Talk:Low field nuclear magnetic resonance

confusing

Thanks to Ththeis for expanding the article. However, in my opinion the new wording is not very accurate in some places, there is some repetitiveness in thoughts expressed, the reference to "a few tesla" non-superconducting magnets as providing low-field NMR conditions is confusing to say the least, and the obvious self-reference on the zero-field NMR study is not adequate - at least some standard books on Earth field NMR and review papers should be cited before this very new paper on a special topic (also given that such a broad definition of low field NMR is described). Then, when providing the various claims, it would be good to reference each of them in the text. Who is the authority or who are the experts who gave the definition of low field NMR the way proposed in the new (April 2014) version of this wikipedia article? I would rather set the upper limit to mT or lower rather than a few tesla which is the superconducting magnet range (think of MRI, too, where 1.5 T scanners are still very common). There is some work required to bring this article up to scratch, I believe. Macholl (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to do this myself, but I've long proposed that Low field NMR, Zero field NMR and Earth's field NMR all merge into this article, as all three are rather short articles and zero and earth's field NMR are subsets of low field NMR. Regarding the upper limit, we need a reference either way, but most people regard all NMR that can be done with permanent magnets as "low field", which basically means up to around 1-2T. There are 1.5 T MRI scanners which are superconducting, but you can also create 5 mT fields with a superconducting magnet if you wanted to. Medical MRI scanners tend to run at lower fields, likely because of the difficulty of creating a homogeneous field over such a large region. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all 0x0077BE wrote above. The distinction of low and high field by technique only which in this case causes an overlap, a grey area, still does not sound ideal to me. But surely wikipedia is there to describe the most commonly used definition - a reliable reference might still be needed. Macholl (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]