usenet weirdness

But not needed to demonstrate nuclear magnetic resonance,

Jan

A common misunderstanding. There is no resonance involved. It is just non-linear wind-driven flutter.

Jan

Which 'we' dear Bill?

I replied to your ===

=== which is just plain wrong.

As a matter of fact, zero to ultra-low frequency NMR is a flourishing research field these days,

Jan

I believe that, due to magnetic field perturbations in urban areas, the resonance gets scrambled too quickly to be easily detectable. In rural areas it should be easier.

Jeroen Belleman

Yes.

Build a proton precession magnetometer:

.

In practice, people often built a gradiometer from two sensor coils, greatly reducing the effect of local variations.

Joe

Resonance is a phenomenon, not a physical quantity. What is probably meant here is the absolute value of the gyromagnetic ratio γ divided by 2π, from the Larmor frequency

For the hydrogen nucleus,

==> γ/(2pi) =~ 42.6 MHz/T =~ 4.26 kHz/G.

That is, if the external magnetic field has a flux density of 1 G (gauss), the Larmor frequency -- the frequency with which the nuclear spin is precessing is ca. 4.26 KHz.

But

,-

so the presence of the geomagnetic field causes the nuclear spin of a hydrogen nucleus, i.e. a proton, to precess at a frequency of 1.065 kHz to

and

| A perturbation of nuclear spin orientations from equilibrium will occur | only when an oscillating magnetic field is applied whose frequency ν_rf | sufficiently closely matches the Larmor precession frequency ν_L of the | nuclear magnetization.

They key word there is *oscillating*.

If the geomagnetic field, which on short timescales (human lifespan) can be assumed to be *constant* instead, would have any significant influence on the nuclear spin, applications of NMR (on/near the terrestrial surface) such as MRI would not work.

Also, NMR has nothing to do with magnetic monopoles, on the contrary:

A nucleus acts (at least) like a rotating *dipole* magnet, it has a quantum-mechanical spin called "nuclear spin".

There appear to be many misconceptions on the part of the person making those claims as to what NMR is and what it is affected by. They should read the referred Wikipedia articles very carefully to clarify those misconceptions.

This has nothing to do with the theories of relativity; F'up2 sci.physics.

Hm. I have a mathematics degree and sat in computer science for about 20 years. Thinking about going back to the old U. and making a refresher in the curriculum. Also I have a long-running study of Foundations and a quite modern theory of mathematics.

Structural or molecular chemistry, a la Brand and Speakman, say, involves qualitative and quantitative empirical effects above atomic chemistry.

There are lots of kinds of bonds w.r.t. the various orbits, usually, vis-a-vis the usual tinker-toy model of the atom. _Resonance_ is a key aspect of, for example, intermolecular and surface forces.

After van der Waals there's Fritz London's dispersion forces, for examples.

The "remotely useful" was a gentle jibe at the idea of "the remote".

The, "microwave ovens in use" signs were from a time when the science oven and the pacemaker did not get along.

Here's some 100's hours lectures,

The Debye length w.r.t. the magnetopause is estimated about 10 meters.

It's simple that particle/wave duality the usual account always must make for wave/resonance dichotomy, say.

It's just as simple to models waves and particles and particles and waves and waves and resonances and resonances and waves, as each other variously, since for example wave mechanics is the usual notion of "change in an open system", then for Huygens principle, that waves beget waves, then also for the accounts of wavelets, at the boundaries, or ondes and ondelettes.

This link will give you a automatic download of the FULL PDF file:

A wall is to keep 'other' people out...

i'm a quantum...i go through walls.

Nope, electron beams can march right thruogh solid earth, in single file, and come out the other end. Its called conduction.

Muons can do it too.

This is all just what they want you to think. Are you a paid shill for Deep State, or just a useful idjit?

That does depend on electronic conduction. The centre of the earth is metallic - mostly iron. The inner core is solid (and very hot) and there's a shell of liquid iron about that, but you have to get through the earth's crust to get there, and that isn't all that conductive.

An electron beam won't make it down to the (mostly) iron core.

Except that they can't and don't. Their 2.2usec lifetime mean that they decay - to two neutrinos and and electron (or a positron for positively charged muon) long before they get anywhere.

The idiot here is you.

It's also here in the book in the archive, use a free account to borrow:

Arie

The 'cold fusion idea' has another problem:

there was a strange phenomenon at 9/11, which I would call 'empty vertical holes'.

This means: there were huge vertical holes inside several buildings, that contained no debris.

That looked as if someone had shot down from a spaceship with kind of 'starwars weapon', that made matter disappear into hyperspace.

The first building struck wasn't one of the towers, but the customs building (afaik WTC 6).

This low flat building emitted a puff of dust at a time, when the twintowers were still standing.

This could be connected to these empty hole, which looked as if someone had shot from above with a 'teleporter'.

These 'shots' seemingly missed their intended target (most likely the twin towers), hence had to come from very far away.

But that is all just speculation and possibly something else happend.

But almost with certainty these empty holes were not created by falling debris, because falling material would have left at least 'full holes'.

Another problem was, of course, that the holes came first and only later falling debris.

TH

If you can't work that out, you aren't worth talking to.

In your ever-so-authoritative opinion.

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.

also the Frenche George Lochak wrote about monopoles:

"Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole"

I have never understood, how monopoles come into play, but I liked the idea of transmutation,

(that, btw, had to do with my critique on 'materialism').

...

TH

But not as good. When I had a ruptured intervertebral disk back in 1988, I paid extra to get an MRI scan and my clinician was blown away by the higher resolution it offered - it was about twice as good as he saw in X-ray based CAT scans. He got my okay to use it for teaching purposes.

And it didn't raise my risk of getting cancer at all.

Being able to do the math. and being able to relate it to reality are two different skills.

Twaddle.

So what.

Youtube lectures are the pits. I long ago learned that clicking on youtube links was a waste of time. If you aren't getting audience feedback you don't know how boring your presentation is.