XPost: sci.physics.relativity   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 20/02/2026 11:30 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 20/02/2026 9:35 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   >>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 20/02/2026 7:41 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   >>>>> wBill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 20/02/2026 12:13 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 à 20:13, Ross Finlayson a écrit :   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> ..   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> in medical imaging and the like.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> No.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism   
   >>>>>>>>>>> than Roentgen rays.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that   
   >>>>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you   
   >>>>>>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a   
   >>>>>>>>>> detectable signal.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen   
   >>>>>>>>> with some simple electronics.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Sort of.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic   
   resonance.   
   >>>>>>>> The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise   
   experiments   
   >>>>>>>> that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Nothing 'sort of'.   
   >>>>>>> You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.   
   >>>>>>> (at audio frequencies)  Wikipedia is right here.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Yes, but we were talking about medical imaging, not nuclear magnetic   
   >>>>>> resonance in general, and your assertion is the irrelevance here, as the   
   >>>>>> text you snipped pointed out.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Which 'we' dear Bill?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If you can't work that out, you aren't worth talking to.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> I replied to your   
   >>>>> ===   
   >>>>>>>>> But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that   
   >>>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you   
   >>>>>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a   
   >>>>>>>>> detectable signal.   
   >>>>> ===   
   >>>>> which is just plain wrong.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In your ever-so-authoritative opinion.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> As a matter of fact, zero to ultra-low frequency NMR   
   >>>>> is a flourishing research field these days,   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It's cheap to do, so lots of graduate students get stuck with studying   
   >>>> it. The results of their research don't seem to get published in   
   >>>> high-impact journals.   
   >>>   
   >>> It is an interesting field of research,   
   >>> because with all external fields screened out   
   >>> you can investigate the spin-spin couplings. [1]   
   >>> (among other things).   
   >>   
   >> That [1] implies that you meant to cite an example. What happened?   
   >> You couldn't find one?   
   >   
   > I deleted the anecdote, and forgot the reference to it. Here it is.   
   >>   
   >> And who is going to care about spin-spin couplings?   
   >> I've seen some daft research projects but there's usually been at least   
   >> the remote chance of some sort of real world advantage in prospect.   
   >   
   > I see. You are one of those people with blinders on,   
   > who can only see his own mightily interesting little field.   
      
   I got a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, but had to do enough of my own   
   electronic instrumentation to get it that I ended up as an electronic   
   engineer.   
      
   My only published paper that has been cited more than once or twice is   
      
   Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. “A   
   microcontroller-based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical   
   stage to 1mK in the range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a   
   thermistor sensor” Measurement Science and Technology, 7 1653-64 (1996)   
      
   which in context doesn't suggest narrow specialisation.   
      
   > [1] I happened to know someone who worked in fundamental chemistry   
   > doing C13 nuclear spin resonance in C13 enriched molecules,   
   > to clarifiy chemical binding and structure.   
   > (difficult, because the signal is inherently much weaker)   
   > I would advise you not to tell her to her face about how irrelevant she   
   > was.   
      
   I wasn't saying it was irrelevant, merely a pretty narrow   
   specialisation. The fine details of chemical binding and structure tend   
   to be interesting only for very specific molecules - things like   
   haemoglobins and chlorophylls. A friend who went through primary school   
   with me in Tasmania and ended up as professor of inorganic chemistry at   
   Melbourne looked at really weird molecule which shunted energy around a   
   group of some ten transition metal atoms embedded in a really complex   
   organic molecule, but I didn't take any notes when he talked about - it   
   was over lunch.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)