Nuclear Physics A172 (1971) 577-588; @ North-Holland Publishing Co.

, Amsterdam
1 l.E.4 1
Not to be reproduced by photoprint or microfilm without written permission from the publisher

LIFETLMES OF EXCITED STATES OF Si

J. J. WEAVER, D. A. HUTCHEON, D. F. H. START, R. W. ZURMijHLEt
and M. A. GRACE
Nuclear Physics Laboratory, Oxford University, Oxford, England

Received 13 April 197 1

Abstract: The mean lifetimes of the first six excited states of *Si were measured using the reaction
Al(p, ny)%ii. The Doppler-shift attenuation method was used in a ny coincidence
arrangement. The results are: 0.78 MeV, > 8.8 ps; 0.96 MeV, 1.76+0.20 ps; 2.16 MeV,
53f9 fs; 2.65 MeV, 37A16 fs; 2.87 MeV, < 15 fs; 2.91 MeV, 75+14 fs. Accurate
excitation energies have been obtained for Si states. Levels at 2.87 MeV and 2.91 MeV have
been given tentative spin assignments of +$+ and Q respectively. The deduced E2 and Ml
transition rates are compared to different collective model predictions and also to the
experimentally obtained B(E2) and B(M1) values of corresponding transitions in the mirror
nucleus 27A1.

E NUCLEAR REACTIONS 27Al(p, ny), E = 9.3, 10.5, 11.5 MeV; measured Doppler
shift attenuation. 27Si deduced lifetimes. Natural target. I

1. Introduction

The nuclei 27A1 and Si are the twc members of a T = 4 pair of mirror nuclei
and they have been the subject of extensive studies both theoretical and experimental.
The positions of corresponding energy levels identified by their spin? and parities are
similar (see fig. 1). The branching and mixing ratios of the y-ray transitions between
low-lying states have been measured by several experimenters I* * ) and the lifetimes
in the stable isobar 27A1 have been determined by Smulders et al. ). Comparison of
the electromagnetic transition rates with Weisskopf single-particle predictions show
that E2 transition rates are enhanced by factors of up to 12. The interpretation of such
enhancements and also of the Ml transition strengths has not been completely
successful in terms of various collective models. For instance, Bhatt ) has carried
out Nilsson model calculations on 27A1 in which the level sequence is reproduced
satisfactorily but the enhancement of the interband E2 transitions is severely under-
estimated. Excited core model investigations have been carried out by Than-
kappan ) in which the E2 enhancements are correctly predicted but Ml transition
strengths show wide discrepancies with the experimental results.
The purpose of this experiment was to complete the information on electromagnetic
strengths in the mirror nucleus pair by measuring the lifetimes of excited states below
3 MeV in 27Si. The Doppler shift attenuation method was used and the reaction in-

t Permanent address: Department of Physics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.

577
578 J. J. WEAVER et al.

volved was *Al(p, n~)~Si. The Si level scheme shown in fig. 1 is taken from work
by Lewis et al. ) and the results of this experiment, together with the corresponding
Iifetimes in 27A1 are shown in table 1. It was hoped that these measurements would
provide a test of the suitabili~ of collective models for explaining electro-
magnetic transition strengths in the mass-27 mirror pair.
3.67 I+
50 50 5 3.54 $$'i
-60 -43

3.00 86 14 T-f- 291

3t2 287 i T
$:?I: io0 2 s+
27 73 2 265 I s+
-20 -80 2

2 21 7-k 216 7c
100 z a.95 z
~

o-z+ 0 i 5-t
3

*Al 27Si
Fig. 1. The decay schemes of the mass-27 mirror pair.

Also included in the comparison of theory and experiment were the calculations
of Rdpke et al. ) on the E2 transition strengths in 27A1.

2. Experimental procedure
A 7nA beam of protons was produced by the Oxford University tandem electro-
static generator to excite states in Si via the 27AI(p, ny)27Si reaction. The target
was 2 mgJcm2 of natural aluminium evaporated onto a gold foil 0.5 mg/cm thick.
Neutrons were detected in a 12.5 cm x 15 cm NE213 liquid scintillator with an XP1040
photomultiplier. Pulse-shape discrimination was achieved using the space-charge
saturation method. The gamma rejection ratio was better than 5OO:l for pulses cor-
responding to y-ray energies in excess of 500 keV. A 50 cm3 five-sided coaxial Ge(Li)
detector was used to detect the y-rays and had a resolution of 3.0 keV for 1.33 MeV
y-rays. The brass target chamber and beam tube were lined with polythene in order to
reduce background from (p, ny) reactions on the copper and zinc. Neutron-gamma
coincidences were detected by a standard fast-slowcoincidencecircuitinvolving leading
edge timing on the pulses from both counters, which were fed into a time-to-pulse-
height converter. The converter output was gated by a single-channel analyser set on
 27Si STATES 579

the y-ray spectrum, and by the output of the p&~-shape discriminator= Two windows
set on the converter spectrum then selected real and random coincidences and the
corresponding y-ray spectra were routed into different memory groups of a PDP-7

I I
GEOMETRY A GEOMETRY I3

Fig. 2. The geometries of the neutron detector (NEZIJ) and they-ray detector (Ge(Li)) used in the
Doppler-shift measurements.

Fig. 3. The 2.f6 MeV 27Si y-ray peak obtained with the Ge(Li) detector in coincidence with
neutrons. The upper figure shows the peak position with the Ge(Li) detector at 40 to the proton
beam (geometry A) and the lower figure with the Ge(Li) detector at 141 (geometry B). Arrows
mark the centroid of the peak. The dispersion is 1.45 keV/channel. Proton bombarding energy is 10.5
MoV.

computer. In addition the y-ray pulses were prescaled and a singies sample spectrum
was stored in a third sub-section of the computer. This spectrum served as an energy
calibration because it contained y-rays from radioactive saurces whose energies were
 TABLE 1
Doppler-shift attenuation results

Ex WV) Transition Jl Jr Fhn) Corresponding

(MEV) *Al qq,
_
Y
780.3 f0.3 9.3 780.3 -+ 0 0.026rtO.020
;: :: > 8.8 ps > 1.2ps
10.5 780.3 -+ 0 < 0.036 ) 2
1

956.7 &0.4 9.3 956.7 -+ 0 0.095f0.025 F

:: :: 1.76+ 0.20 ps 1.5hO.4 PS $
10.5 956.7 --f 0 0.148&0.015
w
2163.5kO.7 10.5 2163.5 -+ 0 t+ 4 0.897f0.015 53 A9 fs 55 19 fs 2
2646.8&0.8 ) 11.5 2646.8 + 956.7 &+ 3+ 0.93 f0.03 37 &16 fs 16 &7 fs %
2864.9hl.7 11.5 2864.9 + 0 @+I a+ > 0.97 < 15fs 14 &6 fs
2909.4hO.9 11.5 2909.4 -+ 0 G+) P 0.86 rto.02 75 &14fs 83 k7 fs

) The level at 2646.8 keV is referred to as #* and the ground state as # in all discussions.
 TABLE 2
Experimental B(E2) and B(M1) values

JP Jr Branch ) Multipole Observed width Observed width

% mixing ratio I*b, (ev) s.p. width

780.3 ++ 0 t+ 100 E2 < 7.5x10-5 < 65

956.7 B 0 %+ 98 -0.36&0.03 E2 (4.3f0.9) x lo- 5 13.2h2.7

Ml (3.3f0.4) x 10-b (1.8f0.2) x lo-

780.3 t+ (2) unknown Ml < 4.2x 1O-4 <6,9x10- 2
e.
2163.5 z+ 0 &+ 100 0.38 ho.03 E2 (1.6&0.4)x 10-j 8.2*1.9
Y
Ml (1.1 f0.2) x 10-Z (5.0&0.8)x lo- 5

2646.8 8 0 1 20 0.40 *to.07 E2 (4.9rt2.7) x lo- 0.9kO.5 z

Ml (3.1*1.3)x10-3 (7.8*3.4)x 1O-3

956.7 j+ 80 0.08 *0.02 E2 (9.0f6.0) x lo- 5 1.6&1.1

Ml (1.4&-0.6)x 1O-2 (1.4*0.6)x 10-r

2864.9 (4) 0 % 100 unknown Ml < 4.4 x 10-Z <8.9x10-

2909.4 (t+) 0 % (80) E2 (7.0*1.3)x 10-S 8.5h1.6

2163.5 11 (20) unknown Ml < 2.2 x 10-J < 0.25

) Ref. 6). b, Ref. Ia).

582 J. J. WEAVER et al.

close to the relevant 2Si peaks. Typical gain shifts were less than 0.4 keV at 2614 keV
over periods of up to 15 h. Beam energies of 9.3, 10.5 and 11.5 MeV were used to
investigate the Doppler-shifted coincident y-ray spectra for states in 27Si up to 0.96,
2.16 and 2.91 MeV excitation energy, respectively. Thus, corrections to the Doppier
shifts due to feeding from higher states were avoided.
The two detector geometries are shown in fig. 2. Neutrons produced in the reaction
were detected at a backward angle in order to give the recoiling product nuclei as large
a velocity as possible. The ideal choice of angle would be 180. However, the 12.5 cm x
15 cm detector aIlowed neutron detection at angles up to 140 only. Although the neu-
tron angular distributions were unknown, the choice of these detector geometries
kept the uncertainties in the calculated full shifts as low as 1.5 % for geometry A
and 4 A for geometry B. These were much smaller than the statistical errors involved
in the determination of peak centroids. The neutron detection angle in geometry
B was only 90 because of limitations of space in the vicinity of the beam line and the
Ge(Li) detector.
The Doppler-shifted y-ray spectra shown in rig. 3 for the 2.16 MeV 5 + 3
transition typifies the results obtained. Peak centroids were extracted and the
Doppler-shift attenuation factor F(r), was calculated from the ratio of the observed
to maximum possible Doppler shifts. A computation of F(z) versus z (the mean Iife-
time) was made and from the resulting curve the value of the mean lifetime was
obtained. The calculation was based on the nuclear and electronic stopping theory
of Lindhard, Scharff and Schiartt ) for 27Si ions recoiling in Al, and the large-
angle scattering considerations of Blaugrund ). A multiplication factor was applied
to the Lindhard value of the electronic stopping power. The factor involved was
1.08t0.20 which was the value obtained by comparing the Lindhard estimate to the
experimental electronic stopping power data of Fastrup et al. lo) for *Si stopping
in carbon. Ormrod et al. Ii) have found the multiplication factor applied to the Lind-
hard electronic stopping estimate to be approximately independent of the
atomic number of the stopping material. In the absence of any experimental data
for Si stepping in Al, the data of Fastrup et al. were used. Errors in the quoted
lifetimes include & 20% due to possibb variation of the electronic stopping con-
tribution which was added in quadrature to the experimental statistical uncertainties.
Since the typical range of an excited 27Si ion in 27Al was 200pg/cm2, approximate-
ly 10 yd of the 27Si ions recoiled out of the aluminium at some stage of their re-
tardation and for this reason a gold-backed target was used. In our F(T) versus r
computation we assumed uniform excitation throughout the target. To check that this
assumption was reasonable, we measured the yields of the 27Si states from a 100
pg/cm2 target at beam energies of 9.30,9.27 and 9.24 MeV and also at 10.50, 10.47 and
10.44 MeV and found excitation of the 0.78,0.96 and 2.17 MeV states to vary by less
than 8 6. An attempt was made to investigate the yields of higher excited states for
proton bombarding energies of 11.50 and 11.47 MeV but pulses due to the Compton-
scattering of y-rays of energy greater than 3 MeV made observation of the higher 27Si
 =Si STATES 583

states impossible. The resulting F(z) versus r curve arose as a result of using the pro-
portion of 21Si ions stopp m g in aluminium and in gold to weight the F(z) curves
which each of the media would produce separately.
The energies of the excited states in 27Si were determined after extraction of the
Doppler shift from the observed y-ray energies and the excitation energies (quoted
in table 1) were used in the calculation of the experimental B(E2) and B(M1) values.

3. Results

The experimental results are presented in table 1. The branching ratios of Lewis
et al. ) and the weighted mean of the mixing ratios of Lewis et al. and of Main et al. I)
were used in the calculation of the experimental B(E2) and B(M1) values shown in
table 2.
The spins of the 2.865 MeV and 2.909 MeV levels are as yet unknown, although
from the mirror nucleus they are expected to be 4 and 3. We have observed a decay
of the 2.909 MeV state to the 3 excited state at 2.163 MeV and while we have not
carried out ny angular correlations to ascertain the branching ratio of this state, it
would appear that it branches approximately 80 % to the ground state and 20 %
to the 3 state. The 2.909 MeV state has a mean life of 75 fs. If this is the + state, the
pure E2 transition to the 2.16 MeV (3) state would have a strength of about 1900
W.U. and thus it is concluded that this must be the $+ state. In that case the E2
strength of the branch to the ground state is 8.5 f 1.6 W.U. Similarly the 2.87 MeV
state with a mean life of < 15 fs must be the 3 state since if it were 8 the ground
state transition strength would be greater than 700 W.U. These assignments were
assumed in the discussion which follows.
We also observed a weak 177 keV y-ray in the ny coincidence spectrum attributed
to the transition from the 0.957 MeV state to that at 0.780 MeV. Neglecting any
effects due to particle-gamma angular correlations we obtained a branching ratio of
2 /, for this decay mode; da Silva et al. 13) have placed an upper limit of 1.5 ?A on
this branch. Clearly, particle-gamma angular correlations on y-rays from the 0.957,
2.865 and 2.909 MeV states would be useful in determining the branching and mixing
ratios of these transitions. In the B(M1) and B(E2) calculations we have also assumed
that the 3 state at 2.163 MeV decays only to the ground state.

4. Discussion and theory

The B(E2) and B(M1) values obtained in the present experiments on 27Si are listed
in table 3. Also included are these values for transitions in Z7A1, extracted from the
lifetimes of Smulders et al. ) and using the branching and mixing ratios compiled
by Endt and van der Leun r4). Th e c 1ose similarity of these for corresponding
transitions is noteworthy. In a comparison of E2/Ml mixing ratios for corresponding
transitions in mirror pairs in the sd shell, Glaudemans and van der Leun ) found
the magnitudes of mixing ratios to be nearly equal for most of the transitions; the present
584 J. J. WEAVER et al.

work on the absolute rates shows the same trend. The near identity of the enhanced
E2 strengths reflects the fact that the greatest contribution to them is from the collective
core common to both *Al and *Si, the last unpaired nucleon having little effect in
E2 transitions. Using isospin formalism Morpurgo 16) has shown that corresponding
TABte3
Comparison of reduced e.m. transition matrix elements in Si and 27A1

Transition ) B(E2) in e * fm4

:
3
r:
-+t
65 < f13
40 &lo
320 60(1600
&I8
40 f 8
B* -+ % 4.6& 2.8 4.2& 1.8
8 + P g 15 21 f7
P +& 42 i: 8 35 *3

Transition ) B(M1) (n.m.z x 10e2)

-_ _----
?I +% 3.2& 0.4 3.l& 0.8
4 ++ < 14 < 23
% +% 9.2j.y 1.6 8.2& 1.3
a* + t 1.41 0.7 0.6f 0.5
%* -+ # 25 &ll 53 rt23
% +% < 46 < 18

) See footnote of table 1.

096 3+ -;T 3+ 3
-----Y -2 ----T
C78 -j_i -----LA - I+ - if
2 2 i 5

0
-7
5+ _Sf
I2
$ >-vie ,-VIE -+t_,o+
K=$ K-f =S - K-2 K-x_: K..;
%I *%d
EXPT NILSSON ROTATION-VIBRATION EXCITED CORE

Fig. 4. The description of the energy level scheme of Si in terms of the collective models considered.

AT= 0 Ml transitions in mirror nuclei should have similar strengths, in general

within a factor of approximately 2. Within the experimental errors, the results pre-
sented here are in accord with his rule.
 =Si STATES 585

The experimental B(E2) and B(M1) values were compared with the predictions of
various collective models. In each case Si can be imagined as a Id, particle or hole
coupled to a suitable core, the difference between models lying in their descriptions
of the core and of the particle-core coupling. This leads to different ways of grouping
the levels and fig. 4 shows how they are explained in terms of the three collective
models used.
TABLE4
Comparison of experimental and theoretical B(E2) (values

Level Transition B(E2)

. I
in e2 * fm4 ~- B(E2) exut.
. _ -
WV) experiment Nilsson excited rotation- B(E2) Weisskopf
rj=2 q=4 core vibration

780.3 ) 4 -+B < 320 0.8 0.25 55 52 < 65.5

956.7 65 &13 1.4 0.4 54 5.9 13.2f2.7
2163.5 :: I$ 40 *lo 31 138 53 43 8.2*1.9
2646.8 %+*+*+ 4.6& 2.8 0.3 0.09 27 1.0 0.9f0.5
8 zt5 5.0 22 7.2 15.2 1.6fl.l
2909.4 42 i 8 8.7 39 54 47 8.5+1.6

) The lifetime adopted for this state is > 8.8 ps.

TABLE5
Comparison of experimental and theoretical B(M1) values

Level Transition B(M1) (n.m. x 10m2) B(M1) expt.

experiment Nilsson excited B(M1) Weisskopf
q=2 r]=4 core

956.7 f +t+ 3.2& 0.4 0 0 25 (1.78f0.20) x lo-

B+ -+t+ < 14 3.0 10 90 < 6.9 x 10-a
2163.5 $ -+g+ 9.2% 1.6 50 50 13 (5.0 AO.8 )x10-2
2646.8 !I+* -+# 1.41 0.7 0 0 5.7 (7.8 f 3.4)x 1O-3
%+* + 8 25 &ll 49 0.001 78 (1.4 & 0.7)X 10-l
2909.4 9 +g+ < 46 73 73 43 < 0.25

The mass-27 mirror nuclei are in a region where nuclear deformations are changing
from prolate to oblate. The mass-25 mirror nuclei 'Mg and 5A1 have been the sub-
ject of many investigations (see, for example, refs. I7 - )) and electromagnetic tran-
sition phenomena have been explained using the Nilsson model for a strongly
deformed prolate nucleus. The positive static quadrupole moment 20) of the first
excited state of 28Si provides evidence of oblate deformation and Nilsson model
calculations have been carried out in this way to explain the level scheme and
electromagnetic transition probabilities in the mass-29 mirror pair 2gP and Si
[refs. 211)I. Such treatment was less successful than in the mass-25 case, the oblate
deformation being small. Thus, the collective models expected to explain electro-
magnetic transitions in mass-27 nuclei would be the Nilsson model, or if the de-
586 J. J. WEAVER et at.

formed core is less rigid, the weak coupling (excited core) model. The coupling of
rotational and vibrational motion in mass-27 nuclei is also considered.

4.1 THE NILSSON MODEL

Bhatt ) has made detailed calculations using this model in the sd shell. The Al
nucleus was considered as a 1d, proton hole coupled to an axially symmetry ellipsoid
(28Si) with deformation q. A band of energy levels with I(l+ 1) energy dependence
is built upon each single-particle state. Since energies and spins of levels in 27Si so
closely resemble those in 2AI , we have taken the core deformation, particie potential
and moment of inertia which Bhatt chose for 27AI. In our calculations the Id,
proton hole was replaced by a Id, neutron hole. The levels of excitation energy
below 3 MeV are interpreted as members of the rotational bands built on the ground
state (K = 3, Nilsson orbit 5) and upon the first excited state (K = t, Nilsson
orbit 9). In the present work we consider the level at 2.87 MeV to be the band-head
of the K = Q band, Nilsson orbit 8. Disregarding any band-mixing in the wave-
functions of the levels being investigated, we expect enhancements over single-
particle estimates of the B(E2) values for inband transitions, viz. 3 -+ _5, 3 + $,
5* + 3 and approximate single-particle strengths for the interband transitions, viz.
+ + 5,+ + 3. Table 4 shows that this model fails to account for the observed B(E2)
enhancements of the latter two transitions.
Comparison between the experimental and theoretical @Ml) rates (table 5)
also shows discrepancieh but the experimental trends are reflected more closely in the
theory. In particular, assuming no band-mixing, B(M1) is equal to zero for the
LIK = 2 interband transitions. The experimental B(M1) values for interband 3 + 5
and 3* -+ 3 transitions certainly are much reduced, as can be seen from table 5.
For inband transitions theory and experiment agree, at worst, to within a factor of 6,
but generally theory gives a larger value than experiment.

4.2. THE EXCITED CORE MODEL

In this model a Id, neutron hole is weakly coupled to the ground state and first
excited state of 28Si. The hole coupfes to the ground state to give a 3 state and to the 2+
state giving a quintet of states of spins 4, ++, 3+, g* and 3. Thankappan )
has applied the model to 27A1 using a Hamiltonian which can mix states differing in
the core component. We have applied to 27Si the wave functions which Thankappan
used for 7A1with the proton hole replaced by a neutron hole. To calculate Ml and E2
transition rates one must specify an effective charge and gyromagnetic ratio for both
the core and Id% neutron hole. We adopted the core parameters of Thankappan and
the hole parameters e, = 0 and gh = free nucleon g-factor = -0.765.
In comparing B(E2) values predicted by the excited core model with experimental
results we find good overall agreement. The similarity of the model B(E2) values
(except for transitions from the +* state) reffects the fact that in this model the
2+ + Oi core transition provides all the E2 strength. Smaller strengths are predicted
 27Si STATES 587

for the $* -+ 3 and 3* + $ transitions due to the mixing of O+ and 2+ core states in
the 9* and 3 level wave functions.
The predicted B(M1) values, which differ from zero only because of the mixing of
core states in the 3* and 3 wave functions, are much too large for the 3 -+ + and 3 --, 5
transitions. Otherwise they are within a factor of 3 of the limits set by experiment. As
with the Nilsson model, this model tends to overestimate Ml transition strengths.
A possible explanation for the discrepancy is given by Thankappan in his treatment
of Ml transitions in *Al. In order to reproduce the magnitude of the ground state
magnetic moment he had to assume quenching of approximately 20 /, in the
proton-hole g-factor.
Both the Nilsson and excited core model B(M1) predictions are proportional to
(g, - gP) where gC is the gyromagnetic ratio of the core ( =2/A) and g,, is that of the
hole. The 27A1 and Si nuclei have an unpaired Id, proton hole and neutron hole,
respectively and the quantities (gC -gP)2 and (gC-gI1) are very nearly the same.
This leads to the near-identity of B(M1) values for mirror transitions.

4.3. ROTATION-VIBRATION MODEL

Riipke et al. ) have tried to combine the advantages of the Nilsson and excited
core models in a rotation-vibration model. They considered the + excited state at
843 keV and the e+ excited state at 3003 keV in Al to be y-vibrational stater built
on the ground state and they included rotational bands built upon these states as well
as upon the ground state in their calculations. Excluded were p-vibrational bands
and y-vibrational bands based upon other Nilsson single-particle states. In the pres-
ence of y-vibrations the nucleus loses its symmetry about the body-fixed 3-axis. The
projection, K, of the total angular momentum on to this axis is no longer a good quan-
tum number and mixing between the various Nilsson rotational bands and the bands
built upon the vibrational states becomes possible. Band mixing of this type, which the
Nilsson model does not include can explain the enhanced interband E2 transitions.
The eigenfunctions of the states in 27A1 were obtained by diagonalizing a Hamil-
tonian including a rotation-vibration interaction term and a rotation-particle coupling
term. Transition strengths were calculated on this strong-coupling basis using the
theory of Faessler 23).
We quote in table 4 the results of these Al calculations for E2 strengths. lnsodoing
we imply that the contribution of the single unpaired nucleon is small and can
be ignored in comparison with that of the core which is identical in both the mass-27
mirror nuclei. This approach is possible because the y-vibration energy and E2 strength
deduced from the level schemes of 26Mg and 26Si for application in the theory of
Al and 2 Si respectively, can be considered ideniical.
There is improvement over the simple Nilsson model in the case of the 4 -+ 5
E2 transition but the model fails to account for the enhancement of th:: -3 -+ -s tran-
sition. Also the model predictions for the E2 strenghts of transitions from the 2.647
MeV (3*) level lie almost two standard deviations outside the experimental results.
588 J. J. WEAVER et al.

5. Conclusion

By the measurement of the mean lifetimes of excited states of 27Si we have estab-
lished the similarity of B(E2) and B(M1) values for corresponding transitions in 27Si
and 27A1 (although experimental uncertainties may obscure small differences).
This provides further support for a collective model interpretation of these nuclei
in which most of the E2 strength is due to the core contribution. The collective models
involved predict almost identical B(M1) values for corresponding transitions in these
nuclei.
Consequently, discussion concerning collective model predictions of electromagnetic
transition strengths in 27Al is to a large extent directly applicable to 27Si. The E2
strengths are best explained by the excited core model and the best prediction of the
Ml strengths is provided by the Nilsson model. The modifications of Rdpke help
also to explain E2 transition strenghts on a strong-coupling basis.

We wish to thank the operating staff of the Oxford University tandem generator
for their generous co-operation. One of us (J. J. W. ) acknowledges the receipt of a
Research Studentship from the Science Research Council and one of us (D. A. H.)
wishes to thank the National Research Council of Canada for a Fellowship.

References
1) D. M. Sheppard and C. van der Leun, Nucl. Phys. Al00 (1967) 333
2) C. van der Leun, D. M. Sheppard and P. M. Endt, Nucl. Phys. Al00 (1967) 316
3) P. J. M. Smulders, C. Broude and J. F. Sharpey-Schafer, Can. J. Phys. 46 (1968) 261
4) K. H. Bhatt, Nucl. Phys. 39 (1962) 375
5) V. K. Thankappan, Phys. Rev. 141 (1966) 957
6) M. B. Lewis, N. R. Roberson and D. R. Tilley, Phys. Rev. 163 (1967) 1238
7) H. RBpke, V. Glattes and G. Hammel, Nucl. Phys. A156 (1970) 477
8) J. Lindhard, M. Scharff and H. E. Schinrtt, Mat. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. 33 (1963) No. 14
9) A. E. Blaugrund, Nucl. Phys. 88 (1966) 501
10) B. Fastrup, P. Hvelplund and C. Sautter, Mat. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. 35 (1966) No. 10
11) J. H. Ormrod and H. E. Duckworth, Can. J. Phys. 41 (1963) 1424
12) I. G. Main et al., Univ. of Liverpool, private communication
13) C. M. da Silva, J. C. Lisle and M. F. da Silva, Proc. Phys. Sot. 92 (1967) 107
14) P. M. Endt and C. van der Leun, Nucl. Phys. A105 (1967) 1
15) P. W. M. Glaudemans and C. van der Leun, Phys. L&t. 34B (1971) 41
16) G. Morpurgo, Phys. Rev. 114 (1969) 1075
17) J. F. Sharpey-Schafer, Can. J. Phys. 46 (1968) 2039
18) N. Anyas-Weiss and A. E. Litherland, Can. J. Phys. 47 (1969) 2609
19) B. D. Sowerby and G. J. McCallum, Nucl. Phys. All2 (1968) 453
20) T. K. Alexander, Bull. Am. Phys. Sot. 14 (1969) 555
21) H. Ejiri, Nucl. Phys. 52 (1964) 578
22) I. G. Main et aI., Nucl. Phys. A158 (1970) 364
23) A. Faessler, Nucl. Phys. 59 (1964) 177