Talk:Magic angle spinning

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spectroscopy (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SpectroscopyWikipedia:WikiProject SpectroscopyTemplate:WikiProject SpectroscopySpectroscopy articles

Comments

This article should be devoted only to magic angle spinning only. Please go ahead and write everything that is related to solid-state NMR in the linked, newly created article.

One sentence removed

I removed the last sentence, which was about the slower development of solid-state NMR in comparison to solution-state NMR. I think the speed of development is not relevant for this article, topic should be discussed in one of the NMR spectroscopy articles.

Yup, I agree

Original paper?

Who invented this, when did they first publish MAS? --Maxus96 (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is spinning?

The article says: "By spinning the sample (usually at a frequency of 1 to 70 kHz) at the magic angle..."

If the sample itself is being spun is there a reason why the rate of spin is not measured in RPM or RPS? The use of kHz to measure the rate of spin suggests something other than that the sample is actually being physically spun to me.--Davefoc (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It´s the sample that is spun. Physicists like frequencies (or angular velocities) better than RPMs (which are more engineer-talk ;-)). --Maxus96 (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. It was awhile since I wrote that and when I reread the article it seems pretty obvious that it is talking about physical spinning. I think that since the subject was difficult for me, I was worried when even things I thought I understood didn't quite seem right.--Davefoc (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV problem?

I'm not sure if this was the intention, but the large number of citations by the same author appears to violate the neutral point of view policy and possibly even represent a conflict of interest, since it heavily promotes that one author. Even if neither of these considerations apply, you can't justify fifteen citations for the statement "Edward Raymond Andrew had numerous publications on the subject of MAS"! Instead, a third party reference should be found. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they were indeed the pioneer of MAS then they do deserve a mention, including citing their original articles. But I agree, a more recent review article would be useful. Polyamorph (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly appropriate to include refs 3 and 4, the ones that introduce MAS. And refs 5-19 would be appropriate in a biography of Edward Raymond Andrew, but in this article even the statement that he had numerous publications on MAS is inappropriate (probably the same could be said for a lot of scientists). It might make sense to apply the citations to specific milestones in the development of MAS, but only if other contributors were also cited. And then a third-party reference would still be needed or it would be original research. So I think it would be best to simply remove refs 5-19 (or at least archive them in some subpage of this talk page) as well as the sentence that goes with them. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Polyamorph (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the above two viewpoints.

The point of view presented in the last two messages above is not a neutral point of view, as required by Wikipedia established standards; it seems to be severely biased against Edward Raymond Andrew; what is inappropriate is to eliminate the historical fact that he had numerous contributions at a time when the MAS field has just begun and was not yet recognized as a very important part of the NMR field. Moreover, his arguments with the later Nobel laureate Peter Mansfield at Nottingham over NMR Imaging should not colour the presentation of Edward Raymond Andrew's important contributions to MAS both in the early and later stages of the field. The views presented in this message are as close to neutral as can be made here without being unfair to the latter author who can no longer defend himself. One should also take into account the fact that as the Editor-in -Chief of the Journal of Magnetic Resonance (JMR) Edward Raymond Andrew has contributed much without prejudice to the publication of many high quality articles on MAS by many authors in this very prestigious international journal in the field of NMR. Biographical Memoirs, Fellows of The Royal Society: "Edward Raymond Andrew. 27 June 1921 – 27 May 2001: Abstract Raymond Andrew's career in nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) began two years after the independent discoveries of the phenomenon by Edward Purcell of Harvard University (Purcell et al. 1946) and by Felix Bloch of Stanford University (Bloch et al. 1946) for which they shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1952. Andrew developed a wide spectrum of applications of the phenomenon of ‘motional narrowing’ in the NMR spectra of solids, and initiated an experimental technique, ‘magic-angle spinning’, which he expanded into the major research field of high-resolution NMR spectroscopy of solids.' He also made influential early and longer-term contributions to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), now of major importance in clinical medicine. His scientific work was notable for his close interweaving of its theoretical and experimental aspects. Andrew's exceptional powers of exposition assisted many others to understand and develop the sophisticated field of NMR spectroscopy."

Bci2 02:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason for bias against Edward Raymond Andrew; I had never heard of him before I read this article, and I know nothing about his argument with Peter Mansfield. In a biography of Andrew (which you could create, if you like), it would be entirely appropriate to list his publications and quote the biographical memoir. But not here. You don't seem to have read or understood my reasons for not including the material in this article. I suggest you read my arguments again and look at the policy pages I link to. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of review articles would be sufficient and more in keeping with wikipedia policies, including WP:OR. We don't need to cite every single contribution a particular author ever made to the subject. Polyamorph (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]