Talk:Nuclear magnetic resonance/Catalogs/Magnetic nuclei

The {{subpages}} template is designed to be used within article clusters and their related pages.
However, it cannot function on sub-subpage talk pages..Please continue discussion at Talk:Nuclear magnetic resonance, or return to the Magnetic nuclei subsubpage.

style

• all atoms whose numbers of protons and numbers of neutroms are both even will not be magnetically active OR
• all atoms whose numbers of protons and numbers of neutroms are both not even will be magnetically active

I think the second tells you which elements will show up in NMR/MRI the top line tells you which will not show up - readers might get confused Robert Tito |  Talk  16:49, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

I agree and will on it later. As it now stands, the sentence following it seems to be talking about the even/even when I am talking about the magnetically active ones. Got to fly now.

Also, the list is not complete, and only lists the common isotopes, not crazy short-lived atom smasher created ones.

David E. Volk 17:24, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

magnets

magnets used for NMR spectra are really strong (I have used magnets up to 60 Gauss) and cooled down (nitrogen most of the time) but superconductivity played no part to create these spectra. Only good channel analyzers and patience - many spectra took the best part of 72 hours to get a signal above the noise level. Robert Tito |  Talk  17:17, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

It is the superconducting coils that allows for extremely large currents ( say 200 Amps or more)to last for years in a circular loop, which IS the magnetic field (Faraday effect). They actually all have a liquid Helium bath in the center, surrounded by a liquid N2 bath. N2 is filled every week or two, helium every 6-8 weeks. I don't recall the Gauss conversion, our magnets are about 17-20 Telsa (or 600, 750 and 800 MHz proton frequency).

most materials at the T(He) are not superconductive but rather extremely well conducting. To get real way down you need hydrogen - but thats beside the general point: it needs being a very strong magnetic field, irrespective how that's produced. Next we get patients needing an MRI scan worried about the liquid nitrogen/helium and what it can do to them :). I will delete the reference to cuperconductive for ease of reading and the people that know about the topic know how thats produced. Robert Tito |  Talk  17:43, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

Negative spin quantum number

Hi David, I see some elements in the table with negative spin. What do NMR people mean by that? --Paul Wormer 10:05, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

I think the best response to positive and negative spins is: no matter what sign they respond to a strong magnetic field one in the direction A and the other in the direction -A. Important is to note they respond likewise only the direction differs by 180˚. Robert Tito |  Talk  14:22, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

reply to Robert, and possible name change

Robert, I changed from A, -A to Z and -Z since this is the standard reference directions in NMR. I still am not convinced that I choose the right name for this page. Should it be something like magnetically active (chemical) elements, or magnetically active nuclei, or magnetic atoms or magnetic nuclei????

David, heck no big deal, of course is z the better choice, compare to s_z. It might be more appropriate to use a small cursive Z but I wonder why that would matter much, the bold indicative it can also be seen as a vector. I think people will understand it better because no matter what they know they will be pointed to think “oh one goes left the other right, or up down”. The only term I have seen and have used is magnetic material, para-magnetic. Put in atom or element for material, I guess element then is the best choice though some (short lived) isotopes may have different magnetic properties. I don't whink we should even consider treating those as their impact to the material we are talking about can be neglected. Robert Tito |  Talk  17:51, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Approval

I think this article's not large enough & not understandable to casual readers. It reads too much like a Wikipedia article. Shouldn't it start by explaining what NMR active elements are?

Even if I were to go with the existing information, it should explain what spectroscopy is, under what circumstances magnetically active nuclei exist - or if this is just referring to elements containing magnetic force, what is non-zero nuclear whatever, ok... what were we studying? (Chunbum Park 11:35, 26 February 2008 (CST))

This article is meant to be a reference page, or catalog, not an explaination of NMR. Thus, the NMR spectroscopy page would either point to this, or this could be a catalog under the NMR spectroscopy page, theory of NMR page, or atomic nuclei page, and so forth. So, I will not be expanding it. The details you request will be in several other articles. I have been meaning to rename this page to Catalog of magnetically active atomic elements, or something similar, but I can't quite decide on the very name yet. Any thoughts on the renaming? David E. Volk 12:32, 26 February 2008 (CST)

How about Catalog of magnetic isotopes, I think that is very accurate for a name. David E. Volk 16:05, 26 February 2008 (CST)

Oh, never mind then. I think that this article's sufficient as a catalog - we have to leave the question of approval to the editors. (Chunbum Park 17:25, 26 February 2008 (CST))

With respect to a catalogs this article could easilty have its own catalog for the table (NMR active elements/Catalogs. Moving the whole thing to NMR spectroscopy is another option (NMR spectroscopy/Catalogs/Active elements) but using the sub-subpage option. My gut feeling would go with keeping this article and moving the table to the catalogs subpage. Chris Day (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2008 (CST)

Approval process

I've stopped by to perform the mechanics of approval for this article. What I see is an article that has two editors that have participated in the content of this article, so I need one more for to be able to perform the approval. The other option would be the individual editor approval process but that would mean some renegotiating of the article. I'll hold off for another 24 hours while you work this out. D. Matt Innis 19:32, 29 February 2008 (CST)

Any questions? -D. Matt Innis 08:54, 4 March 2008 (CST)