View source for Talk:Nuclear magnetic resonance

{{Article history
|action1=GAN
|action1date=03:27, 17 June 2006
|action1result=not listed
|action1oldid=58809712
|currentstatus=FGAN
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Spectroscopy|importance=High}}
}}
__TOC__

==Diagram needs changing==
The diagram that demonstates the splitting of the electon spin energies is wrong with the lowest energy being negative. This is not the case, in NMR the lowest energy of the split angular momentum is positive in value. Would be great to see this changed if any one still has the original .jpeg. EPR is the spectroscopy that has a negative value for the lowest split energy value[[Special:Contributions/125.238.142.222|125.238.142.222]] ([[User talk:125.238.142.222|talk]]) 10:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely depends on nucleus and sign of gamma?  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Cowburn|Cowburn]] ([[User talk:Cowburn|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cowburn|contribs]]) 13:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==whoo ... big edit.==

I divided the page  sections, and greatly expanded the description of how NMR works. This is the closest I have ever come to giving a quantum mechanics lecture! Please help with any parts that are unclear...

The history section needs better organization, although I'm grateful for whoever put that up there.  More discussion of various techniques (FID, spin-echo, CPMG) is necessary, as is discussion of the various factors that are measured by NMR spectroscopy. --hb, 18 Nov 2002

== Discovery of chemical shift ==

In the history section, it would be nice to add a couple of sentences on the discovery of chemical shift and how Bloch commented that if this were "some nasty chemical phenomenon" it could "terribly impede" the measurment of nuclear magnetic moments. Detials of the story can be found at http://www.ebyte.it/library/hist/ProctorWG_Reminiscences.html
[[User:Roy Hoffman|Roy Hoffman]] 11:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

== sections need to be removed. ==

The description of the NMR signal as reading the radiation that comes out when the nuclei reequilibrate needs to be removed.  This is a common misconception about what the NMR signal is.  Both T2 and T2* measurements are made while the nuclei are in disequilibrium; although the bulk magnetization decreases, it is because the signals are going out of phase with each other (because they are resonating at different frequencies), not because the nuclei are reequilibrating.  (anonymous, 18 Feb 2004)

:To me, the text seems to be correct, although it might lead to some confusion that T2 (dephasing) is discussed directly after the re-equilibration, which would refer to T1 (population relaxation). I tried to clarify the text (then saw that I mixed up T2 and T2*) - [[User:Hankwang|Hankwang]] 21:53, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

: I would rewrite the section completely in terms of commonly used names for T1 and T2 - (it can be either longitudinal and transversal or spin-lattice  and spin-spin relaxation). It's odd to mix up T1 and T2 together because generally the processes of spin-lattice and spin-spin relaxation are independent both in classical terms (Bloch equations) or in QM therms (Redfield theory, etc). Moreover, the difference between T1 and T2 may be several orders of magnitude ( when speaking about solid-state NMR). Generally, the T2 can not be dependent on T1, especially in such a strange manner like placed in the formula in the bottom of this section. What is the source of such an odd relation between T1 and T2 ?? [[User:MakVal|MakVal]]

:: In order for the spins to relax fully, they must also stop precessing in unison. That is the link between the two. --[[User:Pdbailey|Pdbailey]] 00:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

==Magnetic or electromagnetic?==

Concerning the sentence:
"When radio power is sent to the antenna, it generates an oscillating magnetic field H1 (not to be confused with the external magnetic field). "

should this not be "..generates an oscillating electromagnetic field"?
Foppe Brolsma, brolsma_produkties (at) hotmail.com

:No, the current text is correct. To call it an oscillating electromagnetic field would imply it were [[electromagnetic radiation]], which it isn't. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 00:45, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

::The fact that it is a radio antenna which generates the field implies that it is electromagnetic radiation. Moreover, the text mentions left-handed and right-handed circularly-polarized photons, which also implies it is radiation. What you might mean is that

::1. we are dealing with the near field (i.e. less than a wavelength from the radiation source), which means that E and B are not necessarily perpendicular. However, NMR would work just as well in the far field (e.g. at higher radio frequencies that have a shorter wavelength) so that is not the issue here.

::2. It is the magnetic component that interacts with the nuclei. However, in the description of quantum-mechanical transitions in atoms in an electromagnetic field, it is mainly the electrical component that acts on the atoms, but that is not a reason to call it "transitions involving an oscillating electric field" instead of "radiative transitions".

:::Yeah OK, that could be right, sorry. When I was taught this initially, we used the semi-classical treatment which talks entirely in terms of a rotating or oscillating magnetic field. Chapter 3 of [http://www.cis.rit.edu/htbooks/nmr/inside.htm this random web site], which I found using [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=nuclear+magnetic+resonance this google search], uses terminology very similar to what I'm used to:

::::''A coil of wire placed around the X axis will provide a magnetic field along the X axis when a direct current is passed through the coil.  An alternating current will produce a magnetic field which alternates in direction.''

::::''In a frame of reference rotating about the Z axis at a frequency equal to that of the alternating current, the magnetic field along the X' axis will be constant, just as in the direct current case in the laboratory frame.   ''

::::''This is the same as moving the coil about the rotating frame coordinate system at the Larmor Frequency. In magnetic resonance, the magnetic field created by the coil passing an alternating current at the Larmor frequency is called the B1 magnetic field. When the alternating current through the coil is turned on and off, it creates a pulsed B1 magnetic field along the X' axis. ''

:::I'm happy to go with common usage, whatever that may be. Do you have any references calling it an electromagnetic field? -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 15:08, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

::::Well, no, I was merely countering the statement that "it is NOT E-M radiation". :) I'd say the current article text is fine. I certainly would not agree with the moving-coil description above since a correct transformation to a rotating coordinate system would be much more involved than is suggested. The rotating-wave approximation which lies behind this is purely quantum-mechanical, and ''after'' this approximation, it turns out that you can describe the precession of the spins in a rotating frame as if there were no B0 field. However, I strongly oppose to "deriving" the approximation from a macroscopic and incorrect metaphor.  -- [[User:Hankwang|Hankwang]] 16:52, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Nuclear spins do not emit radio waves ==

Nuclear spins do not emit radio waves in response to a radio frequency pulse.   This mistake has been repeated in so many text books that no doubt many people believe it.  David Hoult, an impeccable physicist, made a valiant attempt to correct this misconception in 1989.  The reference is: D. I. Hoult, Concepts in Magnetic Resonance, 1989, 1, 1-5.  The wise reader will start here.  -Jan Wooten

:Nuclear spins '''do''' emit radio waves - If you check Hoult in Concepts in Magnetic Resonance, 9(5):277,1997 he discusses noise characteristics that do actually imply that photons are being emitted.  However this is still an area that is not fully understood and the use of induction by a rotating bulk magnetisation is the generally accepted (and understood) model so that is what should be here. [[Special:Contributions/84.92.41.102|84.92.41.102]] ([[User talk:84.92.41.102|talk]]) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

:[[Wikipedia:Be bold in editing pages]] -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 06:25, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

:Agreed. What was there was a poor O-chem understanding of the process. I fixed it up a little but left it looking like a first draft... come on wiki process! [[User:Pdbailey|Pdbailey]] 05:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hm...Nuclear spins do not emit radio waves...so what about radiation damping (a serious problem in NMR spectroscopy on water containing samples)....rather the NMR signal is an interaction between the ensemble of nuclear spins (coherence) and the RF coil which detects the signal..according to energy conservation (1. law of thermodynamics etc.) there must be some kind of emition, this is trivial. It seems to me that people confuse the quantum mechanical and the clasical description of NMR. I agree that NMR is not directley comparable to spectroscopical techniques like fluorescence spectroscopy or similar (because off the large difference in energy), but formally it is correct that the nuclei emit a signal...although only a very smal portion of this signal is measurable. The NMR signal is a macroscopic quantity...but only due to technical reasons.[[User:Flogiston|Flogiston]] 22:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

===Comment: This is not quite "true"===
RE: "''Nuclear spins do not emit radio waves''...":
Although this general comment is `true' for both liquids and solids NMR '''absorption''', it is certainly not quite so for the emission of both radio waves and microwaves by resonating protons (Yes, H-1 (+) ions) in oscillating plasmas placed in static magnetic fields, also coupled to electrons in such plasmas,  that have been demonstrated repeatedly both experimentally and theoretically to emit both radio waves and microwaves in addition to light!!!

This does not mean, however--as you said and cited-- that one should confuse NMR **'''absorption'''** of resonant RF with the above cited phenomenon in oscillating plasmas that involves RF and microwave emission by proton plasma resonances in static magnetic fields. Should you require the relevant references for the above observed emission phenomenon in proton containing plasmas, I will be glad to oblige.

Bci2



'''Consensus?'''<br />
Currently the beginning of this article reads:<br />
(''NMR) is a property that magnetic nuclei have in a magnetic field and applied electromagnetic (EM) pulse or pulses, which cause the nuclei to absorb energy from the EM pulse and radiate this energy back out. The energy radiated back out is at a specific resonance frequency which depends on the strength of the magnetic field and other factors. This allows the observation of specific quantum mechanical magnetic properties...''<br />
Later however, it seems to be suggested that data is generated in NMR spectroscopy by the formation of an electrical current, which, in turn is generated by oscillation in the net direction and instensity of the local magnetization.  So whether or not RF-irradiated nuclei absorb and then later give-off radiation (of any-which frequency) is fact or not, it is unclear from this article what is being measured.  It seems to me that "the energy radiated back out" from an irradiated nucleus may not directly affect the Free Induction Decay (FID) which is what the spectrometer records.  Is this true?  Please modify.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.3.17.121|24.3.17.121]] ([[User talk:24.3.17.121|talk]]) 03:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

<br />
<br />
The text in the article's introduction is technically correct, albeit misleading to what NMR actually is.  There are two exchanges of information / energy that is transpiring.  Spin's are electrical charges that precess and thus one can place a electrically conducting material near the spins and measure a voltage/current induced, i.e. Faraday's law of induction. Spin's in the lower energy state can absorb a photon and align the phase of its spinning with that of the absorbed photon.  Coherent photons absorbed by the spins causes coherent precessing and thus a coherent voltage induced in the conductive material, i.e. the information containing signal.
<br />
When the spin's transition from a higher energy state to a lower energy state a photon is emitted.  Only a small fraction of the photons transmitted into a sample, in an NMR experiment, are absorbed.  Only a small fraction of the photons emitted during downward energy state transition make it to an antenna.  The induced voltage in the antenna would be prohibitively small.  [[Special:Contributions/68.164.8.124|68.164.8.124]] ([[User talk:68.164.8.124|talk]]) 03:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

==Cosy section==
The COSY section should be removed/sidelined until it can be explained better. It reads scattily, as if pulled directly from a textbook, and there are many technical aspects unexplained (double Fourier-transformation, Pulses, how the 2nd dimension arises) and many aspects are poorly written (Example of ethanone). I feel this doesn't make it an asset to this entry.

Any feeling/input on this would be appreciated because its a very major edit! Unless anyone objects I'll be removing it  when I edit the theory of this section. (And hopefully have time to put something meaningful in its place). Let me know --[[User:Lee-Jon|Lee-Jon]]

The COSY section deals with other aspects of 2D NMR as well and should be part of a separate entry entitled 2D NMR or Two dimensional NMR [[User:Roy Hoffman|Roy Hoffman]] 13:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

== How NMR Works - major edit ==

The '''How NMR Works''' section has been renamed to '''Theory...''' and consigned to the latter part of the article so not to frighten undergraduates etc. It has been expanded so (hopefully) every concept makes sense and has some theoretical background presented. 

Sections I (or you!) want to add are on spin-spin coupling, Pulse NMR & Fourier-transformation, and possibly a brief talk on the nuclear Overhauser effect relevant to NMR. I think that covers almost everything to give some detail on NMR without it being ''too'' technical. 
--[[User:Lee-Jon|Lee-Jon]] 21:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
# Nice addition!  Thanks.  Good work in my opinion.  I took out the line between the [[Image]] tag and the first line of text--to accommodate "some" browsers.
# We might experiment with controlling the size of the Progesterone plot, see code in edit view to produce the diagram to the right. [NB: IMAGE REMOVED]  ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 22:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for praise. Yeah I agree with the image - it looks much nicer that way -i've amended it and taken the code out of the edit page. Although I feel the ''COSY'' section need much refinement, maybe even a major edit to make it a "2D NMR/Experimentation" section. [[User:Lee-Jon|Lee-Jon]] 21:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)



A layman here trying to understand the theory and I am bother by the use of quantum numbers in the article. In one place, the spin quantum number is call 'ms' (I can't do the formating correctly) and then later it is called 'I'. I realize that one is 'overall' and the other is not but to a layman I cannot tell if that is a real difference (ie a technical term) or if it is something else, especially when other linked articles on quantum dynamics call 'I' something else again. Here is the quote of the beginning and end of the section: "rise to '''the spin quantum number, ms'''........... '''½ to the nuclear spin quantum number, I'''." Since I do not know what I am talking about, anyone who edits this, once fixed, please remove my comment. Cheers!

Sorry, layman again. In the following section:
"The spin angular momentum of a nucleus can take ranges from +I to –I in integral steps. This value is known as the magnetic quantum number, m. For any given nucleus, there is a total (2I+1) angular momentum states. Spin angular momentum is a vector quantity. The z component of which, denoted Iz, is quantised:
Iz = mh/2π 
where h is Planck's constant."
Iz = mh/2Pi but m can be a range of values (from +I to -I, yes?) so how can i determine Iz? Please erase this after correction.

== Splitting the NMR page in two- NMR and NMR spectroscopy ==

I am an organic chemist and I would describe myself as an experienced ''user'' of NMR spectroscopy. I can not claim to be an NMR expert, I could never write my own pulse sequences etc.  I also teach introductory organic chemistry, covering the basics of 1D proton and C-13 NMR in the first semester, then students get to run a COSY and a DEPT experiment in their second semester.  I am therefore very familiar with explaining the basics of the NMR spectroscopy.  It seems clear to me that there are '''two''' different topics covered on this page currently
# Nuclear magnetic resonance- the physical phenomenon, and
# NMR spectroscopy- the analytical technique.

For example MRI (as I understand it) uses the phenomenon of NMR, but is clearly distinct as a technique from NMR spectroscopy. 

This difference between physical phenomenon and analytical method has already resulted in there being separate pages for [[Infrared]] and [[Infrared spectroscopy]], also [[Ultraviolet]] and [[UV/VIS spectroscopy]]. See [[:Category:Spectroscopy]] for other page titles.

NMR spectroscopy is the most widely-used technique in modern organic chemistry and it surely deserves its own page.  The spectroscopy page should have less discussion on the theory and physics, and much more on how the technique can be used to analyse molecular structure- things like equivalence, chemical shift, integration, multiplicity, diastereotopic protons in chiral molecules, which nuclei lend themselves well to analysis and which don't, etc.  Some of this information is already on this page, much is not. My undergraduate students would currently find almost nothing on this page of value to them. We need this separate [[NMR spectroscopy]] page. The COSY section could be part of this new page or could be big enough for its own page. What do others think? [[User:Walkerma|Walkerma]] 07:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

PS: I should mention that I have an ulterior motive- we are currently revamping the standard [[Wikipedia:Chemical_infobox|data table]] for chemical compounds, and we are including a link (for some compounds) chemical shift data or to scans of actual 1H and 13C spectra.  The idea is that when you look up (say) [[limonene]], you could click on a link to see NMR data or a spectrum.  I would like to have the standard "explanation" link on these tables to lead to a spectroscopy page. [[User:Walkerma|Walkerma]] 07:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

===Good idea===
I agree, however NMR Spectroscopy extends far beyond Organic chemistry so maybe the page could be written from a few angles:
# Sample preparation
# organic structure (typical stuff)
# biological structure (structure/function etc)
# dynamic NMR (reactions/thermo etc)
# Solid state NMR
# multinuclear NMR (13C 15N 17O etc)
# Techniques (multidimensional etc)
# Fourier transformation and computational methods
Unlike UV/VIS and similar techniques, modern NMR Spectroscopy is a very large and very complex area. And as I'm sure you're aware, an end-user approach to NMR is very difficult to discuss without having to delve into some nuclear physics. Any section on NMR Spectroscopy should continually reference a theory section to keep it accurate. 

The page has been created [[NMR_Spectroscopy|here]] and I'll try and finish a good first build throughout this month! 
[[User:Lee-Jon|Lee-Jon]] 09:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for starting that- it's a nice job so far! Please can I encourage you to keep writing it at a very basic level. I know from teaching this, you only need a very basic understanding of the physics underlying it- just like you don't need to understand general relativity to understand that an apple falls to the ground.  I would avoid getting into discussions of T1, T2 etc. on this page if possible. Also, can I recommend that this page be renamed as [[NMR spectroscopy]] (small s) (currently a redirect), this seems to be the more usual form when you look at [[[[:Category:Spectroscopy]]. I agree that all of those topics need covering- these probably all warrant their own pages.  Wikipedia is exploding in size and depth, it seems to me, and with the chemical compounds pages we probably have 500-1000 compounds covered, up from perhaps 100-200 a year ago- so having 10 pages on different aspects of NMR, written at various levels, is totally reasonable.  I would suggest that 13C deserves its own page.  One small point, should that be "heteronuclear" NMR for 15N etc?  Multi to me implies many, which sounds like HETCOR, APT etc. [[User:Walkerma|Walkerma]] 16:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. You're right, when I said multi I meant hetero. Typing faster than I'm thinking! Agreed about the small "s". I'll change that.
[[User:Lee-Jon|Lee-Jon]] 09:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

===Splitting up & Solid-state NMR===
I am a bit torn apart in my feelings for splitting up the article on NMR and it's spectroscopic technique. From a scientist's point of view, I oppose this. However, for an Encyclopedia, it's important to be not only accurate and precise, but also brief. Therefore it might be good to proceed to disentangle the "physical phenomenon" and the "spectroscopy", setting the appropriate links. Aside of that, I suggest to write a separate article on [[solid-state NMR]], which may be broken up into two sections describing the effect and the spectroscopy if you show this can be done successfully.

== Fullerene NMR ==

In their 1985 experiment, R. Curl and R. Smalley of Rice University obtained mass spectrum of carbon clusters, where even numbers have large intensities and n=60 is particlularly so (Nature, 1985, 318, 162). They proposed the C60 structure as a soccer ball.

The NMR spectrum of buckminsterfullerene (C60) was published in 1990 by another Nobel prize winner Kroto, H.W. of University of Sussex (J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1990, 1423). This confirmed the earlier proposed structure. Indeed, IR spectrum of C60 precedes NMR (Nature 1990, 347, 354). Together, IR and NMR spectra confirmed the structure of C60. 

This entry need to be changed to reflect this fact.

==needed==
I think the article could use a nice diagram of the innards of an NMR machine and an explanation of how the larmor frequency relates to the naming of individual machines (field strength correlation etc.) though, I am not the one to do it. I can't find a good PD diagram of an NMR device so.....any takers?--[[User:Deglr6328|Deglr6328]] 20:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== NMR in weak fields & outside of RF coils ==

Is someone familiar with NMR and NMR spectroscopy in weak magnetic fields and outside of the RF coil, as for oil logging or material science (like the NMR mouse tool that the guys from RWTH Aachen build)? I've heard a couple of interesting talks about it, but I don't feel qualified writing about it. However, I think those are some nice applications in engineering that would extend the "molecular structure" view of the current NMR articles a bit, and may be of interest to readers outside of the field. Would be cool if someone picked that up!


:[[NQR]]?--[[User:Deglr6328|Deglr6328]] 12:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

::I was talking to a retired fellow today who did NMR for oil prospecting, and he said that they could do meaningful detection of sunken ships/submarines, through NMR from the air.  This is one of his adventures: http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/Sydney_search/KDLS_Search_Report.html  
::A brief description of the equipment: http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/Sydney_search/kdls.html
::I'd like to know more too. [[User:RB30DE|RB30DE]] 09:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:The effect you refer to is evidently "Earth's Field NMR" (EFNMR), (as distinct from NQR). I have added two questions relating to EFNMR below. [[User:G-W|GilesW]] 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

== kindly stop using acronyms ==

Especially when naming the subpages. I will proceed to rename them in order to conform to the Manual of Style (as well as professionalism)...well, that's my rant of the day, off to formalise dozens of other articles...keep a look out for double redirects. There's something gratifying about the term "magnetic resonance", I don't see why we have to abbreviate it to such a horrible acronym. ;-) [[User:Natalinasmpf|Elle <small><sub><span style="color:#CC9920;">vécut heureuse</span></sub></small> <small><span style="color:blue;"><sup>à jamais</sup></span></small>]] ([[User talk:Natalinasmpf|Be eudaimonic!]]) 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:Acronyms are in common usage in the field of NMR (and in science in general). Often people don't actually know what the acronyms stand for. And in addition to this it get's a bit laborious to say eg. "insensitive nuclei enhanced by polarization transfer" rather than just INEPT. The acronyms that are in common usage should stay.... [[User:Kjaergaard|Kjaergaard]] 08:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Yes, but you don't use them for article titles. Using them in the article body text is ''tolerable'', (and should generally not be wantonly done). Look at some of the pages - it reads like heiroglyphs. There is no excuse for this: how do you expect a new reader to understand? Look at [[protein nuclear magnetic resonance]], a version which I will correct:
<small> <blockquote>...The HNCACO only contains the one from the previous residue, and it is thus possible to assign the carbonyl carbon shifts that corresponds to each HSQC peak and the one previous to that one. Thus it is possible to make the assignment by matching the shifts of each spin system's own and previous carbons. The HNCA and HNCOCA works similarly, just with the alpha carbons rather than the carbonyls, and the HNCACB and the CBCACONH contains...</blockquote></small>

:: It is utterly ridiculous: These acronyms are ambiguous, and may be professional in a scientific journal, but not for an integrated encyclopedia. Besides, it shouldn't be laborious; Wikipedia isn't paper. We can spare the use of long titles, just as long as it isn't unwieldy. Generally we can tolerate titles of 6-7 words, even, although more than that will be a good excuse to use an acronym. It's precisely that people don't know what the acronyms stand for that it is a concern. After all, very little do acronyms end up like [[video]] and [[radar]], generalisation of these acronyms are the exception, not the norm. Sorry for the rant here, I'm just a copyeditor who has to make sure the text is legible - also "see this article for more details" should not be done. It's a horrible and unprofessional way and disrupts prose. The guideline is to remember that we also have a "spoken Wikipedia" project, and so if you can't imagine reading an article say, to a class, and saying some of the phrases (such as "see this"), then it generally should not be included. This excludes "main article" (which should only be done for sections) or special notices. [[User:Natalinasmpf|Elle <small><sub><span style="color:#CC9920;">vécut heureuse</span></sub></small> <small><span style="color:blue;"><sup>à jamais</sup></span></small>]] ([[User talk:Natalinasmpf|Be eudaimonic!]]) 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::: 1st let me just say LOL, just to waste further the whole point here. This article alone has wasted the usage of the acronymic term more than plenty. Science is deterministic on change and opposing forces that challenge. Acronyms are many and are a nuance to the community as a whole. Change in this sense will assist those who 'want' to learn more than just 1<sup>n</sup> variation of the term mr. (Even when the subject field is as evident as it can be) [[anon|anon]] [[User:203.59.189.244|203.59.189.244]] 19:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
::: Take the time for us, or to tip a cow, TTTFU || T<sup>3</sup>FU [[anon|anon]] [[User:203.59.189.244|203.59.189.244]] 19:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged [[protein nuclear magnetic resonance]] for cleanup. Can someone convert the acronyms into actual concepts, formalise the page, then remove the tag when done? So basically, acronyms are tolerable, just don't use them in page titles, or use them wantonly. [[HNCA]] and [[HNCOCA]] need to be converted, too. [[User:Natalinasmpf|Elle <small><sub><span style="color:#CC9920;">vécut heureuse</span></sub></small> <small><span style="color:blue;"><sup>à jamais</sup></span></small>]] ([[User talk:Natalinasmpf|Be eudaimonic!]]) 20:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:Ahhh... Again one of those cases where people want to edit something they don't know anything about. HNCA and HNCOCA are just names, so they cannot be converted. I do not agree, but I don't feel strongly about it, . If you want to rename the Protein NMR page, call it protein nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy instead. [[User:Kjaergaard|Kjaergaard]] 21:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:: I know about spectroscopy in general, but that's not the point. I just want to make sure that I can convert the article from heiroglyphs to prose (even if it's abstract prose), so I can nominate it for [[Wikipedia:Featured article]]. Please don't revert me - I made a lot of legitimate changes - I am simply bringing the article in line with the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]] and copyediting the page. [[User:Natalinasmpf|Elle <small><sub><span style="color:#CC9920;">vécut heureuse</span></sub></small> <small><span style="color:blue;"><sup>à jamais</sup></span></small>]] ([[User talk:Natalinasmpf|Be eudaimonic!]]) 05:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

== Failed Good Article candidate ==
The main reason for my failing this is the fact that the article tends to blur the difference between NMR the physical phenomenon (the subject of this article) and NMR spectroscopy (the application of said phenomenon, covered mainly in the [[NMR spectroscopy]] article).  This is understandable because (a) both topics used to be covered on this page and (b) chemists tend to talk about "an NMR" when they mean an NMR spectrum.  The applications of NMR in spectroscopy and MRI are important and deserve coverage, but they should not be ''in place of'' NMR as a phenomenon.  The History section (after the first four paragraphs) reads more like a history of NMR spectroscopy rather than of the study of the phenomenon itself (ironically, the spectroscopy page doesn't include any of this same history!).  This is a bit like reading the article on [[microwave]]s and finding the history of the development of [[microwave oven]]s described, simply because "microwave" in the vernacular refers to the ovens.  To someone unfamiliar with the topic, this must be very confusing.

The theory section seems fine - sure, it's technical, but then again this is a pretty technical subject.  Terms are explained as they should be.  

The "Uses" section really needs a single person to rewrite it into a coherent section.  It reads like 50 different people have thrown in bits of information - the content is there, but it needs organising and rewriting in places (e.g. the  C60 paragraph).  I would like to see subsections of Uses
*Magnetic Resonance Imaging starting with <nowiki>{{Main|Magnetic Resonance Imaging}}</nowiki> then an overview of MRI.
*NMR Spectroscopy starting with <nowiki>{{Main|NMR Spectroscopy}}</nowiki> then describing the main uses of NMR spectroscopy.
*Other uses as described.

I also suspect there may be some things missing from here, and moving inappropriate spectroscopy stuff elsewhere would create the space for this.  I'd like to see listed some of the elements that are most active in NMR.  The Nuclear spin and magnets section explains which will be active, but some examples like why <sup>12</sup>C is inactive but <sup>13</sup>C is active. I'd like to see discussion (in simple terms, perhaps purely qualitative) of the sensitivity of the nucleus - why <sup>1</sup>H is easy to see, but <sup>15</sup>N is not.  Could it include how quadrupolar relaxation can smear out a signal and make it harder to observe with a nucleus like <sup>51</sup>V?  I'm not knowledgable enough to write this material, but I suspect this article could have a lot more useful content. [[User:Walkerma|Walkerma]] 03:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

==T2==
There is no explanation or Wikilink of what T2 is.  It's just dropped in. --[[User:Scottandrewhutchins|Scottandrewhutchins]] 22:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:It's explained on the [[MRI]] page, but it needs to be explained here. --[[User:Scottandrewhutchins|Scottandrewhutchins]] 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Additionally, T2* needs a better description.  It is used without explanation
--Evan and Gabe, MIT students doing an NMR experiment

== Noise-to-Signal Ratio ==

The problem of poor noise-to-signal ratio is mentioned under the CONTINUOUS WAVE SPECTROSCOPY section, and the subsequent need therefore for signal averaging.

As I understand it however, poor noise-to-signal ratio is a problem inherent to the NMR process itself, not just CW Spectroscopy but also FOURIER SPECTROSCOPY. No signal-to-noise aspects are discussed under the FOURIER SPECTROSCOPY section of the article however.

Perhaps the issue of signal-to-noise needs it's own heading and section, separate from CONTINUOUS WAVE SPECTROSCOPY to make things a little more clear.

[[User:Pookie69|Pookie69]] 11:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

== Earth's Field NMR - EFNMR ==
I cannot find a reference to EFNMR in wikipedia, though there are good web pages about it.
I suggest adding a reference to it, and developing an article.
[[User:G-W|GilesW]] 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
: Links to (updated) Magnetometer article and an EFNMR web site added to article. Stub page for EFNMR needed. Editor, please help. [[User:G-W|GilesW]] 09:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::I have drafted an [[EFNMR]] page, some time ago now, help welcome, [[User:G-W|GilesW]] 13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

== Proton Precession Magnetometers etc ==
I suggest adding a link from the NMR article to the Magnetometer article, which discusses PPM and Overhauser magnetometers.
I notice that the Magnetometer article does not mention that these are EFNMR effects. Perhaps this should be remedied, once the EFNMR references are in place.
[[User:G-W|GilesW]] 12:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
: Done, [[User:G-W|GilesW]] 14:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

== Quantum computing ==
Why is this not even mentioned? And the article is too big btw. Hard to find necessary things

== Gah an edit! ==

article reads:"NMR studies magnetic nuclei by aligning them..."
Should it not read:"NMR studies magnetized nuclei by aligning them...". Correct or elaborate please, in a strong enough magnetic field all nuclei can be influenced, essentially the flow of energy is directly influenced to produce statistically strong/weak results, albeit lamonistic. [[anon|anon]] [[User:203.59.189.244|203.59.189.244]] 19:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

* Well, like much else in this [[curate's egg]] of an article, the basic premise is wrong.  The interaction between the nuclear spins and external magnetic fields is far too weak in comparison with thermal energy to cause "alignment" of the nuclear spins - you'd have to be extremely close to absolute zero for significant alignment. Unfortunately explaining this properly is not easy - the Keeler reference does this well. [[User:84.92.241.186|84.92.241.186]] 11:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

== Help needed with ZNMR and EFNMR ==

Help with [[Zero Field NMR]], [[Earth's field NMR]], and [[Electric field NMR]] articles needed, please. 

Plus a mention in the text of the main article. Earth's field NMR is a poor relation, but significant (bore hole logging, magnetometers etc).

Any thoughts about sorting the 'See Also' list into alphabetical order? [[User:G-W|GilesW]] 16:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
: Done [[User:G-W|GilesW]] 10:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

== Edits to Introduction ==

The wording of the introduction is orientated towards NMR spectroscopy in high-field laborotory environments, and is not applicable to some other applications of NMR. Furthermore it is rather abstract. I propose that the intro be generalised to make it applicable to [[Earth's field NMR]] etc.

See above for various references and questions re EFNMR etc.

The following quote is helpful and could be used with attribution or paraphrased:

"... the [stimulating] frequency necessary to cause nuclear transitions is different for each element or isotope. The resonance frequency is found to vary in direct proportion to the applied field (for all magnetic nuclei); thus the larger the magnetic field the larger the frequency necessary to achieve resonance." [[Kemp, W. ''NMR in Chemistry : a multinuclear introduction'' Macmillan Ist Ed 1986 p6.]]

In addition, may I suggest something like:

''In the laborotory,'' NMR studies magnetic nuclei by aligning them with a very powerful external magnetic field and perturbing this alignment using a ''high frequency magnetic'' field. The resulting ''high frequency magnetic field generated by the sample in'' response to the external perturbing magnetic field is the phenomenon that is exploited in NMR spectroscopy and magnetic resonance imaging.

''In the [[Earth's magnetic field]], NMR frequencies are in the audio frequency range, and are typically stimulated by applying a strong dc magnetic field pulse to the sample and analysing the resulting low frequency alternating magnetic field. This effect is exploited in some types of [[magnetometer]] and on-location [[EFNMR]] spectroscopy.


NOTE: The perturbing fields are generated by inductors, so have no electric component. Electromagnets do not generate electromagnetic fields!

[[User:G-W|GilesW]] 21:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
: Edits now incorporated broadly iaw the above. [[User:G-W|GilesW]] 11:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

== Bloch Equations ==

Something is missing in this article: Bloch equations. [[User:TomyDuby|TomyDuby]] 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
:Not only that: I cannot find in Wikipedia an article on Bloch equations. Am I missing something? [[User:TomyDuby|TomyDuby]] ([[User talk:TomyDuby|talk]]) 18:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Bloch equations should be added to the article on [[Relaxation (NMR)]]. They could also be mentioned briefly in this article and in the article on [[Felix Bloch]]. For the moment I agree with you that they seem to be nowhere in Wikipedia.  [[User:Dirac66|Dirac66]] ([[User talk:Dirac66|talk]]) 20:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction - they seen to be nowhere in the English Wikipedia. I have just found [[:de:Bloch-Gleichungen]] in the German Wikipedia. Would someone care to translate it? I still think it would be better as a section of [[Relaxation (NMR)]] rather than as a separate article. [[User:Dirac66|Dirac66]] ([[User talk:Dirac66|talk]]) 20:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:Dear Dirac66: Thanks! I will add a chapter on Bloch equations to [[Relaxation (NMR)]]. It is a good place to start. This may take a couple of days to accomplish... [[User:TomyDuby|TomyDuby]] ([[User talk:TomyDuby|talk]]) 05:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== CW versus Pulsed NMR ==

I am missing a discussion on these two modes. [[User:TomyDuby|TomyDuby]] 23:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:[http://www.engin.swarthmore.edu/academics/courses/e90/2003_4/kpao/kristina_files/frame.html#slide0016.html This page indicates that NMR uses pulsed magnetic fields]  What's up with that?  

:One college that I visited used a pulsed magnetic field NMR unit as well--what's up with that?  

:A university professor physics PhD that I had as a work colleague described NMR in terms of an impulsed magnetic field--what's up with that?

:[http://www.innovationalberta.com/article.php?articleid=699 This NMR article] also talks about impulsed magnetic fields!--What's up with that?

::The application of a Radio Frequency pulse to a sample is the same as applying a magnetic field perpendicular to the constant field, this the reason that resonant pulses are used.  An electromagnetic pulse has an associated magnetic field with it!  Continuous Wave NMR should be only be mentioned in passing and possibly under history as very few experiments are performed now relating to it and confuses understanding of ft-NMR methodology.  I am concerned about the use of H on the page, the majority of literature on NMR and MRI use B0 for static field and B1 for applied field.  Why are we different here?[[Special:Contributions/84.92.41.102|84.92.41.102]] ([[User talk:84.92.41.102|talk]]) 08:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:I, too, want to see this CW vs Pulsed NMR differentiation addressed.

:The article on [[Earth's field NMR]] [http://www.google.com/search?q=earth+field+nmr (see also)] seems to have 'fewer proponents' and is flagged with a number of wiki templates of critisism.  Experts, please help out there if you are able.   [[User:Oldspammer|Oldspammer]] 18:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

::CW vs. pulse (Fourier Transform) NMR is already discussed (OK, not particularly clearly).  FT-NMR does not involve pulsing the static magnetic field - it uses pulses of radio frequency to excite a range of NMR frequencies at a given (fixed) magnetic field.  Unfortunately most pop science explanations of NMR are pretty bad (see links above). [[User:84.92.241.186|84.92.241.186]] 20:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry, but this is something different. In pulsed NMR the sample is placed in constant magnetic field. A short Radio Frequency pulse of suitable duration and frequency is applied to the sample. It excites the nuclear magnetic moments and as they return to their equilibrium state they emit absorbed RF signal that can be collected and analysed. MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) used an extension of this method to look inside your body. Here is a reference [[http://www.ep1.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/~dagmar/PULSEDNM.PDF]]. [[User:TomyDuby|TomyDuby]] 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

:::: ?  That's a good description of pulse/FT NMR.  But surely the point of the previous comment was that pulse NMR is discussed under Fourier Transform NMR and CW NMR  is discussed in the previous section?  So the original query about the "two modes" is already covered surely? [[User:82.122.56.171|82.122.56.171]] 22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

== Nuclear [[Rabi frequency]]? ==
A while ago the following paragraph was added (by an unregistered user) to the article on the Rabi frequency:

:"In the context of a nuclear magnetic resonance experiment, the Rabi frequency is the nutation frequency of a sample's net nuclear magnetization vector about a radiofrequency field. (Note that this is distinct from the Larmor frequency, which characterizes the precession of a transverse nuclear magnetization about a static magnetic field.)"

I am only familiar with the Rabi frequency in the context of atomic physics.  I've done a quick google search and it is regularly mentioned on pages concerning NMR.  I feel that these are two distinct (although possibly analogous) concepts that probably merit separate articles.  Does anyone have any thoughts on this?--[[User:DJIndica|DJIndica]] 19:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:Rabi oszillation is what actually happens during the pulse in NMR. Spins oscillate between their alpha and beta state in the rf field. --[[User:Maxus96|Maxus96]] ([[User talk:Maxus96|talk]]) 21:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

== NMR Phenomenon? ==

This article definitely lacks information on the phenomenon of resonance.  I personally do not understand this subject fully, especially in the resonance section, where I was hoping to learn about it.  In this section, all that is said is the conditions under which "resonance absorption" will occur, leaving many ambiguities.  Is the resonance here refering to the emitted photon or the precession of the nuclei?  Is the absorption dealing with that of the external electric circuit due to this photon?  Is the "correct frequency" something which the experimenter controls or is one that is naturally occurring as a result of precession?  

I would really appreciate it if someone took the time to answer these questions in the article.
--[[User:Wakod2002|Wakod2002]] ([[User talk:Wakod2002|talk]]) 08:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

== Why was clathrate material labelled as spam? ==

I would like to question the deletion by Cubbi (04:56 12 Jan 2009) with edit summary "rv clathrate spam. Keep it to flow assurance and gas hydrate if you must." The word "spam" normally describes advertising material, but that was not the case here. In fact the deletion consists of 2 sentences about the application of NMR to hydrates, and 3 references in the form of external links to scientific journals published by the ACS (American Chemical Society). This seems to me perfectly valid and on-topic material properly referenced. Please explain why it was deleted. If there is no valid reason I think it should be restored.  [[User:Dirac66|Dirac66]] ([[User talk:Dirac66|talk]]) 01:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

:Presumably because it was referring to a specific application of NMR in an article discussing the physical basis of NMR and NMR spectroscopy.  The applications of NMR are so diverse that the article would be a mess if they were all discussed in this way. Spam was a bit harsh, but the deletion from ''this article'' was reasonable.  [[Special:Contributions/84.92.241.186|84.92.241.186]] ([[User talk:84.92.241.186|talk]]) 19:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

::That material was added by a [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account]] to a number of wikipedia pages. And yes, it has no sensible place in this article. --[[User:Cubbi|Cubbi]] ([[User talk:Cubbi|talk]]) 22:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
==Ortho and para hydrogen populations and the NMR phenomenon==
Could someone please explain somewhere in this article the difference between the apparently small population difference between different nuclear spin states for hydrogen nuclei in an NMR machine and the large difference which is frequently said to exist in so called ortho and para hydrogen at room temperature? This is explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_isomers_of_hydrogen. As a chemist I find these facts contradictory.[[Special:Contributions/82.231.41.137|82.231.41.137]] ([[User talk:82.231.41.137|talk]]) 07:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
You are mad.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.128.4.254|203.128.4.254]] ([[User talk:203.128.4.254|talk]]) 10:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:When you react a mixture of ortho and para isomers (hydrogen at thermal equilibrium) you get a population difference based on the Boltzmann distribution. The population difference is increased when you react ''only'' parahydrogen. The technology is reasonably new and not widely used yet so may not be worth including on the main Wikipedia article, but it should be better explained on the [[Spin isomers of hydrogen]] article. You can see the diagrams that explain the effect here: http://www.york.ac.uk/res/sbd/parahydrogen/para_nmr.html [[Special:Contributions/78.105.195.232|78.105.195.232]] ([[User talk:78.105.195.232|talk]]) 15:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:ortho and para only refer to the relative orientation of the spins, not the orientation in an external field. The large (~3:1) population difference of o/p Hydrogen at room temperature is due to the three-fold degeneracy of the ortho state. Four equipopulated (that an english word ;-) ?) states, three of them degenerate, give a 3:1 ratio. --[[User:Maxus96|Maxus96]] ([[User talk:Maxus96|talk]]) 22:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

==analog of fluorescence polarization==
Is there an NMR analog of fluorescence polarization ? That is, if you have some nmr active molecule(s), with a diameter of, say ~ 1nanometer, in a solvent, the molecules will rotate at a rate that is roughly proportional to their size (neglecting second order effects). If the molecule sticks (binds) to something much larger - say a bacterial cell with a diameter of ~ 1 micron - then the nmr active molecule will now rotate with the bacteria, and this rotatation rate is much slower then the rate for the free molecule.
Is there an nmr process which is senstivie to this change in rotation rate ?
[[Special:Contributions/65.220.64.105|65.220.64.105]] ([[User talk:65.220.64.105|talk]]) 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

==14N==
14N is listed as an element that can be monitored by NMR spectroscopy. Is this correct? 14N is not listed in my resource. [[User:Akita86|Akita86]] ([[User talk:Akita86|talk]]) 22:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
<s>:Thanks. Removed (it is not listed because it has spin zero and is thus undetectable by nuclear or spin resonances).</s>[[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 00:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
::Sorry but <sup>14</sup>N has spin 1, due to its odd number of protons and also of neutrons. One of many references for spin 1 is the table in Atkins and de Paula, Physical Chemistry 8th edn p.1014. As stated in the article, NMR of <sup>14</sup>N is possible for simple or symmetric molecules, but difficult otherwise because of the nuclear quadrupole associated with spin 1 which broadens the lines. So it is less useful than many spin 1/2 nuclei, which is why it is not listed in all resources.  [[User:Dirac66|Dirac66]] ([[User talk:Dirac66|talk]]) 01:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Oh dear.. I was still asleep - I myself daily measured hf from 14N in ESR. Idiot. Thanks for comments on broadening. [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 01:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
===Spin 0 nuclei===
After the above discussion JWB pointed out in an edit summary (16:09, 29 October 2009) that "There are a few unstable nuclides with odd proton and/or neutron number and zero spin." I have now searched the isotope table in my (1979-80) Handbook of Chem and Physics and found one example which is <sup>206</sup>Tl with 81 p and 135 n. [[User:Dirac66|Dirac66]] ([[User talk:Dirac66|talk]]) 23:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

== "Average" vs "isotropic" chemical shift ==

In the last paragraph of the "Nuclear Shielding" section (2.2.3) there appears to be a distinction made between "isotropic" chemical shift and "average" chemical shift.  I think this is misleading, since the molecular tumbling in solution state NMR is usually isotropic (I can't think of any situations where this would not be the case) and hence the anisotropic contributions are all averaged to the isotropic chemical shift.  The same is the case in MAS solid state NMR (neglecting sidebands).  Any reference to "average" chemical shift I could find was referring to the average isotropic chemical shift of a certain type of structure (alpha helix for example).  I didn't do a very thorough search, so maybe I am just used to a different nomenclature.  Also, I don't see any reason for [[average chemical shift]] to be an article worth creating.  If anything I think there should just be a link to [[chemical shift]]. [[User:And4e|And4e]] ([[User talk:And4e|talk]]) 21:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

==Needs image==
A picture of a small (say, 60MHz) box-like NMR would be a good addition. Too many research-grade behemoths already illustrated in the article. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] ([[User talk:Rmhermen|talk]]) 20:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

== Nobel Prize in Physics 1944. ==

I've just registered to wikipedia, so if I'm doing something wrong, sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMR#Discovery

It says here that: "Nuclear magnetic resonance was first described and measured in molecular beams by Isidor Rabi in 1938."
But it does not mention that he got the Nobel Prize in Physics for that in 1944.
After that it says that: "Felix Bloch and Edward Mills Purcell refined the technique for use on liquids and solids, for which they shared the Nobel Prize in physics in 1952"
If they are mentioned to have won the Nobel prize, I think Rabi should too. I have 2 wikipedia sorces (is it ok to cite from another wikipedia page?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Laureates_in_Physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidor_Rabi#Career
[[User:Protosss|Protosss]] ([[User talk:Protosss|talk]]) 16:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:The article itself is open to being edited directly by you. Feel free to add or improve it as you see fit. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 19:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:Best to cite an outside source but it would be nice if you linked their names to the other wikipedia articles. [[Special:Contributions/137.149.98.24|137.149.98.24]] ([[User talk:137.149.98.24|talk]]) 00:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

== machine architecture ==

Shouldn't we put in a section that explains how the very high magnetic fields are actually created? 
with at least alink to superconduction, superconducting coils, saturation etc.?
[[Special:Contributions/194.53.253.51|194.53.253.51]] ([[User talk:194.53.253.51|talk]]) 08:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

== need a detailed description of NMR ==

The page contains a lot of applications of NMR and details associated with it. i dont think think that pre university students will appreciate it very much. There must have been a sound explanation on whatEXACTLY happens during the phenomenon.

== The redirect no longer exists ==

At the top, it says that NMR redirects here. That's no longer true; when I type NMR into the search bar it takes me straight to the disambiguation page. I don't know how to remove that little notice.
[[User:Jojojlj|Jojojlj]] ([[User talk:Jojojlj|talk]]) 17:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
:[[:NMR]] still does redirect here (click that bluelink to see). But [[:Nmr]] does not. You didn't type all-caps, so you wound up somewhere else. One could make an argument that the acronym really should also go to the disambiguation page also, but one could also argue that ''as an acronym'' (i.e., all-caps), this page here is the substantially most likely intended one. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 17:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
== Mri diagram of components needed ==
This article talks the physics but not parts of the machine.  I am curious of the scanner of radio waves  and can't find info.--[[User:Ericg33|Ericg33]] ([[User talk:Ericg33|talk]]) 23:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
==File:Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion==
{|
|-
| [[File:Image-x-generic.svg|100px]] 
| An image used in this article, [[commons:File:Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer.jpg|File:Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer.jpg]], has been nominated for speedy deletion at [[Wikimedia Commons]] for the following reason: ''Copyright violations'' 
;What should I do?
''Don't panic''; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is [[WP:NFCC|non-free]] then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no [[WP:FUR|fair use rationale]] then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try [[commons:COM:UR|Commons Undeletion Request]]

''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --[[User:CommonsNotificationBot|CommonsNotificationBot]] ([[User talk:CommonsNotificationBot|talk]]) 21:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
|}

== No explanation of how a nucleus can have spin > 1 ==

It's really hard to cover such a huge subject at a sensible level in an encyclopedia; I admire those who've tried.
The theory section "Nuclear spins and magnets" tells us that protons pair, and neutrons pair, but proton spins do not pair with neutron spins. Since protons and neutrons both have spin 1/2, we have a nice model for all isotopes with odd-proton having 1/2 spin, odd-neutron having 1/2 spin, and odd-both having 1 spin (both even = spin zero). The model is illustrated by isotopes of hydrogen. But then there is a throw-away comment that 27Al has a spin of 2.5, without explanation. There is also some mention of radioactivity, implying that radioactive isotopes don't follow the normal rules, but no explanation of why/how they differ. Is it worth enlarging on either of these? [[Special:Contributions/149.155.96.5|149.155.96.5]] ([[User talk:149.155.96.5|talk]]) 12:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

== optical and laser nuclear magnetic resonance ==

*[http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=%22optical+nuclear+magnetic+resonance%22&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on Optical Nuclear Magnetic Resonance via Google Scholar]

*[http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=%22optical+nmr%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 Optical NMR via Google Scholar]

*[http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=%22laser+nmr%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 Laser NMR via Google Scholar]

[[User:Thom5738|Thom5738]] ([[User talk:Thom5738|talk]]) 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

== Animated image/description of spin-states ==

I have now twice removed an additional image and extensive caption from the "Spin behavior in a magnetic field" section. The image itself is incorrect as it represents the two possible orientations of the magnetic fields (high- and low-energy) with the fields at a skewed angle, which is not correct for the "real-world analogy" being discussed. The caption is redundant to the article itself (see [[WP:CAPTION]]). And it's also in general confuses the idea of energy-level splitting based on the two extreme orientations of a real-world magnet (parallel vs antiparallel) with the fact that a magnet ''can'' have any arbitrary orientation (basic physics can explain the function of magnetic attraction/repulsion based on field angles). Quantum spin does have two discrete states, but that removes it from the realm of simply rotating a magnet arbitrarily. As the [[WP:POV]] beginning of the caption that I removed noted, quantum mechanics is difficult to imagine, but taking an analogy beyond where it is still close to the facts is not helpful. 
[[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 12:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
* > And it's also in general confuses the idea of energy-level splitting based on the two extreme orientations of a real-world magnet (parallel vs antiparallel)
:but what about spin precession ? Spin vector is not paralell to the external field direction. This image shows already, that spin magnetic moment of the nucleus does not behave like real-world magnet. There are two versions of that image: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NMR_EPR.gif NMR_EPR.gif] - one with paralell orientation and and second one with antiparalell. Previously was first one, but I replaced it finally by second one, which shows this difference between classical and quantum model.
: > magnet can have any arbitrary orientation (basic physics can explain the function of magnetic attraction/repulsion based on field angles). 
:this is exactly what that image shows on the right only two - another strange behavour of "quantum"magnet in comparison to classical one. Maybe a little better would be two images - one with classical magnet - two parallel extreme orientations and all possible intermediate (and all possible energy values), second one with "quantum" magnet - only two possible orientations (and two energy levels) and skewed angles.<br />
The caption was really extensive, thank you for shortening it.
: [[User:Darekk2|Darekk2]] ([[User talk:Darekk2|talk]]) 13:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

::I definitely like the idea of including that the nucleus tips and precesses rather than "nuclear moment parallel/antiparallel" as the two states. On the other hand, the time-averaged/net magnetic effect of the nucleus is still exactly parallel (or antiparallel) to the external field (precession averages away the X/Y components of the nuclear-magnet field). My concern is that the image does not have any representation of the precession but is still trying to draw an analogy to real-world magnetic interactions a reader may recognize. That is, it illustrates that the two states have the bar magnet ''frozen'' (non-precessing) at the tilt, which is contrary to how lay readers know magnets to behave. And also in the real world of readers, just because a magnet in an external field ''can'' tilt and precess, readers probably are more (or maybe ''only'') familiar with two magnets sitting exactly aligned and not precessing (not intrinsically favorable to precess vs not). And even when there is precession (assuming readers know about tops and other toys), there's not a anything in that analogy for having some specific tip-angle be the most stable (which is again something that is included in the illustration).

::If this image could somehow indicate the precession (maybe red and blue circles about the Z axis tracing the path of the ends of the magnet), it would clarify why it can be tilted but still a stable state. See for example the solid-white trace in the diagram of [[Precession#Axial precession (precession of the equinoxes)]]. However, it still doesn't capture the idea you are trying to illustrate that there is some basis for a ''specific'' angle for two states, and I can't think of a way to do so based on macroscopic magnetic analogies:( [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 14:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
:::I have added arrows indicating precession. Without axes because this picture is small and it would make it less clear. [[User:Darekk2|Darekk2]] ([[User talk:Darekk2|talk]]) 16:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Great! I added a note to the caption that the precession is relative to the external field, so it seems clear enough what the axis is based on the red/blue locations of the poles. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 19:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

== T2 animation ==

Dear All,

The T2 animation is really good. There is however a problem, as I believe the spin should realign with the opposite movement after the 180 degree pulse. I.e. they should come together at the right side, just as they were after the 90 degree pulse.

Best regards,

Rune S Jacobsen  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.151.179.18|88.151.179.18]] ([[User talk:88.151.179.18|talk]]) 05:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The animation is correct if the 90 and 180 pulses have the same phase. The spins will re-phase to the starting start if the 180 pulses is 90 degree out of phase to the excitation. The animation could be improved though by using different shades / colours to distinguish the spins by their precession rate. [[Special:Contributions/129.234.252.65|129.234.252.65]] ([[User talk:129.234.252.65|talk]]) 17:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
::Tell it like it is! -[[Special:Contributions/2601:1C2:102:645A:856C:BD4E:612C:355E|2601:1C2:102:645A:856C:BD4E:612C:355E]] ([[User talk:2601:1C2:102:645A:856C:BD4E:612C:355E|talk]]) 05:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

== Nuclear spin symbol I, rather than S ==

In the second section of the article (Theory of nuclear magnetic resonance) the symbol "S" is used to denote the intrinsic nuclear spin. While it is true that S is used for the spin quantum number of an electron, or other elementary particle for that matter, "I" is typically used to denote the nuclear spin angular momentum, and I will edit the article to that effect in the near future. I have in front of me two seminal textbooks on NMR: Abragam (1973 edition), and Corio (1967 first edition). On page one, Abragam writes: "Many atomic nuclei in their ground state have a non-zero spin angular momentum I&#295; (integer or half integer in units of &#295; and a dipolar magnetic moment μ = γ&#295;I collinear with it." On page 13, Corio gives a more detailed explanation for this use of I for spin angular momentum rather than S, because atomic nuclei are composite particles... As with this page: [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/nspin.html]. Anyway, if there are any objections, raise them, because otherwise S is going away and getting replaced with I. Cheers -[[Special:Contributions/137.53.91.235|137.53.91.235]] ([[User talk:137.53.91.235|talk]]) 21:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
:Agree, ''I'' for nuclear spin (vs particle spin) is what I have usually seen. Our [[:nuclear spin]] is a redirect to [[:Spin (physics)]], which only seems to talk about individual particles for use of S (I think? That article is pretty deep in the physics and applied-math analysis). [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 22:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

==Assessment comment==
{{Substituted comment|length=834|lastedit=20090905145625|comment=NMR is a multiple Nobel-prize winning subject in physics and has huge implications in medicine.  Its a more advanced and convoluted topic, however, and I think it deserve High but not Top priority for this reason.

{{nw=}}{{nw=}}Comment{{nw=}}{{nw=}}

This 'convoluted' comment does not seem valid at all; the subject is '''not''' convoluted; it has been merely poorly explained, and it should indeed have a Top priority. Higher quality edits are needed not a downrating of its importance, which is indeed a '''Top priority'''!

Nu 09:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Bci2Nu 09:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC) february 28, 2009, 3:41 [UTC].

This article still needs work in order to be helpful at a glance: better formatting and more precise wording.  Progress has been made since the article failed GA nomination in June.

[[User:BailesB|BailesB]] 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)}}
Substituted at 01:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

==Nuclear Spin and Magnets Sub-Section==
Hello, I have ran across this article two times and each time I find the sentence with the term "spin−1/2" confusing as it appears to be stating that the spin for the proton and the neutron are negative.  I suppose it would be nice to link to the wiki article on spin-1/2 and maybe reword the sentence so that it is clear that the reference to spin-1/2 means particles that have a net spin of 1/2.  I appreciate the reference to fermions, which should make it more clear that the reference is not to negative 1/2, but not everyone is going to realize that the fermion reference will clarify the ambiguity that is present.  As such, I think that
:(1) link to the Wikipedia Article on "spin–1/2"
:(2) clarify the section notation and add sources.
[[User:PinkAppleFlower|PinkAppleFlower]] ([[User talk:PinkAppleFlower|talk]]) 21:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

== Zavoisky? ==

The article presently has the sentence in the History section:  ''Yevgeny Zavoisky likely observed nuclear magnetic resonance in 1941, well before Felix Bloch and Edward Mills Purcell, but dismissed the results as not reproducible.''  I do not understand the point of this sentence in this article.  I offer no assessment or challenge to its authenticity, it just seems to me to serve no point to the article.  The issue is in that gray area in writing, which is choice of material.  Or, if you like, the statement does not seem "notable" to me.  It has the sense, now cliché, of statements that Russians did it all first.  In short, delete? [[User:Bdushaw|Bdushaw]] ([[User talk:Bdushaw|talk]]) 01:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

:It appears that Zavoisky made more important contributions to electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR or ESR). See the articles [[Yevgeny Zavoisky]] and also [[Electron paramagnetic resonance]]. [[User:Dirac66|Dirac66]] ([[User talk:Dirac66|talk]]) 02:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)