1: % August 7, 2006 CMC

2: % June 15, 2006 CMC

3: 

4: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,showpacs,showkeys,tightenlines,superscriptaddress]{revtex4} 

5: \usepackage{epsfig,rotating}

6: 

7: \newcommand{\nuc}[2]{\hbox{$^{#1}$#2}}

8: 

9: \begin{document}

10: 

11: \title{Measurement of excited states in $^{40}$Si and evidence for weakening of the $N=28$ shell gap}

12: 

13: \author{C.\,M.~Campbell}

14:    \affiliation{National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory,

15:      Michigan State University,

16:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

17:    \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy,

18:      Michigan State University,

19:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

20: \author{N.~Aoi}

21:    \affiliation{The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research,

22:      2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan}

23: \author{D.~Bazin}

24:    \affiliation{National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory,

25:      Michigan State University,

26:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

27: \author{M.\,D.~Bowen}

28:    \affiliation{National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory,

29:      Michigan State University,

30:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

31:    \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy,

32:      Michigan State University,

33:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

34: \author{B.\,A.~Brown}

35:    \affiliation{National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory,

36:      Michigan State University,

37:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

38:    \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy,

39:      Michigan State University,

40:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

41: \author{J.\,M.~Cook}

42:    \affiliation{National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory,

43:      Michigan State University,

44:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

45:    \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy,

46:      Michigan State University,

47:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

48: \author{D.\,C.~Dinca}

49:    \affiliation{National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory,

50:      Michigan State University,

51:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

52:    \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy,

53:      Michigan State University,

54:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

55: \author{A.~Gade}

56:    \affiliation{National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory,

57:      Michigan State University,

58:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

59:    \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy,

60:      Michigan State University,

61:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

62: \author{T.~Glasmacher}

63:    \affiliation{National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory,

64:      Michigan State University,

65:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

66:    \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy,

67:      Michigan State University,

68:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

69: \author{M.~Horoi}

70:    \affiliation{Physics Department,

71:      Central Michigan University, 

72:      Mount Pleasant, Michigan 48859}

73: \author{S.~Kanno}

74:    \affiliation{Department of Physics,

75:      Rikkyo University,

76:      3-34-1 Nishi-Ikebukuro, Toshima, Tokyo 171-8501, Japan}

77: \author{T.~Motobayashi}

78:    \affiliation{The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research,

79:      2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan}

80: \author{W.\,F.~Mueller}

81:    \affiliation{National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory,

82:      Michigan State University,

83:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

84: \author{H.~Sakurai}

85:    \affiliation{The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research,

86:      2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan}

87: \author{K.~Starosta}

88:    \affiliation{National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory,

89:      Michigan State University,

90:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

91:    \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy,

92:      Michigan State University,

93:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

94: \author{H.~Suzuki}

95:    \affiliation{Department of Physics,

96:      University of Tokyo,

97:      Tokyo 1130033, Japan}

98: \author{S.~Takeuchi}

99:    \affiliation{The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research,

100:      2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan}

101: \author{J.\,R.~Terry}

102:    \affiliation{National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory,

103:      Michigan State University,

104:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

105:    \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy,

106:      Michigan State University,

107:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

108: \author{K.~Yoneda}

109:    \affiliation{The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research,

110:      2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan}

111: \author{H.~Zwahlen}

112:    \affiliation{National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory,

113:      Michigan State University,

114:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

115:    \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy,

116:      Michigan State University,

117:      East Lansing, Michigan 48824}

118: 

119: \date{\today}

120: 

121: \begin{abstract}

122: Excited states in \nuc{40}{Si} have been established by 

123: detecting $\gamma$-rays coincident with inelastic scattering and 

124: nucleon removal reactions on a liquid hydrogen target.  The low 

125: excitation energy, 986(5) keV, of the $2^+_1$ state provides 

126: evidence of a weakening in the $N=28$ shell closure in a neutron-rich 

127: nucleus devoid of deformation-driving proton collectivity.

128: \end{abstract}

129: 

130: \pacs{25.40.-h, 23.20.Lv, 27.40.+z

131: }

132: 

133: \keywords{inelastic proton scattering, $pn$ removal, radioactive beams,

134: $p(^{40}\rm{Si},^{40}\rm{Si} + \gamma)p^{\prime}$, 

135: $p(^{42}\rm{P},^{40}\rm{Si} + \gamma)X$,

136: level energies

137: }

138: 

139: \maketitle

140: 

141: 

142: The shell structure of the atomic nucleus provides one of the most 

143: important building blocks for the understanding of this correlated, 

144: fermionic many-body system \cite{cau05,bro01}. Nuclei with a closed shell 

145: of protons or neutrons are particularly stable \cite{mgm49,hjs49}. 

146: In neutron-rich exotic species, the shell structure, well-established 

147: close to stability, is modified; new magic numbers appear and some 

148: traditional shell gaps vanish \cite{war04,taka01}. Those changes in a regime 

149: of a pronounced imbalance between proton and neutron numbers are driven, 

150: for example, by the tensor force \cite{taka05} and the proton-neutron monopole 

151: interaction \cite{taka01,fed79,heyde85}.

152: 

153: A particularly fertile ground to study modifications to shell 

154: structure far from stability are neutron-rich nuclei with protons in the 

155: $sd$ shell and neutrons in the $fp$ shell ($\pi(sd)\nu(fp)$). The collapse 

156: of the $N=20$ shell closure in Ne, Na and Mg isotopes 

157: is actively studied three decades after its discovery

158: \cite{thib75,camp75,moto95,boris99,church05,neid05,trip05,ney05,iwa05}.  

159: Prior experimental 

160: studies and theoretical predictions suggest a weakening of the $N=28$ 

161: magic number \cite{sor93,gla97,wer9496,lala99}. Coulomb excitation of the 

162: $N=28$ nucleus \nuc{44}{S} implied enhanced collectivity \cite{gla97} and 

163: $\beta$-decay experiments have been used to infer a deformed ground state 

164: \cite{sor93}. The question of whether these observations are due to a breakdown 

165: of the $N=28$ magic number or the collapse of the $Z=16$ proton sub-shell gap 

166: at neutron number $N=28$ are much discussed in the literature 

167: \cite{reta97,cot98}.  A near-degeneracy of the $\pi1s_{1/2}$  and $\pi0d_{3/2}$ 

168: orbitals has been established experimentally for stable \cite{doll76} and 

169: neutron-rich nuclei \cite{fri05,cot06} at $N=28$.  However, observation of 

170: collectivity in these nuclei cannot be used to draw firm conclusions on 

171: the breakdown of $N=28$ because proton degeneracy also enhances 

172: collectivity approaching $N=28$.

173: 

174: To isolate changes in the $N=28$ shell closure, we studied excited states 

175: in \nuc{40}{Si}($Z=14$, $N=26$) where recent experiments indicate the $Z=14$ 

176: proton sub-shell gap remains large at $N=28$ \cite{fri05,cot06}.  

177: Thus, low-lying excited states observed in \nuc{40}{Si} probe 

178: predominantly neutron configurations, and 

179: the conclusions are not complicated by the proton degrees of freedom. 

180: Although a QRPA analysis of $\beta$-decay half-lives suggests \nuc{39-42}{Si} 

181: are deformed, confirmation by more direct methods is needed \cite{grevy04}.

182: In the regime of exotic nuclei, excitation energies are often the first 

183: observables accessible to experiments. Two complementary reactions---proton 

184: inelastic scattering and nucleon removal---have been used in the 

185: present study to probe the level scheme of \nuc{40}{Si}. 

186: 

187: The experiment was carried out at the National Superconducting 

188: Cyclotron Laboratory (NSCL) at Michigan State University.  

189: A primary beam of \nuc{48}{Ca} at 140 MeV/nucleon from the 

190: Coupled Cyclotron Facility (CCF) impinged upon a 

191: 987 mg/cm$^2$ \nuc{9}{Be} target placed at the mid-acceptance position of the 

192: A1900 fragment separator \cite{a1900}.  Projectile fragments were then 

193: separated by the B$\rho$-$\Delta$E-B$\rho$ method to deliver a 

194: cocktail beam composed of several nuclear species, including \nuc{40}{Si}, 

195: to the target position of the S800 spectrograph \cite{Baz03}.  

196: The full acceptance of both the A1900 and the S800 analysis line, operated 

197: in focused mode, was used yielding a total momentum acceptance of 4\%.  

198: At the S800 target position, the RIKEN/Kyushu/Rikkyo liquid hydrogen (LH$_2$) 

199: target was placed into the path of the beam \cite{lh2}.  The spectrograph 

200: was set to accept projectile nuclei elastically scattered from protons in the 

201: target.  Due to the large momentum acceptance of the spectrograph, single- 

202: and multiple-nucleon removal channels were also observed for many 

203: of the incoming nuclear species.

204: 

205: \begin{figure}[tb]

206: \epsfxsize 8.5cm \epsfbox{fig1.eps}

207: \caption{ \label{gam}

208: Doppler-corrected $\gamma$-ray spectra observed in coincidence with 

209: the reactions $p(\rm{^{40}Si},\rm{^{40}Si}+\gamma)p^{\prime}$ and 

210: $p(\rm{^{42}P},\rm{^{40}Si}+\gamma)X$.}

211: \end{figure}

212: 

213: Prompt $\gamma$-ray decays of nuclei excited by inelastic scattering or 

214: left in an excited state by nucleon removal were detected by SeGA

215: (\underline{Se}gmented \underline{G}ermanium \underline{A}rray), 

216: an array of 32-fold segmented, high-purity Ge detectors \cite{Will01}.  

217: The array was configured around the LH$_2$ target in two rings with seven 

218: detectors at 37$^\circ$ and nine detectors at 90$^\circ$ relative to the 

219: beam axis.  Event-by-event Doppler reconstruction takes advantage of the 

220: detector segmentation, producing $\gamma$-ray spectra in the projectile 

221: frame $(v \sim 0.4c)$ with $\sim$3\% (FWHM) resolution at 1 MeV.

222: 

223: In thick-target, inverse-kinematics inelastic proton scattering, 

224: decay $\gamma$-rays are used to tag inelastic scattering to specific 

225: excited states \cite{iwa00}.  However, single- and multiple-nucleon 

226: removal reactions occur with comparable, or larger, cross-sections.  

227: Thus, identification of both the incoming projectile and the outgoing 

228: nucleus is required.  

229: The charge of each incident projectile was determined 

230: for each event using a Si-PIN detector placed upstream at the object position 

231: of the S800, and an ionization chamber in the focal plane of the S800 

232: determined the charge of each particle after the target \cite{Yur99}.  

233: The magnetic rigidity of each incident projectile was 

234: determined by measuring the 

235: dispersive angle at the intermediate image of the S800 analysis beam 

236: line using a pair of high-rate Parallel Plate Avalanche Counters.  

237: The magnetic rigidity of each particle exiting the target was 

238: determined by measuring 

239: the dispersive position of each particle in the S800 focal plane with a 

240: Cathode Readout Drift Chamber.  Time-of-flight for each 

241: particle was measured between timing scintillators at the exit of the 

242: A1900 and the focal plane of the S800.  Together, these kinematic 

243: measurements positively determined incoming mass and change in mass 

244: due to reactions.  

245: 

246: Excited states of \nuc{40}{Si} were populated by inelastic scattering of 

247: incoming \nuc{40}{Si} nuclei and by $pn$ removal from \nuc{42}{P}

248: upon collision with the LH$_2$ target.  Figure 1 shows projectile frame 

249: $\gamma$-ray spectra detected in coincidence with the reactions 

250: $p(^{40}\rm{Si},^{40}\rm{Si} + \gamma)p^{\prime}$ and 

251: $p(^{42}\rm{P},^{40}\rm{Si} + \gamma)X$.  The transition at 986(5) keV 

252: is the strongest $\gamma$-ray observed in each of the reaction channels and 

253: the only transition observed via inelastic scattering.  Its relative strength 

254: combined with the selectivity of $(p,p^{\prime})$ allow 

255: this transition to be assigned as the 

256: $2^+_1 \rightarrow 0^+_1$ transition.  Thus, the excitation energy of the 

257: first $2^+$ state in \nuc{40}{Si} is 986(5) keV.

258: 

259: \begin{figure}[tb]

260: \epsfxsize 8.5cm \epsfbox{fig2.eps}

261: \caption{ \label{trends}

262: Evolution of $2^+_1$ energy with neutron number for even-even nuclei 

263: with $Z\geq20$ (a) and $Z<20$ (b).}

264: \end{figure}

265: 

266: The $pn$ removal reaction leading to \nuc{40}{Si} also shows two weaker peaks 

267: at 638(5) and 845(6) keV, each with about half the intensity of the 

268: corresponding $2^+_1 \rightarrow 0^+_1$ transition.  The

269: energies of the 986(5) and 638(5) keV 

270: peaks agree with the observations of Grevy {\it et al.} \cite{grevy05}.  

271: The statistics obtained for the 638(5) and 845(6) keV transitions preclude

272: a discussion of whether these two $\gamma$-ray transitions

273: should be in parallel or form a cascade.  However, they are expected to 

274: decay from higher excited states, based on other even-even

275: nuclei that show signifcant $\gamma$-ray feeding of the $2^+_1$ when 

276: populated by the $pn$ removal reaction.  Thus, we propose

277: that at least one of these two lower-energy $\gamma$-rays is directly

278: feeding the $2^+_1$ state and that an excited state of

279: \nuc{40}{Si} lies at either 1624(7) or 1831(8) keV.

280: 

281: 

282: Figure 2 shows the energy of the first $2^+$ state, E($2^+_1$), versus 

283: neutron number ($N=22-26$) for even-even nuclei between silicon and 

284: chromium.  Data in this figure were taken from the ENSDF 

285: database \cite{ensdf06} and the current experiment.

286: Figure 2(a) illustrates the evolution of E($2^+_1$) 

287: in nuclei having large shell gaps for both $N=20$ and $N=28$.  

288: Changes in the excitation energy are dominated by the 

289: filling of a single-neutron orbital, $0f_{7/2}$; the trend is parabolic, 

290: reaching its minimum at midshell; and excitation energies are nearly 

291: symmetric about midshell, $N=24$.  In panel (b), this symmetry is lost.  

292: The lowering of first excited states in the neutron-rich sulfur and 

293: argon nuclei can be attributed, in part or in whole, to a narrowing of 

294: the $\pi(0d_{3/2}-1s_{1/2})$ gap \cite{reta97,cot98}.  The rise in 

295: collectivity in the sulfur and argon nuclei is, 

296: therefore, not sufficient to establish a breakdown of the $N=28$ shell 

297: closure.  The situation is quite different when considering the chain 

298: of silicon isotopes.  Because $Z=14$ is a strong shell closure, 

299: the decrease in $E_{2^+_1}$ between \nuc{38}{Si} and \nuc{40}{Si} can 

300: only be due to a reduction of the $N=28$ shell gap.

301: 

302: \begin{figure}[tb]

303: \epsfxsize 8.5cm \epsfbox{fig3.eps}

304: \caption{ \label{smtrend}

305: Measured $2^+_1$ energies ($\triangle$) of \nuc{36,38,40}{Si} with 

306: corresponding shell-model predictions ({\bf ---}) described in the text.  

307: Shell-model predictions shifted lower by 450\ keV ({\bf- - -}) clearly 

308: reproduce the experimental values.}

309: \end{figure}

310: 

311: To examine the decline in $2^+_1$ energies across these neutron-rich 

312: silicon isotopes, large-scale shell-model calculations were performed 

313: with CMICHSM \cite{cmichsm} in a $\pi(sd)^{Z-8}~\nu(fp)^{N-20}$ model 

314: space using the updated interaction of Nowacki and collaborators 

315: \cite{reta97,num01}.  In Fig.~3, measured and predicted $2^+_1$ 

316: excitation energies are plotted versus neutron number.  While the 

317: evolution of excitation energies is in good agreement with experiment, 

318: the predicted values are consistently 450 keV higher than the measured 

319: values.  The first excited state of each nucleus with $15 \leq Z \leq 19$ 

320: and $N=22,24,26,28$ has been measured and compared with shell-model 

321: predictions using the same interaction \cite{reta97,num01,sohl02,gade06}.  

322: Agreement was quite good in all cases, and no other isotopic chain suffers 

323: from the large difference between prediction and theory observed in these 

324: silicon isotopes. Shell-model predictions reduced by an empirical offset 

325: of 450 keV are plotted in Fig.~3 as a dotted line.  These shifted 

326: predictions give an RMS error below 30 keV for \nuc{36,38,40}{Si} and 

327: predict the $2^+_1$ energy in \nuc{42}{Si} at 1050 keV.  

328: This would place the $2^+_1$ of \nuc{42}{Si} below that of \nuc{44}{S} 

329: in qualitative agreement with the observations of 

330: Grevy {\it et al.} \cite{grevy05}.  

331: Due to the pronounced proton sub-shell closure at $Z=14$, shell-model 

332: predictions indicate that the enhanced collectivity resulting from 

333: promotion of two neutrons across the $N=28$ shell gap will not result 

334: in strong deformation \cite{caur04}.

335: 

336: \begin{figure}[tb]

337: \epsfxsize 8.5cm \epsfbox{fig4.eps}

338: \caption{ \label{lvlschm}

339: Panel (a) shows the experimental level schemes of $^{18,20}$C along with 

340: shell-model predictions using the WBP and WBPM interactions.  

341: With the WBPM, reducing the valence $n$-$n$ interaction strength 

342: leads to better agreement with experiment.  

343: Panel (b) shows measured and predicted levels in $^{40}$Si.  

344: The two $\gamma$ decay branches of the $2^+_2$ state 

345: are predicted to have comparable intensities.  

346: The existence at a low excitation energy of one or both of the states 

347: predicted above the first 2+ state would be consistent with the 

348: results of the present experiment.  

349: The experiment-theory shift is reminiscent of that seen in $^{18,20}$C.}

350: \end{figure}

351: 

352: A possible explanation of the disagreement between theoretical predictions 

353: and experiment in the silicon $2^+$ energies can be found in the 

354: neutron-rich carbon nuclei, which also have a 

355: strong proton sub-shell closure 

356: and initially showed a similar disagreement between theory and experiment.  

357: Measured and calculated spectra for \nuc{18,20}{C} are 

358: shown in Fig.~4(a) \cite{stan04,war92}.  By reducing the neutron-neutron 

359: ($n$-$n$) interaction strength in carbon, the WBPM interaction reproduces 

360: the observed level spacing better than WBP.  In oxygen, the neutron orbital 

361: $1s_{1/2}$ lies 0.87 MeV above the $0d_{5/2}$ orbital at $N=9$. This gap 

362: grows with increasing neutron number due to the $n$-$n$ interaction 

363: resulting in a shell gap at $N=14$ which makes \nuc{22}{O} 

364: doubly magic \cite{bro05}.  In carbon, the neutron orbital $1s_{1/2}$ 

365: lies 0.74 MeV below the $0d_{5/2}$ orbital at $N=9$.  This orbital inversion 

366: leads WBP to predict $N=14$ is not a shell closure in carbon.  The weaker 

367: $n$-$n$ interaction used in WBPM causes the $\nu (1s_{1/2} - 0d_{5/2})$ gap 

368: to grow more slowly, thus reinforcing that no shell gap develops at $N=14$ 

369: in the carbon isotopes.  

370: 

371: If we compare the oxygen and carbon chains to the calcium and 

372: silicon chains, the similarities are striking.  Originally, shell-model 

373: calculations used the $1p_{3/2} - 0f_{7/2}$ neutron gap of \nuc{41}{Ca} with 

374: the $n$-$n$ interaction found in stable nuclei---which is known to widen the 

375: $N=28$ shell gap---to predict \nuc{42}{Si} as a doubly-magic nucleus 

376: \cite{reta97}.  Nummela {\it et al.} measured a reduction of this neutron 

377: gap in \nuc{35}{Si} leading to a new prediction of weakened magicity in 

378: \nuc{42}{Si}  \cite{num01}.  The current experiment shows that shell-model 

379: predictions give larger excitation spectrum spacing in silicon isotopes than 

380: is measured.  Reducing the $n$-$n$ interaction at $Z=14$ could correct the 

381: predicted energy spacing but would also imply that the $N=28$ gap grows more 

382: slowly in silicon than in calcium and that current shell-model predictions 

383: are, in fact, overestimating the size of the $N=28$ shell gap.  Experimental 

384: knowledge of higher lying states in the silicon isotopes is needed to fully 

385: examine this possible reduction in $n$-$n$ interaction strength.

386: 

387: Further support for a narrowing of the $N=28$ shell gap in \nuc{40}{Si} 

388: comes from the low energy inferred here for the second excited state, 

389: independent of any specific interpretation of the experimental 

390: level scheme.  In the shell model (compare Fig. 4(b)) the states 

391: predicted to decay through the $2^+_1$ level, via $\gamma$-rays of less 

392: than 1 MeV, arise from particle-hole excitations across the $N=28$ gap. 

393: Thus, their low excitation energy implies a reduced gap.  

394: 

395: To summarize, the $\gamma$ decays of excited states in \nuc{40}{Si} have been 

396: observed using the complementary techniques of inelastic scattering and 

397: $pn$ removal on a liquid hydrogen target.  An excitation energy of 

398: 986(5) keV was measured for the $2^+_1$ state in \nuc{40}{Si}, and a 

399: second excited state at either 1624(7) or 1831(8) keV was deduced. The large 

400: proton sub-shell gap at $Z=14$ 

401: at $Z=14$ means that the evolution of excitation energies in the 

402: silicon isotopes is directly related 

403: to the narrowing of the $N=28$ shell gap.  The decline in $2^+_1$ energy from 

404: \nuc{38}{Si}, at midshell, to \nuc{40}{Si} can only be explained by a 

405: weakening of $N=28$.  The low energy of a second excited state in 

406: \nuc{40}{Si} is compatible with shell-model predictions of particle-hole 

407: excitations across the $N=28$ shell gap.  The $2^+_1$ energy trend 

408: from shell-model calculations taken with an empirical shift predicts the 

409: first $2^+$ energy in \nuc{42}{Si} will be below that of \nuc{44}{S}.

410: 

411: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation 

412: under Grants No. PHY-0110253, PHY-9875122, PHY-0244453, PHY-0555366, 

413: INT-0089581 and by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

414: 

415: \begin{thebibliography}{30}

416: %

417: \bibitem{cau05} E.\ Caurier {\it et al.}, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 77}, 

418: 427 (2005).

419: \bibitem{bro01} B.\ A.\ Brown, Progr. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 47}, 517 (2001)

420: \bibitem{mgm49} M. G. Mayer, Phys. Rev. 75, 1969 (1949).

421: \bibitem{hjs49} O. Haxel, J. H. D. Jensen, and H. E. Suess, Phys. Rev. 75, 

422: 1766 (1949).

423: \bibitem{war04} D.\ Warner, Nature {\bf 430}, 517 (2004).

424: \bibitem{taka01} T.\ Otsuka, {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 

425: 082502 (2001).

426: \bibitem{taka05} T.\ Otsuka, {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 

427: 232502 (2005).

428: \bibitem{fed79}  P.\ Federman, S.\ Pittel, and R.\ Campos, Phys.\ Lett.\ 

429: {\bf B82}, 9 (1979).

430: \bibitem{heyde85} K.\ Heyde {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B155}, 303 

431: (1985).

432: \bibitem{thib75} C.\ Thibault {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 12}, 

433: 644 (1975).

434: \bibitem{camp75} X.\ Campi {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A251}, 

435: 193 (1975).

436: \bibitem{moto95} T.\ Motobayashi {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B346}, 

437: 9 (1995).

438: \bibitem{boris99} B.\ V.\ Pritychenko {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B461}, 

439: 322 (1999).

440: \bibitem{church05} J.\ A.\ Church {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 72}, 

441: 054320 (2005).

442: \bibitem{neid05} O. Niedermaier {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 172501 

443: (2005). 

444: \bibitem{trip05} V. Tripathi {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 162501 (2005). 

445: \bibitem{ney05} G. Neyens {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 022501 (2005). 

446: \bibitem{iwa05} H. Iwasaki {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B620, 118 (2005).

447: \bibitem{sor93} O.\ Sorlin {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 47}, 2941 (1993).

448: \bibitem{gla97} T.\ Glasmacher {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett. {\bf B395}, 

449: 163 (1997).

450: \bibitem{wer9496} T.\ Werner {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B60}, 

451: 259 (1994); Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A597}, 327 (1996).

452: \bibitem{lala99} G.\ A.\ Lalazissis {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 60}, 

453: 014310 (1999).

454: \bibitem{reta97} J.\ Retamosa, E.\ Caurier, F.\ Nowacki, and A.\ Poves, 

455: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 55}, 1266 (1997).

456: \bibitem{cot98} P.\ D.\ Cottle and K.\ W.\ Kemper, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 58}, 

457: 3761 (1998).

458: \bibitem{doll76} P.\ Doll {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A 263}, 210 (1976). 

459: \bibitem{fri05} J.\ Fridmann {\it et al.}, Nature\ {\bf 435}, 922 (2005).

460: \bibitem{cot06} J.\ Fridmann {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C, submitted.

461: \bibitem{grevy04} S.\ Grevy {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B594}, 252 (2004).

462: \bibitem{a1900} D.\ J.\ Morrissey {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Methods 

463: in Phys.\ Res.\ {\bf B 204}, 90 (2003).

464: \bibitem{Baz03} D.\ Bazin {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Methods 

465: in Phys.\ Res.\ {\bf B 204}, 629 (2003).

466: \bibitem{lh2} H.\ Ryuto {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Methods 

467: in Phys.\ Res.\ {\bf A 555}, 1 (2005).

468: \bibitem{Will01} W.\ F.\ Mueller {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Methods 

469: in Phys.\ Res.\ {\bf A466},  492 (2001).

470: \bibitem{iwa00} H. Iwasaki {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B481}, 7 (2000).

471: \bibitem{Yur99} J.\ Yurkon {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Methods 

472: in Phys.\ Res.\ {\bf A422}, 291 (1999).

473: \bibitem{grevy05} S.\ Grevy {\it et al.}, {\it Direct Reactions with 

474: Exotic Beams 2005}.

475: \bibitem{ensdf06} Data extracted using the NNDC On-Line Data Service from 

476: the ENSDF database, file revised as of March 30, 2006.

477: \bibitem{cmichsm}

478: M. Horoi, B.A. Brown, and V. Zelevinsky, Phys. Rev. C 67, 034303 (2003).

479: \bibitem{num01} S.\ Nummela {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 63}, 

480: 044316 (2001).

481: \bibitem{sohl02} D.\ Sohler {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 66}, 

482: 054302 (2002).

483: \bibitem{caur04} E.\ Caurier, F.\ Nowacki, and A.\ Poves, 

484: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A 742}, 14 (2004). 

485: \bibitem{gade06} A.\ Gade {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ C, accepted for publication.

486: \bibitem{stan04} M.\ Stanoiu {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A746}, 

487: 135c (2004).

488: \bibitem{war92} E.\ K.\ Warburton and B.\ A.\ Brown, Phys.\ Rev.\ C 

489: {\bf 46}, 923 (1992).

490: \bibitem{bro05} B.\ A.\ Brown and W.\ A.\ Richter, Phys.\ Rev.\ C 

491: {\bf 72}, 057301 (2005).

492: %

493: \end{thebibliography}

494: 

495: \end{document}

496: 

497: