the quadrupole-quadrupole interaction results are compared with the ($x,y$) interaction results, and furthermore we extend the calculation to $^{10}\mbox{Be}$. In the latter nucleus one does not have $N=Z$ and this leads to big differences.

Whereas in $^8\mbox{Be}$ there is only one isospin channel for isovector transitions $J=0_1^+$ $T=0$ $\rightarrow$ $J=1^+$ $T=1$, in $^{10}\mbox{Be}$ there are two: $J=0_1^+$ $T=1$ $\rightarrow$ $J=1^+$ $T=1$ and $J=0_1^+$ $T=1$ $\rightarrow$ $J=1^+$ $T=2$. The low lying $J=1^+$ $T=1$ states in $^{10}\mbox{Be}$ are expected to have much smaller excitation energies than the $J=1^+$ $T=1$ states in $^8\mbox{Be}$. This makes it easier to look for such states experimentally.

In Table II we present the results for the summed energy weighted strengths for the ($x,y$) interaction. As a crude orientation it should be noted that simple models e.g. the Nilsson model used by de Guerra and Zamick [@dz1] and a model by Nojarov [@no] would have the ‘large’ result be twice the ‘low large’ result. On the other hand Hamamoto and Nazarewicz [@hz] have argued that the ‘large’ result should be much more than twice the ‘low large’ result. The actual ratios for the ($x,y$) and $Q \cdot Q$ interactions for this calculation (all $0\hbar\omega$ configurations plus $2\hbar\omega$ excitations) 