Some Applications of Superconducting Magnets

  • Juergen Heberle

Abstract

At the symposium a year ago, Paul Craig [1] presented a great deal of useful information about superconducting magnets and showed how such magnets can be incorporated in a Mössbauer spectrometer. Since then several new records have been achieved: Schrader and Kolondra [2] have described a 107-kG 1-in. bore solenoid in considerable detail. Sampson [3] at Brookhaven has attained 112 kG in a solenoid with an inside diameter (ID) of 3.175 cm. Rosner [4] at General Electric has reported intensities above 120 kG in an ID of 1/4 in. Laverick and Lobell [5] have produced 67 kG in an ID of 17.8 cm; although their magnet is much larger than one needs in a Mössbauer experiment, we call attention to their work because their techniques are useful in the construction of smaller magnets.

Keywords

External Field Isomer Shift Circular Polarization Quadrupole Interaction Effective Field 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. P. Craig, Mössbauer Effect Methodology, Vol. 1, edited by Irwin J. Gruverman (Plenum Press, New York, 1965 ), p. 135.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. R. Schrader and F. Kolondra, RCA Rev. 25: 582 (1964).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. B. Sampson, Rev. Sci. Instr. 36: 565 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. H. Rosner, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 10: 521 (1965).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Laverick and G. Lobell, Rev. Sci. Instr. 36: 825 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. H. Wickman, this volume, p. 39.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. E. Obenshain, L. D. Roberts, C. F. Coleman, and D. W. Forester, Phys. Rev. Letters 14: 365 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. van der Woude and A. J. Dekker, Solid State Commun. 3: 319 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. J. F. Boyle and J. R. Gabriel, Phys. Letters 19: 451 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. D. Taylor, this volume, p. 67.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Heberte, Rev. Mod. Phys. 36: 408 (1964).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. S. W. Champion, Proc. Phys. Soc. (London), B63: 795 (1950).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    See G. H. Fuller and V. W. Cohen, “Nuclear Moments,” App. to Nuclear Data Sheets (1965).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. E. Bemis and K. Fransson, Phys. Letters 19: 567 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Sanders and H. de Waard, Phys. Rev. 146: 907 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. W. Hafemeister, G. DePasquali, and H. de Waard, Phys. Rev. 135: B1089 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. de Waard and J. Heberle, Phys. Rev. 136: B1615 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. de Waard and S. A. Drentje, Phys. Letters 20: 38 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. B. Frankel, J. Huntzicker, E. Matthias, S. S. Rosenblum, D. A. Shirley, and N. J. Stone, Phys. Letters 15: 163 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    N. Blum and L. Grodzins, Phys. Rev. 136: A133 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. S. Hanna, J. Heberle, G. J. Perlow, R. S. Preston, and D. H. Vincent, Phys. Rev. Letters 4: 513 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. W. Grant, M. Kaplan, D. A. Keller, and D. A. Shirley, Phys. Rev. 133: A1062 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Heberle, M. Schulhof, and S. S. Hanna, Rev. Mod. Phys. 36: 407 (1964).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. S. Hanna, L. Meyer-Schätzmeister, R. S. Preston, and D. H. Vincent, Phys. Rev. 120: 2211 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    L. Meyer-Schützmeister, R. S. Preston, and S. S. Hanna, Phys. Rev. 122: 1717 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. S. Hanna, J. Heberle, J. Diaz, and R. W. Reno, Rev. Mod. Phys. 36: 407 (1964).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    H. Frauenfelder, D. E. Nagle, R. D. Taylor, D. R. F. Cochran, and W. M. Visscher, Phys. Rev. 126: 1065 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    O. C. Kistner, Phys. Rev. 144: 1022 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    V. Vali, T. W. Nybakken, and J. G. Dash, Rev. Mod. Phys. 36: 359 (1964).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. G. Dash, V. Vali, and T. Nybakken, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 9: 28 (1964).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    F. R. Berg and J. Heberle, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 9: 10 (1964).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    P. Craig, discussion following paper C2 [30] at the 1964 Annual Meeting in New York of the American Physical Society.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J. T. Dehn, J. G. Marzolf, and J. F. Salmon, Phys. Rev. 135: B1307 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. E. Rose, Multipole Fields (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1955), p. 88.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    S. P. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. 81: 161 (1951).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    R. H. Herber and J. J. Spijkerman, J. Chem. Phys. 42: 4312 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    K. P. Mitrofanov, N. V. Illarionova, and V. S. Shpinel, Pribory. i Techn. Eksperim. 8:49 (1963) [Instr. Expt. Tech. (USSR) (English Transi.) No. 3 (1963), p. 415; English trans!. also in Proceedings of the Conference on the Mössbauer Effect in Dubna 1962 (Consultants Bureau Enterprises, Inc., New York, 1963)].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1966

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juergen Heberle
    • 1
  1. 1.Clark UniversityWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations