sp06 NUPAB 264, 63 Spits, A.J.M., J.Kopecky 77Ca19 NUPAB 285, 235 Casten,... et al 77Ge14 NUIMA 147, 405 Gehrke,R.I. et al 77RuZR P-Tashkent 60 Rudak,E.A., A.V.Soroka, V.N.Tadoush 77Wh.1 AusJP 30, 365 White,R.E., H.Naylor CHECK 78Gr14 NUPAB 304, 327 Greenwood,R.C. et al 78Gr.A P-..... 621 Greenwood,R.C., R.E.Chrien 78Ma.1 NUIMA 154, 127 Mampe,W. et al 79Gr01 NUIMA 159, 465 Greenwood,R.C.,R.G.Helmer and R.J.Gehrke 79He19 ADNDS 24, 39 Helmer,R.G.,P.H.M.van Assche, C.v.d.Leun 80Ba.B P-Lansing 233 Barker,P.H. et al 81Sc.A P-Grenoble 163 Schmidt,H. et al 81St04 NUIMA 180, 515 Stoker,D.P. et al Auckland 81Bi05 NUPAB 359, 149 Biesiot,W. et al 81Wa07 PRVCA 23,1242 Warburton,. 83Co09 NUIMA 211, 153 Cohen,E.R.,A.H.Wapstra 83Ma55 NUPAB 407, 98 Mariscotti,M.A.J. et al 84Ba.A P-Bernkastel Barker et al 84Ad07 JPHGB 10,1474 Adams,G. et al does no occur 85Ho08 NUPAB 437, 285 Hoff,R.W. et al 85Ma59 PRVCA 32,2215 Markey,J. and F.Boehm 85Va.A JINR R6-85-22 Vasileva,E.V. et al (ref 16 in 90Bu52) 87Ko33 NUPAB 472, 408 Koslowsky et al. 88En01 NUPAB 476, 333 Endt,P.M. et al 88Wa20 PRVAC 272, 791 Wang,G., E.K.Warburton, D.E.Alburger (NOT NIM!!) 90Ha13 NUPAB 509, 429 Hardy,... et al 90Wa.A unpublished Wapstra,A.H., "recalibration of (p,gamma) reactions" 91Ba.1 NUIMA 306, 272 Barker et al Only technical aspects 91Ma65 ZPAAD 341, 1 Mayerhofer,U. et al 91Wa22 NUIMA 292, 671 Wapstra,A.H. 93Al15 NUIMA 335, 219 Alderliesten,C. et al 93Eg.A PrvCom AHW Oct Egidy,T. 93He19 NUIMA 335, 227 Helene,O., V.R.Vatin 198Au and Ir(g) new 93Sp.A AnRpt JYFL 95 Spits, A.M. et al 93Wi21 NUIMA 335, 172 Wilkinson,D. 94Am08 PHRVC 50,2466 Amundsen,P.A., P.H.Barker 94Br37 NUIMA 340, 436 Brindhaben et al 94En02 NUPAB 575, 297 Endt,P.M. and C.Alderliesten 97Ju02 PRVCA 56, 118 Jurney,E.T.,J.W.Starner,J.E.Lynn and S.Raman 97Ro26 IEEE 46, 560 Roettger et al (IEEE Trans.Meas.) 99He.1 NUIMA 422, 525 Helmer,R.G., C.van der Leun 99He.A PrvCom,Draft 5 Helmer,R.G., C.van der Leun 00Mo.1 JPCRD 28,1713 P.J.Mohr, B.N.Taylor 02Be.1 PRLTA88,011603 T.B.Beier, ....., H.-J.Kluge, ....