Slashdot Mirror


Listening for Deuterium

jose parinas writes "Researchers at MIT made the first radio detection of deuterium, an atom that the scientists claim is key to understanding the beginning of the universe." It turns out the actual detection wasn't the key, but filtering out all of the RF 'pollution' produced by nearby gadgets.

87 comments

  1. What they very faintly heard: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    KHAAAAAAAAAAN!

    1. Re:What they very faintly heard: by TarryTops · · Score: 0

      No Idea what you're saying mate :-| but I'm sure it's something you'd have wanted them to hear. Good for ya.

      --
      Java Oracle Linux Enthusiast
    2. Re:What they very faintly heard: by hazah · · Score: 1

      Well.. someone never watched startrek. wouldn't recommend that movie tho.

    3. Re:What they very faintly heard: by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1, Funny

      I thought Klingons were allergic to deterium?

    4. Re:What they very faintly heard: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you mean tribbles

    5. Re:What they very faintly heard: by Auraiken · · Score: 1

      Yeah but WE aren't.

  2. Is that the Real Discovery? by Legendof_Pedro · · Score: 0

    Bur is this substance useful for anything?

    1. Re:Is that the Real Discovery? by CDMA_Demo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt anyone will win a Nobel prize for this discovery but your question falls in the same line as: "what good is the discovery of black holes", or "what good is the knowledge of how many types of stars are there" -- (O, B, A, F, G, K, M).
      Science has been at work for ages, and many discoveries are made just for sake of curiosity. Do you feel curious only about useful things? Your question above gives away the answer to mine...

    2. Re:Is that the Real Discovery? by ikkonoishi · · Score: 2, Informative
    3. Re:Is that the Real Discovery? by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      the grandparent poster could be forgetting that seemingly useless discoveries can sometimes prove usefull and serve practical purposes after other discoveries are made like pieces to a jigsaw puzzle.

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    4. Re:Is that the Real Discovery? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Its :O Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me Right Now,
      So you are missing some of the darker, colder stars :D (R & M, although i know that the classification was changed since that meme was created)

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    5. Re:Is that the Real Discovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me Right Now Sweetie. That is, OBAFGKMRNS.

    6. Re:Is that the Real Discovery? by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      And don't forget that they have a nuclear fuel cell that is deuterium based as well that is used in space probes.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
  3. Bad science by Skiron · · Score: 1, Informative

    "At times, Rogers asked for help from Haystack's neighbors, and in several instances replaced a certain brand of answering machine that was sending out a radio signal with one that did not interfere with the experiment. The interference caused by one person's stereo system was solved by having a part on the sound card replaced by the factory."

    So how can they prove Mr. Alien doesn't have dodgy sound cards too, and these are giving false positives?

    1. Re:Bad science by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 1

      He's not using Creative's drivers.

      </threadjack>

    2. Re:Bad science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only a threadjack if what you post is in any way interesting enough to merit being ranked higher than the parent. Given that your post includes a clever "APPLAUSE" sign for your audience and a reply about horse cock manipulation I'd say you're just a jackass whose understanding of social interaction, being limited to Everquest and his mother via the basement stairway, has shrunk and atrophied into a quantum singularity of suckness so powerful it has created gravity strong enough to cause a slow-time warp, which is the only way to explain why you think witty quips about Creative drivers are on the forefront of comedy today.

    3. Re:Bad science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You tried your best to sound funny and smart, I'll give you that.

    4. Re:Bad science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I never had to try to sound funny or smart, because then it would mean thoughtless fucktards like the parent prefer to keep quiet instead of contributing only to entropy.

  4. Unrea by elgatozorbas · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The interference caused by one person's stereo system was solved by having a part on the sound card replaced by the factory.

    When these measurements are even disturbed by EMI due to sources that aren't even supposed to be radiating at all, they apparently are very sensitive. Why don't they do them somewhere else, far from civilisation? Also, how can they be sure that what is measured is actually this deuterium and not another very weak terrestrial noise source?

    1. Re:Unrea by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      If you put things inside a faraday cage then you don't have to worry about outside interferance.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_Cage

    2. Re:Unrea by Detritus · · Score: 1

      You also don't have to worry about receiving a signal.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Unrea by CynicalGuy · · Score: 1

      If you put things inside a faraday cage then you don't have to worry about outside interferance.

      You don't have to worry about measuring radio signals from space either..

    4. Re:Unrea by ikkonoishi · · Score: 2, Funny

      You could poke a hole in the cage and put your sensor in it so that you only got signal from a certain place.

    5. Re:Unrea by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Thats more of an implementation issue than anything else.

    6. Re:Unrea by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      I hope I'm not redundant but there aren't a lot of places far from civilsation left and most of the remaining areas are not very hopsitable (Antarctica and rain forests are not the best places for doing research if you had a choice). Also the cost of moving hardware and brainpower to the location and maintaining the equipment is usually prohibitive if it is not completely automated and remotely managed. Worse, with high cost the university will probably fund a cheaper, albeit less interesting subject and your doctorate will be going nowhere.

      All AC sources radiate. As long as there is a piece of wire and an AC current flowing through it, it will radiate. All surfaces will radiate as well. FCC part 15 is bogus and the signals the scientists are looking for tend to be about millions of times weaker than an average cell phone's radiation flux at around a mile. FCC might be happy that the cell phone is not interfering with someone's speakers from a mile distance, it still does overpower the signal coming from the distant stars and nebulas.

  5. Re:Hmmff Faulty Apparatus... by Aranth+Brainfire · · Score: 3, Informative

    Most of the more important ramifications for this sort of discovery aren't related to WHEN it started, but HOW it started, which helps to understand how exactly the fundamental physical forces of the universe work and fit together.

    --
    "Quoting yourself is stupid." -Me
  6. This is pretty cool. by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If they can find a good way to locate large amounts of deuterium they will be one step closer to making nuclear fusion a viable source of energy.

    Deuterium reacts well with Tritium in fusion to produce a large amount of energy.

    1. Re:This is pretty cool. by cnettel · · Score: 1

      I have hard to envision any scenario where power production by fusion, for use on Earth, would be helped by location of deuterium in anything beyond our atmosphere. It's not like the oceans are more dense with it than any gas cloud in space would ever be. (bar a real star or gas giant planet, maybe)

    2. Re:This is pretty cool. by shawnce · · Score: 1

      If they can find a good way to locate large amounts of deuterium they will be one step closer to making nuclear fusion a viable source of energy.

      /me points at the big body of seawater off the coast near my hometown.

      Tritium is the main problem.

      What they could be used for.

    3. Re:This is pretty cool. by delibes · · Score: 1
      "The detection of deuterium is of interest because the amount of deuterium can be related to the amount of dark matter in the universe, but accurate measurements have been elusive. Because of the way deuterium was created in the Big Bang, an accurate measurement of deuterium would allow scientists to set constraints on models of the Big Bang."

      We've got a plentiful supply of deuterium, because as the article says about 1 in 100,000 hydrogen atoms is deuterium. Any water molecule can contain one or more deuterium atoms. This is nothing to do with nuclear power. It's about understanding how the universe go to be the way it is today.

      --
      This is not a sig
    4. Re:This is pretty cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *INSIGHTFUL*?!

    5. Re:This is pretty cool. by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Any water molecule will contain only one or two deuterium atoms, not more. Anything that's not H2O is not water.

    6. Re:This is pretty cool. by master_p · · Score: 1

      Deuterium + Tritium = ...Pentium!

      (2 + 3 = 5)

  7. Re:roflrofl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    insightful? only on slashdot...

  8. Re:Hmmff Faulty Apparatus... by TarryTops · · Score: 0

    Glad to see that I could score something other than that irritating 0 score all the time :-). Bad Karma, I guess, huh?

    --
    Java Oracle Linux Enthusiast
  9. A wise dude once said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When looking for a needle in a haystack, never expect it to be much more than a needle. But that is neither hear nor there.

  10. Did you read the article? by panurge · · Score: 3, Informative
    It's about understanding how the Universe ended up the way it is. And yes, unless you really want us just to keep knocking the rocks together, that's important.

    But yes, deuterium is useful. It keeps your local star going when the base hydrogen fuel is getting exhausted. It acts as a handy intermediate step on the way to all those useful heavy elements produced by your local supernova, which can the collapse under gravity to give you a handy planet to live on which has something in it a bit more varied than plain old hydrogen. And, if you find a star a bit inconveniently large to use as a heat source, you can use deuterium oxide as a moderator when you invent fission reactors, and generate useful amounts of electricity without blowing things up too often. The Deuterium Marketing Board (a division of Intelligent Design Industries) has the slogan "Deuterium: it's part of why you're here to read about it."

    Mind you, if you're a carbon based life form, you can have more fun mutating your genetic sequence if you use tritium.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:Did you read the article? by Legendof_Pedro · · Score: 1

      That's what I wanted to know. I thought we already kmew these things about the universe, brfore we discovered this substance.

  11. Why *listen* for deuterium? by payndz · · Score: 2, Funny
    According to Star Trek: Voyager, you can just dig the stuff right out of the ground as ore!

    What, you mean Voyager's science may not be 100% accurate? You're telling me that gravity isn't radioactive?

    ('Equinox Part II' and 'One Small Step' are the guilty episodes from above, if you were wondering...)

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  12. Oceans? by HBI · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's this thing called an ocean, with lots of hydrogen in it. Quite a bit of deuterium oxide can be extracted from it. In fact, back in the 1940s the Norwegians were extracting heavy water via a hydroelectric plant at Vemork.

    Discovering more deuterium than we have in the oceans might be interesting but doesn't seem very necessary in the near term.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Oceans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! All of Canada's nuclear reactors (yes, Canada has had them independently of any US technology since 1941) are heavy water reactors. Basically, you can use enriched fuel and a light moderator (ordinary water)--typical American Reactor--, or unenriched fuel and a heavy moderator D2O --typical Canadian Reactor--. Glace Bay was a plant running for 30 years (tons of duterium came out of that plant). Eventually the plant was shutdown (the stockpile of D2O is enough to last for several thousand years). It all came from ocean water. There is still a lot of D2O in the ocean!

    2. Re:Oceans? by stirz · · Score: 1

      That's right. One of theses plants belonged to "Norsk Hydro" and was involved in some secret WW2-project. The Nazis tried to produce tons of deuterium-oxide ("heavy water") there for their nuclear scientists. Just have a look here. When Werner Heisenberg in 1942 replied to Nazi ministry of war that a "nuke" would be up to 5 years away, funds were pulled out of this project to further von Brauns rocketry. (For those who can read German, surf here.

  13. Could this have been done in a BPL world? by dwm · · Score: 1

    Makes you wonder if this could ever have been pulled off if BPL was already widely implemented...

    1. Re:Could this have been done in a BPL world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes you wonder if this could ever have been pulled off if BPL was already widely implemented...

      Yes, of course this could have been pulled off.

      I have not checked if BPL emitted frequencies and Deuterium detection bands match to even have interference issues. Nevertheless, and unfortunately, only a small percentage of the world population has even access to electricity.

      So its fairly easy to be in a "BPL free" area. Besides, top astronomical observatories are quite isolated in mountain tops. No problems with electricity grids there, either.

  14. Ommmm... by moviepig.com · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It turns out the actual detection wasn't the key, but filtering out all of the RF 'pollution' produced by nearby gadgets.

    Eliminating camouflage and noise, to see what's in plain sight all along... Sounds somewhat Zen...

    --
    Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
    1. Re:Ommmm... by solarrhino · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like slashdot to me. Maybe they need a karma system... Wait, what am I thinking?

      --
      "Lord, grant that I may always be right, for Thou knowest that I am hard to turn" -- A Scots-Irish prayer
  15. New Orleans by HermanAB · · Score: 0, Troll

    presently has an enormous excess of deuterium...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
    1. Re:New Orleans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next thing you know you'll be making jokes about the time you renamed your town in Sim City as New Orleans and it got flooded right away and all, but you had the good idea to save your game beforehand. Fortunately, 'cause, you know, you spent tens of hours building that damn city and it would just be a real shame to have lost all this time for nothing. Isn't it?

    2. Re:New Orleans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wouldn't have been possible since sim city puts everything below the water level underwater. So the city would have been flooded from the time you made it

  16. interesting side values by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Its interesting that this might bring light to the EMI and RF radiation that is all around us. The work to filter out that noise and reduce it will go quite a long ways toward making wireless broadband more available, toward making things more capable, quiet, and efficient. This amounts to a step toward making RF polution a problem that needs to be addressed. Sort of like taking lead out of computer parts, but taking unneeded and nasty RF out of the airwaves. That would give more spectrum, and better use of the spectrum that is used. This is good.

    1. Re:interesting side values by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on Slashdot could there be an article about the possibility of opening up undiscovered facts about the universe only to have someone reply, "oh, well this is great, it'll make it easier to get wireless Internet."

      It's pathetic when you think about it.

    2. Re:interesting side values by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Maybe you geeks will finally put metal cases back on your goddamn computers, eh? But only on the condition that you get broadband over powerline service!

  17. A Useful Link by Detritus · · Score: 5, Informative
    Deuterium Array Home Page

    The signal they are looking for is the 327 MHz emission line of deuterium.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  18. Annoying RF by Crixus · · Score: 2

    I work in recording studios and find RF to be a huge problem every day. Even when using balanced audio. I'm curious to know what methods they are using to get rid of the GIGANTIC amounts of RF pollution they they're encountering.

    --
    Ignore Alien Orders
    1. Re:Annoying RF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can isolate outside RF by having all the equipment in a Faraday Cage, though proper shielding will do too (the same thing really).

      Their problem is very different, since they want RF to come from the "outside", but only a particular part of it.

  19. If you like the sound here's the lyrics by infonography · · Score: 1
    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  20. And this was done at MIT? by CorporalKlinger · · Score: 1

    The quality of the "research" coming out of MIT seems to be slipping a bit. It's common knowledge to those who work with EEG devices and other electronics that work in the pico, nano, and micro volt ranges that background noise is the biggest problem to getting useful data. Why it's taken an MIT researcher until 2005 to uncover the same principles that have been known to the rest of the scientific community for 7 decades is a bit confounding. Next thing you know, they'll be releasing a report entitled: "Microwave ovens may interfere with television antenna reception." How groundbreaking.

    1. Re:And this was done at MIT? by IdntUnknwn · · Score: 1

      Go read the article. MIT didn't newly discover this principle, they spent the year trying to eliminate its effects.

      If you want to hear a little bit of the Big Bang, you're going to have to turn down your stereo.

      That's what neighbors of MIT's Haystack Observatory found out. They were asked to make a little accommodation for science, and now the results are in: Scientists at Haystack have made the first radio detection of deuterium, an atom that is key to understanding the beginning of the universe.

    2. Re:And this was done at MIT? by CorporalKlinger · · Score: 1

      Again, I say... there are a large number of places in the country where similar high-sensitivity experiments are carried out on a regular basis. Apparently MIT's people were just a bit too uppity to ask help from the hundreds of people who already had the solution to a problem that took them a year to resolve.

    3. Re:And this was done at MIT? by (negative+video) · · Score: 1
      It's common knowledge to those who work with EEG devices and other electronics that work in the pico, nano, and micro volt ranges that background noise is the biggest problem to getting useful data.
      EEG designers deal with their problems mostly by filtering the radio-frequency noise out of their low-frequency signal. The MIT folks are listening to the radio-frequency noise. The only way to make sure the noise is of cosmological origin is to turn off all the local noise sources in that frequency band.
    4. Re:And this was done at MIT? by IdntUnknwn · · Score: 1

      Actually that's not what you said originally.

      Also, they were collecting data that entire year. I can only imagine that it would be easier eliminating local sources of background noise rather than asking for a year's worth of data from a remote location. It would be asking a lot for that remote location, and in addition the researchers involved would have less control over the project.

    5. Re:And this was done at MIT? by IdntUnknwn · · Score: 1

      Hm, disregard that last comment, I misunderstood your point. However, see the comment by (negative video)

    6. Re:And this was done at MIT? by astroboscope · · Score: 1

      Even if EEGs were high frequency signals, people measuring lab signals could fall back on building a Faraday cage around the whole room to block outside interference...like say, anything from space.

      --
      If we were ants living on a Rubik's cube, differential geometry would be a little more confusing.
  21. Aren't we focusing on the wrong thing? by Nairanvac · · Score: 1

    Rather than researching the beginning of the universe, shouldn't we be more interested in the [i]end[/i] of the universe? I would rather know how we're all going to be sucked into a singularity.

    --
    All your reading ability are belong to me.
    1. Re:Aren't we focusing on the wrong thing? by enrgeeman · · Score: 1

      Not that I agree with their logic, but I think they think that if they know what happened in the beginning, they can use that to help figure out what will happen later. My old physics teacher likened it to an apple pie. If you've never made an apple pie before, and you only have the ingredients, it's going to be a lot harder to make one than if you have crumbs from the last pie, even if it was blueberry. Something like that, I'm not entirely sure.

      --
      sent from my slashdot browser.
    2. Re:Aren't we focusing on the wrong thing? by Nairanvac · · Score: 1

      We aren't trying to figure out how to create a new universe. I like the apple pie metaphor, though.

      --
      All your reading ability are belong to me.
  22. Hmmm... by rodm13 · · Score: 1

    Wonder how long until the FCC tries to regulate it...

    --
    Move Sig.
    1. Re:Hmmm... by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? It is already an FCC regulated frequency. According to ITU rules, the frequencies they are listening to" are already allocated to radio astronomy as primary. You cannot legally operate in these frequencies unless you also have primary allocation. They are reserved for science and some other specific tasks.

  23. First radio detection of Deuterium by dinsdale3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Technically, this isn't the first RF detection of deuterium. Deuterium Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) has been around since the 50's and uses RF to excite and receive signals from deuterium nuclei transitioning between quantum spin states that separate in energy when subjected to a magnetic field.

    This may be the first extraterrestrial RF detection of deuterium and as such is pretty neat, but TFA should have been a little more careful.

  24. A crappy story by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

    I remember working in our optics lab at Rose, where we had a piece of equipment that kept giving really poor data--obviously a noise problem. I can't remember if it was the spectrum analyzer or what, but we just couldn't figure out where all this noise was coming from.

    Naturally, we blamed it on the EE _power lab_ that was right above us, but I think someone eventually suggested that it might be the ballasts in the fluorescent lights in the room. I just wish I could remember what we were trying to measure.

  25. What about... ? by Snorpus · · Score: 1
    But, still, wouldn't that have been easier by going to Arecibo or Green Bank? Granted, neither location will ever be confused with Cambridge, but still...

    Besides, if they went to Green Bank, they could take a railroad ride during their spare time.

    1. Re:What about... ? by (negative+video) · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. Sending people somewhere is expensive, and learning to shoehorn your project into an existing radio telescope doesn't teach you the same things as designing your own. And why not? Building your own is cool.

  26. Watching, not listening! by astroboscope · · Score: 1

    Radio waves are light, not sound. They just have a longer wavelength than the light we see with our eyes. Just because we listen to audio signals on radios doesn't mean that radio waves are sound.

    --
    If we were ants living on a Rubik's cube, differential geometry would be a little more confusing.
    1. Re:Watching, not listening! by Snorpus · · Score: 1
      To get a little more pedantic, audio is used to modulate the RF signal. The modulated RF is then transmitted to a receiver, where the signal is demodulated, the audio extracted, amplified, and then sent to the speaker(s).

  27. umm NOT. by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

    Maybe YOU should've been more careful. Deuterons have integer spin. They're bosons and NMR is useless in detecting them. Thats why heavy water is used as a solvent for organic chem NMR, so the H in water doesn't swamp the signal.

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    1. Re:umm NOT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2H (deuterium) NMR is also possible but the resonance occurs at a different frequency, so the deuterated solvents do not interfere with 1H NMR signals from the sample. But you already knew that...

    2. Re:umm NOT. by fu_yosemite · · Score: 1

      NMR is useful for detecting any nucleus with integral or half integral spin - the only thing its useless for is a nuclei with no intrinsic spin.

      Deuterium NMR is actually fairly useful; the deuterium resonance is used in most modern spectrometers as a lock signal to monitor the drift of the magnetic field in which the spectrum is being taken, and maintain spectra which can be averaged together to get a better signal to noise ratio. It's only because deuterium has a different resonance frequency that it doesn't show up in standard proton NMRs.

  28. deuterium is great... by Kev_Stewart · · Score: 2, Funny

    but it's DILITHIUM we need if we're ever going to get off this godforsaken rock!

  29. True Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The true opportunity is for science to look on the universe with new eyes. Look at the advances that looking at the sun in H-alpha did? What about the EUV Observitory?

    This is an extrodinary opportinuty.

    And furthuring Richard Feyman's work.

    and its O,B,A,F,G,K,M,N,S. ( N,S are those tricky off-sequence type stars ).

  30. Actually, Yes by dinsdale3 · · Score: 1

    Deuterium nuclei do have spin-1, which NMR is perfectly capable of detecting. In fact, many spectrometers use the deuterium NMR signal from deuterated solvents for shimming (compensating for magnetic field inhomogenieties typically introduced by the sample). Nuclei that have spin-0 (e.g. Calcium) are the ones that cannot be detected by NMR.

    As an AC mentioned, the resonance frequency is different, so it just doesn't appear in the 1H NMR spectra. For example, on a commmon NMR spectrometer (7 Tesla), 1H (protons) resonate at 300 MHz and 2H (deuterium nuceli) resonate at 46 MHz.

    1. Re:Actually, Yes by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      hmmmm well that does make sense doesn't it....

      how do you use the line to shim the field though

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:Actually, Yes by dinsdale3 · · Score: 1

      Basically, you just perform the NMR experiment looking at deuterium and change the current to the shim electromagnets until you have maximized the peak height (thereby minimizing the linewidth). Alternately, you can look at the free-induction decay (FID) and attempt to find the exponentially decaying sinusoid with the longest time constant (which will result in the narrowest peak in the frequency domain). It is the same technique as when you use the proton signal.

      The advantage of using the deuterium signal is that the deuterium molecules are only in the solvent (except for the very small natural abundance). This typically presents a simple spectrum (1-2 peaks) that is easy to optimize. Also, since the solvent molecules can move about and tumble freely on the timescale of the NMR experiment, any local interactions with other molecules are time averaged out and you are basically guaranteed to get a sharp, narrow line. If you use the proton signal, you can have multiplets and broad resonances which make it harder to find a good shim as you often have to determine if that extra peak is real or due to poor shimming.

  31. Frickin' Spoilers by Frodo+Crockett · · Score: 1

    It turns out the actual detection wasn't the key, but filtering out all of the RF 'pollution' produced by nearby gadgets.

    Thanks for ruining the ending!

    --
    "The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network