Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Precision magnetometry at cryogenic temperatures with gaseous 3He NMR probes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Sealed helium-3 gas cells map magnetic fields from 4 K to 300 K.

desk verdict Solid experimental foundation for sealed 3He NMR cells, but the headline sensitivity range is an extrapolation from one field and should be labeled as a projection. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08936 v2 pith:I4KENEIH submitted 2025-01-15 physics.atom-ph

P. Blümler , M. Fertl , H.-J. Grafe , R. Graf , W. Heil This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords 3HeNMRmagnetometrycryogenicsensorsthermalnuclearpolarizationT1relaxationengineeringsealedgascellspermeationfillingCramér-Raoboundsuperconductingmagnetmonitoring
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports a sealed, high-pressure $^3$He gas cell that senses magnetic fields above $0.1$ T by nuclear magnetic resonance, and claims it works at any temperature from $4$ K to $300$ K. To make the sensor practical, the authors add oxygen, silica gel, or gadolinium-doped silica gel to cut the spin-lattice relaxation time $T_1$ from minutes or hours down to seconds, so a fresh thermal polarization is available at readout rates around $0.1$ Hz. Combining measured signals with the Cramér-Rao lower bound, they argue that a single $\pi/2$-pulse measurement reaches relative field uncertainties between $10^{-11}$ and $10^{-7}$ across the whole $B$-$T$ plane, with signal averaging extending the reach. A sympathetic reader would care because existing cryogenic NMR sensors freeze into solids and lose precision, while optically pumped $^3$He schemes slow down at low temperature; this design promises one compact probe for the entire range.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sealed quartz cell filled by selective helium permeation through quartz at $500\,^\circ$C, which allows internal pressures up to $100$ bar without flame-sealing under pressure. Three additive strategies - strontium peroxide decomposition to release about $5$ bar of paramagnetic O$_2$, high-surface-area silica gel, and Gd$^{3+}$-loaded silica gel - shorten $T_1$ to seconds, with $T_1$ minima near $12$ K for the gels and a wall-relaxation regime below $54$ K for oxygen. The argument then runs on the SNR scaling law (Eq. 15), $\mathrm{SNR} \propto (B/B_0)^2 (300\,\mathrm{K}/T)\, Q/Q_0\, p/p_0$, combined with the Cramér-Rao lower bound for frequency estimation of a damped sinusoidal free-induction decay, which turns measured SNR and transverse decay time $T_2^*$ into the relative sensitivity $\delta B/B$.

What would settle it

Measure the same 30-bar oxygen-doped cell at a second field strength (e.g., $1$ T) and compare observed SNR and $T_2^*$ with Eq. 15 at the same temperature and pressure; if SNR does not scale as $B^2$ or $T_2^*$ does not scale as $1/B$, the sensitivity contours in Fig. 12 need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that thermally polarized gaseous $^3$He, sealed at up to $100$ bar in small quartz cells and doped to shorten $T_1$, forms a precision magnetometer for $B > 0.1$ T at any temperature $4\,\mathrm{K} < T < 300\,\mathrm{K}$. The paper demonstrates the enabling steps: a permeation-based filling technique that safely seals cells at high pressure, three recipes for reducing $T_1$ to seconds over wide temperature ranges, and a scaling law (Eq. 15) that extrapolates the measured SNR at $7.05$ T, $30$ bar, and $300$ K to other fields, pressures, and temperatures. From that scaling and the CRLB, the paper derives the headline sensitivity contours: single-pulse relative uncertainties $10^{-11} < \delta B/B < 10^{-7}$ for SNR $> 1$, with the caveat that these are relative frequency measurements, not absolute field values, since absolute determination would require spherical cells and susceptibility corrections not implemented here.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed sensitivity range assumes a constant coil quality factor, a constant $0.7$ ppm field inhomogeneity, and an SNR that scales as $B^2/T$ up to $80$ bar and down to $0.1$ T, none of which is verified beyond the single $7.05$ T measurement; absolute field values would also require spherical cells and susceptibility corrections the paper does not implement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single 30-bar cell can monitor field stability and shim superconducting magnets from room temperature down to liquid-helium temperature, with readout every 10 s in the oxygen-doped version.
  • Accumulating $n$ scans improves $\delta B/B$ by $\sqrt{n}$, which the paper claims extends the accessible range to the low-temperature and low-field edges of its sensitivity map.
  • Because $T_1$ grows with lower gas density, the sensor's refresh rate and sensitivity can be traded off by choosing the filling pressure.
  • If Eq. 15 holds, the same sealed-cell design should reach about $10^{-7}$ relative precision at $0.1$ T and $300$ K, and better than $10^{-9}$ at $4$ K for fields above about $1$ T.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because SNR scales as $B^2$ while the O$_2$ relaxation route depends mainly on oxygen density, receiver noise (the factor $F$ in Eq. 3) rather than polarization is likely the limiting term at low field; a cryogenic preamplifier could push the $0.1$ T edge below $10^{-7}$, an extension the paper does not test.
  • The $T_1$ maximum near $30$ K makes the oxygen-doped cell a slow sensor in that window; a silica-gel or Gd-loaded cell, whose $T_1$ minimum sits near $12$ K, would be the better fit there, so the optimal additive depends on the operating temperature.
  • Once spherical cells and susceptibility matching are added, the same SNR arguments would turn this relative sensor into a candidate primary field standard, since the $^3$He gyromagnetic ratio has been measured directly by Penning-trap work, a step the paper notes but does not take.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents sealed, high-pressure gaseous 3He cells as NMR probes for field monitoring from 4 K to 300 K at B > 0.1 T. Quartz cells (Vs = 0.126 cm3) are filled via helium permeation to 30 bar (100 bar projected), and three strategies reduce the long T1 of thermally polarized 3He: 5 bar of O2 released from SrO2, silica gel with high surface-to-volume ratio, and Gd3+-loaded silica gel. At 7.05 T the 30 bar cell yields SNR = 70 at 300 K and 3320 at 4.2 K; SNR scales linearly with pressure and as T^-0.94, and cells are stable over two months. T1(T) is mapped across the O2 gas/liquid/solid transitions (about 0.4 s in the gas phase, about 20 min near 30 K, about 10 s at 4.2 K), while T2* stays within a factor of about 2 over the full range; the silica gel data are described by a BPP model. Using the Cramér-Rao lower bound (Eq. 5), single-pulse sensitivities are computed from measured FIDs (Fig. 11), and Eq. 15 extrapolates from the single 7.05 T anchor to 0.1 T ≤ B ≤ 7 T, assuming constant Q = 100, SNR ∝ B^2/T, and T2* ∝ B0/B at fixed 0.7 ppm relative inhomogeneity. This extrapolation generates the headline range 10^-11 < δB/B < 10^-7 in Fig. 12.

Significance. If the headline claim holds, the work closes a genuine gap: no compact NMR field probe currently operates continuously from 4 K to 300 K, where liquid/solid 1H probes fail. The measured SNR improvement of about 47 at cryogenic temperature at 7.05 T, the linear pressure dependence, the two-month stability, and the T1 engineering across the O2 phase transitions are concrete, reproducible experimental results; the silica gel/Gd3+ BPP analysis is a useful addition to the 3He relaxation literature. The paper is transparent about its limits: the CRLB is labeled approximate for the non-Lorentzian 4.2 K FID, the absolute-field caveat is stated in Section 4.3, and the five extrapolation assumptions behind Eq. 15 are listed explicitly. The Fig. 12 envelope is a crisp, falsifiable prediction at 0.1–1 T, which makes a low-field test the natural route to validating the central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (15), Fig. 12] The headline range 10^-11 < δB/B < 10^-7 in the abstract and Section 4.3 is a CRLB extrapolation, not a measured result: every experimental input is anchored at the single field B0 = 7.05 T. Assumption (b) of Eq. (15), T2* = (T2*)0·(B0/B) with a constant relative inhomogeneity of 0.7 ppm, is the most load-bearing. At 0.1 T it gives T2* ≈ 70 ms instead of the ≈1 ms measured at 7.05 T, and because the CRLB frequency variance scales as 1/(SNR²·T2*³) for t ≈ 3T2* (Eqs. 5 and 6), δB/B ∝ 1/(SNR·T2*^{3/2}). If the absolute inhomogeneity rather than the relative one were field-independent, T2* would stay ≈1 ms at 0.1 T and the low-field edge of Fig. 12 would degrade by roughly 600×, moving the high-temperature edge at 0.1 T from ≈10^-7 toward 10^-4. The paper contains no measurement below 7.05 T that distinguishes these scalings. I recommend either (i) adding a low-field (0.1–1 T) SNR and T2* measurement with the same cells, or (ii) presenting Fig. 12 explicitly as a projection, with the T2*(B) assumption varied to show the sensitivity of the envelope, and rewording the abstract claim accordingly.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (15), assumptions (a) and (c)] Assumptions (a) and (c) of Eq. (15) are mutually inconsistent. The text states that the quadratic B-dependence of the SNR results from Eq. 3, noting that in the derivation of that equation the quality factor Q exhibits a linear dependence on ω0, yet assumption (a) simultaneously fixes Q(B,T) = 100. From Eq. (3), a truly constant Q implies SNR ∝ (Q·ω0)^{1/2}·M0 ∝ B^{3/2}/T, not B²/T; the (B/B0)² term in Eq. (15) already encodes Q ∝ ω0, and the additional factor Q/Q0 = 100/46 double-counts the same effect. At 0.1 T the two self-consistent readings of Eq. (3) differ by roughly an order of magnitude in SNR and hence in δB/B (a factor of about 2 to 20 depending on which alternative is adopted), which is comparable to the width of the claimed sensitivity range. Moreover, Q0 = 46 was only stabilized at 228 MHz by resistive spoiling (Sec. 3.3); a Q of 100 at the 3 MHz Larmor frequency of 0.1 T requires a redesigned probe and is not demonstrated. Please choose one consistent Q model, correct Eq. (15) and Fig. 12 accordingly, and state the Q(B) assumption as a design target rather than a measured quantity.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, first paragraph; abstract] The manuscript's own Section 4.3 states that for an absolute determination of the magnetic field further requirements must be met, namely spherical cells and susceptibility corrections, neither of which is implemented, and Section 4.2 notes that below 105 K the condensed oxygen layer produces demagnetization fields that will be important for absolute field measurements. In this situation, the abstract's phrase precision magnetometry of magnetic fields B > 0.1 T overstates what is demonstrated: the quoted 10^-11 < δB/B < 10^-7 range applies to relative field changes (monitoring, shimming, field mapping), not to absolute field values. The introduction's framing, which emphasizes the capability of determining absolute field values and the 4×10^-8 absolute accuracy of water-probe calibration, invites the stronger reading. Please scope the title/abstract claim explicitly to relative field measurements, or implement the spherical-cell/susceptibility steps needed for the absolute claim.
  4. [Sec. 4.1, Fig. 5; Sec. 4.3, Fig. 11] The measured sensitivity values in Fig. 11 inherit a systematic uncertainty that is not displayed or quantified. The 4.2 K FID is visibly non-exponential, with the paper itself reporting signal distortions produced by first- and higher-order magnetic field gradients due to insufficient shimming and magnetic susceptibility mismatch, and T2* = (2.2 ± 0.7) ms (Sec. 4.1), while the CRLB (Eq. 5) is derived for an exponentially damped sinusoid; the paper acknowledges in Sec. 2 that the CRLB is only an approximate value in this case. Since σf ∝ 1/(T2*)^{3/2}, the ±0.7 ms uncertainty alone spans a factor of about 2.7 in δB/B at 4.2 K, before any line-shape-model error from the C(κ) correction. Please report error bands on the Fig. 11 points using the T2* envelope and, ideally, a Monte Carlo CRLB estimate on the actual FID envelope, and state the line-shape systematic in the quoted sensitivity values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 4.3, Fig. 11] The abstract claims sensor readout rates of order (Hz), but the field-monitoring curve in Fig. 11 uses 1/TR = 0.1 Hz, and near 30 K the measured T1 ≈ 20 min (Fig. 8) prevents even 0.1 Hz operation without substantial Ernst-angle sensitivity loss; please state the achievable rate more precisely (order 0.1 Hz, with regions of slower operation).
  2. [Sec. 3.2, ad iii; Fig. 10] The Gd3+ loading is described only through precursor masses; no final concentration (e.g., mmol Gd per gram of silica gel) is reported, so the claim that desired T1 times can be set by adjusting the Gd3+ concentration is not reproducible from the text, and the BPP fit parameters are given only for the pure silica gel sample.
  3. [Sec. 4.3; Sec. 4.1] The input parameters for Fig. 11 and Eq. (15) are scattered across the text and figures; in particular, the IFW 300 K value SNR0 = 63 is only inferable from the ratio R = 70/63 = 1.11 quoted in Sec. 4.1. A short table listing SNR0, fBW, Q, T2*, C(κ), p, and the T1 values used for Fig. 11 would materially improve reproducibility.
  4. [Sec. 4.2] For the cylindrical cells used here, the gas-phase O2 contributes a temperature-dependent susceptibility shift that is only discussed qualitatively; since χv ∝ 1/T, this implies a temperature-dependent field offset that is relevant to interpreting δB/B when T changes during a monitoring run. A quantitative estimate, or an explicit statement that the effect is below the quoted sensitivity, would strengthen the relative-field interpretation.
  5. [Throughout] Copyediting is needed in several places: the title renders as gaseous3He, the abstract exponents appear as 10-11 and 10-7 without superscripts, Sec. 4.3 contains the typo remains largely umaffected, and the parenthesis balance in Eq. (14) is off. None of these affect the physics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the quoted sensitivity range is a clearly labeled CRLB extrapolation from measured SNR/T2* values, with self-citations only in supporting roles.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained where circularity could matter. The quantitative inputs (SNR0 = 63 at 300 K and 7.05 T, SNR ≈ 3320 at 4.2 K, T2* ≈ 1–3 ms, the T1 vs T curves, and the pressure slope of 2.32 bar^-1) are direct experimental outputs, not conclusions imported from the targeted claim. Section 4.3 then applies the standard CRLB (Eqs. 5 and 6, anchored to Kay [28]) and an explicitly stated scaling law (Eq. 15) whose assumptions (constant Q = 100, B^2/T SNR scaling, T2* ∝ B with 0.7 ppm, p = 80 bar) are listed rather than hidden. The Fig. 12 envelope and the abstract's 10^-11 < δB/B < 10^-7 wording are therefore transparent model projections; a projection is not a circular reduction because the output is not identical to an input by construction and would change if the scalings were wrong. Self-citations to Refs. [9], [29], [30], and [36] supply context, the CRLB damping factor, cell-filling technique, and relaxivity background, but none is load-bearing for the central sensitivity estimate; the gyromagnetic ratio is anchored to the external Penning-trap measurement (Ref. [11]). The paper itself flags in Section 4.3 that absolute field determination requires spherical cells and susceptibility corrections, honestly limiting the claim without making it circular. The skeptic's low-field concerns about unvalidated T2* and Q scalings are validation/correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a handful of experimentally chosen parameters (O2 pressure, Gd3+ loading, silica gel volume) and on extrapolation assumptions about Q, T2*, and SNR scaling that are only partially grounded in measurement. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • O2 filling pressure in cell = 5 bar (from 6 mg SrO2)
    Chosen by hand to reduce T1 to about 0.4 s at room temperature; decomposition of SrO2 at 500 C releases O2 inside the sealed cell (Sec. 3.2 ad i).
  • Silica gel eigenvolume fraction = 0.26 of cell volume
    Determined from SNR ratio of cell #4 (30 bar) and #6 (16 bar with silica gel) at room temperature (Sec. 3.3); used to correct SNR comparisons between cells.
  • Gd3+ concentration in silica gel = not specified (ca. 2 g Gd nitrate per 2 g silica gel)
    Loading level chosen by preparation procedure, not quantified; it sets the T1 reduction and causes T2* to drop below 0.1 ms at 4.2 K (Sec. 3.2 ad iii, Sec. 4.2).
  • BPP model parameters for silica gel T1 fit = tau0=4e-13 s, <Ea>/kB=83.8 K, sigma/kB=20 K, H=2.12e9 s^-2
    Free parameters fitted to T1(T) of the pure silica gel cell in Fig. 10 using the Bloembergen-Purcell-Pound model (Sec. 4.2).
  • SNR temperature scaling exponent = -0.94(3), approximated as -1
    Fit to SNR vs T data for the 30 bar cell (Fig. 7); used in Eq. 15 to project sensitivity across temperature.
  • Reference sensitivity model constants = Q=100, p=80 bar, fBW=25 kHz, T2*=(1 ms)*(B0/B)
    Assumed inputs for the B-T contour plot in Fig. 12; not verified at fields other than 7.05 T (Sec. 4.3 assumptions a-e).
assumptions (7)
  • standard math CRLB formula for frequency estimation of an exponentially damped sinusoid (Eq. 5) is the correct lower bound on field uncertainty.
    Used in Sec. 4.3 to convert measured SNR into delta B/B; assumes Gaussian white noise and known signal model.
  • domain assumption M0 = N mu_He^2 B / kBT (Eq. 4) describes thermal equilibrium magnetization of 3He in all cases considered.
    Used to derive SNR gain; valid for high T and low B in the cited parameter range.
  • domain assumption Saam empirical O2 relaxation formula (Eq. 9) applies to the gaseous oxygen phase and extrapolates to the cell conditions.
    Used to draw the blue dashed line in Fig. 8 for T > 105 K; not valid below oxygen condensation.
  • domain assumption Wall relaxation rate 1/T1 = rho * A/V (Eq. 8) with an oxygen ice layer describes T1 below the oxygen triple point.
    Used to interpret the rise and fall of T1 between 4.2 K and 105 K in Fig. 8.
  • ad hoc to paper T2* is independent of temperature and scales as B0/B, i.e., constant relative field inhomogeneity of 0.7 ppm (Eq. 15 assumption b).
    Used to extrapolate from 7.05 T to lower fields in Fig. 12; no measurement at other fields supports it.
  • ad hoc to paper SNR scales as B^2/T with constant Q=100 (Eq. 15 assumptions a and c).
    Projection of sensitivity to the full B-T plane; Q and B^2 scaling are not verified at cryogenic temperatures or fields below 7 T.
  • domain assumption Monolayer coverage criterion X approx 1 (Eq. 10) justifies the linear T1 versus density relation in Fig. 9.
    Used to interpret pressure dependence of T1 at 4.2 K with binding energies from Ref. 52.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precision magnetometry at cryogenic temperatures with gaseous 3He NMR probes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I4KENEIH

@misc{pith2026250108936,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precision magnetometry at cryogenic temperatures with gaseous 3He NMR probes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I4KENEIH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08936}
}
read the original abstract

We report on compact, gaseous 3He NMR probes for precision magnetometry of magnetic fields B > 0.1 T in the temperature range from ambient temperatures down to 4 Kelvin. The gas is polarized at thermal equilibrium under pressures up to 100 bar to provide a high nuclear spin density. In order to achieve sensor readout rates of order (Hz), paramagnetic substances and/or silica gel with high specific surface area were added to reduce the otherwise long T1 relaxation time of pure 3He gas to reach thermal polarization equilibrium. Sensitivity limits, which cover the range from 10-11 < dB/B < 10-7, are accessible in a single-pulse NMR measurement and can be further improved through signal averaging in accumulated NMR scans.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08936 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Photograph of two fused silica sample cells sealed off [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Sketch of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Probe head showing the tuning and matching capac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Free induction decay of the NMR spin precession sig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Temperature dependence of the longitudinal ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Log-log plot of the temperature dependence of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the pressure dependence of the T1 relax￾ation measured at T = 4.2 K. Pressure values (at room temperature) are expressed in units of amagat. We ob￾serve a linear dependence for both the bare cells and the sample cells with the added oxygen (solid oxygen layer). T…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Temperature dependence of the characteristic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Relative sensitivity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction Ultra-sensitive measurements and monitoring of high magnetic fields ( B > 0.1 T) are of great interest for different fields of physics and applied research, ranging from accelerator science (e.g. BNL/FNAL, Muon g − 2 experiment [1–3]), to mass spectroscopy [4] and practical applications such as shimming procedures for permanent and supercondu...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    filling factor,

    Methodology background The basic principle of NMR is to polarize the magnetic moments µI of nuclei (here: 3He) along the axis of the respective magnetic field ( z-axis), and then to tip them synchronously away from that axis towards the trans- verse x − y plane by applying a short resonant radio fre- quency (rf) pulse. Subsequently, the free, coherent pre...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Experimental 3.1 Provision of high-pressure gas samples The main problem in making high-pressure gas sam- ples sealed in glass or fused silica cells is the fact that the cells cannot be flame-sealed with higher internal than ex- ternal pressures, which limits the inner pressure to ambi- ent pressure. To avoid this problem, we used the selective permeation...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Experimental results 4.1 FID signals and SNR FIG. 4. Probe head showing the tuning and matching capac- itors (1) and the 1.5 Ω resistor (2) of the impedance-matched resonance circuit with its receiver/transmitter coil (3) wound around the sample cell under investigation. The calibrated cryogenic temperature sensor (Cernox) is placed inside the brass tube ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Our approach is based on the NMR measurement of the free induction decay of thermally polarized 3He after a resonant radio frequency pulse excitation

    Conclusion In this paper, we have presented a sensitive 3He magnetometer to monitor magnetic fields of B > 0.1 T in an environment from ambient temperatures down to 4 K. Our approach is based on the NMR measurement of the free induction decay of thermally polarized 3He after a resonant radio frequency pulse excitation. In order to reach a high spin densit...

    work page

  6. [6]

    De Zanche, Ch

    N. De Zanche, Ch. Barmet, J. A. Nordmeyer-Massner, and K. P. Pruessmann, Magn. Reson. Med. 60: 176-186 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Bottura and K

    L. Bottura and K. N. Henrichsen, ”Field Measurements”, CERN-LHC-2002-020-MTA (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    Fei, V.W

    X. Fei, V.W. Hughes, and R. Prigl, Nucl. Instrum. Meth- ods Phys. Res., Sect. A 394, 349 (1997)

    work page 1997

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    G. W. Bennett, B. Bousquet, H. N. Brown, G. Bunce, R. M. Carey, P. Cushman, G. T. Danby, P. T. Debevec, M. Deile, H. Deng et al.(Muon g-2 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    Swanson, M

    E. Swanson, M. Fertl, A. Garcia, C. Helling, R. Ortez, R. Osofsky, D. A. Peterson, R. Reimann, M.W. Smith,and T. D. Van Wechel, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 1075, 170338 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Blaum, Phys

    K. Blaum, Phys. Rep. 425, 1-78 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    L. F. Fuks, F. S. C. Huang, C. M. Carter, W. A. Edel- stein, and B. P. Roemer, J. Magn. Reson. 100, 229 (1992)

    1992

  5. [13]

    V. M. Borovikov, M. G. Fedurin, G. V. Karpov, D. A. Korshunov, E. A. Kuper, M. V. Kuzin, V. R. Mamkin, A. S. Medvedko, N. A. Mezentsev, V .V. Repkov et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A198, 467–468 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

    F. D. Colegrove, L. D. Schearer, and G. K. Walters, Phys. Rev. 135, A353 (1964)

    1964

  7. [15]

    J. L. Flowers, B. W. Petley and M. G. Richards, Metrolo- gia 30, 75 (1993)

    1993

  8. [16]

    Nikiel, P

    A. Nikiel, P. Bl¨ umler, W. Heil, M. Hehn, S. Karpuk, A. Maul, E. W. Otten, L. M. Schreiber, and M. Terekhov, Eur. Phys. J. D 68: 330 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Farooq, T

    M. Farooq, T. Chupp, J. Grange, A. Tewsley-Booth, D. Flay, D. Kawall, N. Sachdeva, and P. Winter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 223001 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Schneider, B

    A. Schneider, B. Sikora, S. Dickopf, M. M¨ uller, N. S. Oreshkina, A. Rischka, I. A. Valuev, S. Ulmer, J. Walz, Z. Harman et al., Nature 606, 878–883 (2022). 13

    2022

  11. [19]

    J. H. Van Vleck, Phys. Rev. 74, 1168 (1948)

    1948

  12. [20]

    X. Fan, S. E. Fayer, and G. Gabrielse, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 90, 083107 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    G. D. Cates, S. R. Schaefer, and W. Happer, Phys. Rev. A 37, 2877 (1988)

    1988

  14. [22]

    W. A. Fitzsimmons, N. F. Lane, and G. K. Walters, Phys. Rev. 174, 193 (1968)

    1968

  15. [23]

    T. R. Gentile, P. J. Nacher, B. Saam, and T. G. Walker, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 045004 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Barb´ e, F

    R. Barb´ e, F. Lalo¨ e, and J. Brossel, Phys. Rev. Lett.34, 1488 (1975)

    1975

  17. [25]

    in T1 regions where T1 < Tm, TR (blue dashed curve in Fig. 11). On the other hand, the accumulation of NMR scans has little effect on the measurement sensi- tivity δB/B for T1 > Tm. In the following, all characteristic parameters that are relevant for the investigations carrie...

  18. [26]

    Himbert, V

    M. Himbert, V. Lef` evre-Seguin, P. J. Nacher, J. Dupont- Roc, M. Leduc and F. Lalo¨ e, J. Phys. Lett. 44, 523 (1983)

    1983

  19. [27]

    Leduc, S

    M. Leduc, S. B. Crampton, P. J. Nacher, and F. Lalo¨ e, Nucl. Sci. Appl. 2, 1 (1984)

    1984

  20. [28]

    S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation Theory (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1993), Vol. I

    1993

  21. [29]

    C. P. Slichter, Principles of Magnetic Resonance , Springer, 3rd enlarged and updated ed. 1990

    1990

  22. [30]

    Kober, B

    F. Kober, B. Koenigsberg, V. Belle, M. Viallon, J. L. Leviel, A. Delon, A. Ziegler, and M. D´ ecorps, J. Magn. Reson. 138, 308–312 (1999)

    1999

  23. [31]

    Abragam, The Principles of Nuclear Magnetism, pp

    A. Abragam, The Principles of Nuclear Magnetism, pp. 82-83, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1961

    1961

  24. [32]

    D. I. Hoult and R. E. Richards, J. Magn. Reson.24, 71-85 (1976)

    1976

  25. [33]

    F. D. Doty, T. J. Connick, X. Z. Ni, and M. N. Clingan, J. Magn. Reson. 77, 536-549 (1988)

    1988

  26. [34]

    H. D. W. Hill and R. E. Richards, J. Phys. E: Sci. In- strum. 1, 977 (1968)

    1968

  27. [35]

    B. Saam, W. Happer, and H. Middleton, Phys. Rev. A 52, 862 (1995)

    1995

  28. [36]

    Gemmel, W

    C. Gemmel, W. Heil, S. Karpuk, K. Lenz, Ch. Lud- wig, Yu. Sobolev, K. Tullney, M. Burghoff, W. Kilian, S. Knappe-Gr¨ uneberget al., Eur. Phys. J. D 57, 303-320 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    A. Maul, P. Bl¨ umler, W. Heil, A. Nikiel, E. Otten, A. Petrich, and Th. Schmidt, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87, 015103 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Kyiama and K

    R. Kyiama and K. Inoue, Rev. Phys. Chem. Jpn. 21, 73 (1950)

    1950

  31. [39]

    So, again, it can be neglected for further examina- tion

    and it can be deduced that even in the worst-case scenario for pressures of 100 bar and very low tempera- tures, the bulk dipolar relaxation in 3He is still about an hour. So, again, it can be neglected for further examina- tion. Therefore, the only option is to add paramagnet...

  32. [40]

    W. M. Jones, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 75, 3093 (1953)

    1953

  33. [41]

    D. E. Swets, R. W. Lee, and R. C. Frank, J. Chem. Phys. 34, 17 (1961)

    1961

  34. [42]

    L. D. Schearer and G. K. Walters, Phys. Rev. A 139, 1398 (1965)

    1965

  35. [43]

    Schmiedeskamp, W

    J. Schmiedeskamp, W. Heil, E. W. Otten, R. K. Kremer, A. Simon, and J. Zimmer, Eur. Phys. J. D 38, 427-438 (2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    Deninger, W

    A. Deninger, W. Heil, E. W. Otten, M. Wolf, R. K. Kre- mer, and A. Simon, Eur. Phys. J. D 38, 439-443 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    Schmiedeskamp, H.-J

    J. Schmiedeskamp, H.-J. Elmers, W. Heil, E. W. Ot- ten, Yu. Sobolev, W. Kilian, H. Rinneberg, T. Sander- Th¨ ommes, F. Seifert, and J. Zimmer, Eur. Phys. J. D 38, 445-454 (2006)

    2006

  38. [46]

    N. R. Newbury, A. S. Barton, G. D. Cates, W. Happer, and H. Middleton, Phys. Rev. A 48, 4411 (1993)

    1993

  39. [47]

    M. J. Tribelhorn and M. E. Brown, Thermochim. Acta 255, 143 (1995)

    1995

  40. [48]

    F. J. Norton, Nature 191(4789), 701 (1961)

    1961

  41. [49]

    J. E. Shelby, Introduction to glass science and technology, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge (1997)

    1997

  42. [50]

    A. A. Christy, Colloids Surf., A 322, 248 (2008)

    2008

  43. [51]

    Park , S.-H

    D. Park , S.-H. Hong , K.-M. Kim , and C.-H. Lee , Sep. Purif. Technol. 251, 117326 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    F. E. Bartell and E. G. Almy, J. Phys. Chem. 36, 475 (1932)

    1932

  45. [53]

    Becker, M

    M. Becker, M. Jouda, A. Kolchinskaya, J. G. Korvink, J. Magn. Reson. 336, 107151 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    M. H. Levitt, Spin Dynamics: Basis of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons Ltd (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    Gregory, Phys

    S. Gregory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 723 (1978)

    1978

  48. [56]

    Je˙ zowski, Z

    A. Je˙ zowski, Z. Litwicki, P. Stachowiak, and V. V. Sumarokov, Low Temp. Phys. 32, 1082 (2006)

    2006

  49. [57]

    Frenkel, Z

    J. Frenkel, Z. Phys. 26, 117 (1924)

    1924

  50. [58]

    Vlassenbroek, J

    A. Vlassenbroek, J. Jeener, and P. Broekaert, J. Magn. Reson. A 118, 234 (1996)

    1996

  51. [59]

    Lef` evre-Seguin and J

    V. Lef` evre-Seguin and J. Brossel, J. Low Temp. Phys. 72, 165 (1988)

    1988

  52. [60]

    C. P. Lusher, M. F. Seccat, and M. G. Richards, J. Low Temp. Phys. 72, 71 (1988)

    1988

  53. [61]

    Lef` evre-Seguin, P

    V. Lef` evre-Seguin, P. J. Nacher, J. Brossel, W. N. Hardy, and F. Lalo¨ e, J. Phys. Fr.46 , 1145 (1985)

    1985

  54. [62]

    Bloembergen, E

    N. Bloembergen, E. M. Purcell, and R. V. Pound, Phys. Rev. 73, 679 (1948)

    1948

  55. [63]

    A. F. McDowell, N. L. Adolphi, and C. A. Sholl, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 13, 9799 (2001)

    2001

  56. [64]

    R. R. Ernst and W. A. Anderson, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 37, 93 (1966)

    1966

  57. [65]

    R. R. Ernst, ”Sensitivity Enhancement in Magnetic Res- onance”, Adv. Magn. Opt. Reson. 2, 1-135 (1966)

    1966

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.