Talk:Mössbauer spectroscopy

message: I changed the rating to Start-Class as I felt the article has clearly evolved beyond the Stub-Class. Tight Nut (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Rating 

message: I recently added quite a bit of content to the Mossbauer Spectroscopy article and am looking for some suggestions on where to go from here.  I could potentially add a lot more technical detail, but this is an encyclopedia article for a Low/Mid importance technique, so presumably it would be best to keep the article relatively brief.  
Please let me know if anyone has any further questions they would like answered about the technique.  Also, I feel that the article might benefit the most from some additional figures.  A few ideas for figures are as follows:
# Spectrum of a Mossbauer Dipole illustrating Quadrupole Splitting.
# Spectrum of a Mossbauer Sextet illustrating Hyperfine Splitting (could also show Quadrupole splitting effects).
# Energy Diagrams Showing the Nuclear Energy Transitions giving rise to Quadrupole Splitting and Hyperfine Splitting.
# Diagram of a Mossbauer Spectrometer
# Pictures of actual spectrometers (probably need to contact a vendor)
Some examples of the types of figures I have in mind are here: http://www.rsc.org/Membership/Networking/InterestGroups/MossbauerSpect/part2.asp
I would appreciate any feedback about the current article or suggestions about what more to add.
Stokerm (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Looking for Feedback

message: The link to the Ph.D. thesis on cobalt spinels is dead, can someone fix or remove this if no-one knows where it has moved, thanks. Azo bob (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link

message: in the article it says "for 57Fe consists of 57Co, which undergoes beta decay to an excited state of 57Fe "
This is incorrect, for 57Co to become 57Fe it must undergo electron capture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.252.243 (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  57Co decay 

message: Please note that I am carrying out a copyedit of this article. Although I have already made some changes to the first half of the article and am wholey open to feedback at this stage, do note that this edit is still underway. I do have to get on with some IRL work for a few hours however. --SciHound (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy edit in progress

message: Please note the multiple notices that are up regarding the fact that my edit of the Mössbauer spectrometry page is IN PROGRESS. Therefore your jumping in and editing at the same time is causing a loss of both of our time. PLEASE feel free to contact me to give me feedback but DO NOT EDIT while the CopyEdit notice is still up!!
During a major edit, minor errors will inevitably creep in during the process. HOWEVER, these will be repaired during a more final sweep. That it the whole point of the editing process. PLEASE BE PATIENT!
Email me if you wish to discuss this matter further.
If you are another experienced copyeditor or a subject expert in a position to check or peer review this article following this edit, please keep in touch.
--SciHound (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting edits for Mössbauer spectrometry page

message: This edit is still incomplete, please allow me to get back to it tomorrow...
In the meantime, any comments/suggestions are welcome.
How does everyone feel about the current structure of the peice overall? I am not sure the structure is as good as it can be.
--SciHound (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: CopyEdit break for the evening

message: Please feel free to review and deliver feedback.
--SciHound (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. The article is far more readable. I didn't pick up any glaring errors. I'll look through for details on the content, but this is not my forte.Novangelis (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: "When a match in resonance between source and sample is made, any remaining differences in resonance between emitter and sample can be attributed to the chemical environment of the target. <ref?> {factcheck}" This sentence confuses me. What exactly do you think needs to be fact-checked? —Keenan Pepper 22:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no reference and without one I don't know if this is actually a true statement or not. It may seem like a logical assumption, but it is an assumption unless supported. --SciHound (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just confused about the meaning of the sentence. I interpret "match in resonance between source and sample" to mean the condition where the energies (including Doppler shift) line up perfectly, so there is maximum absorption, i.e. the peak of the resonance curve. But in that situation, by definition there are no "remaining differences in resonance", so the sentence doesn't make sense. Maybe the first part is supposed to mean simply "when the source and sample contain the same nuclide"? I'm just confused what the specific fact is that needs to be verified. —Keenan Pepper 10:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As was I. I guess, unless the original author is able to get back with an explanation it would make mroe sense to delete this sentence. I only hesitated because it seemed to be trying to say something particular which I couldn't grasp either. --SciHound (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay then. —Keenan Pepper 19:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: CopyEdit complete

message: I still find this cumbersome. There must be a better way to present a list of referenced applications. Can anyone point me in the direction of a good example from another page perhaps?
--SciHound (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Applications section

message: The following energy scheme is deceptive, I think:
:
The 3/2's level for the excited state should be split before the the application of the magnetic field.  I was going to revise this and combine it with
:
But maybe I am missing something (like a basic understanding of the energy levels?  --Smokefoot (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre- and post-magnetic field effects

message: Is there any systematics in the orthography of "Mössbauer"? His name is written with "scharfes-s" (="ß") and "ö" both of which letters do not appear in the English alphabeth (note the the dots on the "ö" are not mere accents, its a different letter). So a natural, consequent English transcription would be "Moessbauer", while the correct oringinal transcript free spelling is "Mößbauer". Plainly wrong seem both "Mossbauer"  as well as "Mössbauer", the latter being neither a consequent transcription (there is no "ö" letter in English) nor the correct original spelling. So what is the justification for "Mössbauer"? I suppose it is simply "custom", in any case a little note on the issue would be good here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.113.47 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Orthography

message: The article, as written, occasionally seems to treat isomeric and chemical shifts as if they were the same thing; clearly they are not (we have very different, very distinct articles for each on WP: chemical shift and isomeric shift). Likewise it uses the word Zeeman as if it was a synonym for hyperfine, which clearly it cannot be. I can sort-of glimpse why it is that Mossbauer spectroscopists might wish to make this confusion... but not quite. Clarifying this would be nice. Simply stating that "hyperfine is like Zeeman, but at the nucleus" is not helpful, since the Zeeman effect is normally understood to be an effect of an external applied field. ... And you can kind-of-ish pretend that everything at the nucleus is "external". But still. The sloppiness is annoying and confusing.  67.198.37.17 (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical vs. isomeric, zeeman vs. hyperfine. 

message: I've updated the article in an attempt to address your concerns.  The results may or may not be satisfying.  Please be aware of the following:
# According to "Recommendations on Nomenclature and Conventions for Reporting Mössbauer Data" International Board on the Applications of the Mössbauer Effect (IBAME) and Mössbauer Effect Data Center (MEDC), Mössbauer Effect website Accessed December 20, 2017 The preferred terms describing the spectral parameters reported in the literature are: Isomer Shift, Quadrupole Splitting, and Magnetic Hyperfine Field (the data parameter which arises due to hyperfine splitting).  I have tried to stress these terms in my latest edit.
# In practice, in the context of Mössbauer Spectroscopy, Isomer Shift and Chemical Shift are the same.  Both refer to the "center of mass" or average position of the various peaks, relative to the stationary emission source (or to a related hypothetical reference source). In some literature sources it will be called "Isomer Shift", in others it will be called "Chemical Shift".  Nevertheless, it is well understood among the Mössbauer community that these are the same thing.
# The description of "Isomer Shift" on the Mössbauer Spectroscopy page is accurate. Specifically, it is a measure of the electron density at the nucleus (and only s-orbital electrons have a non-zero electron density at the nucleus). This is consistent with the description on the Chemical shift page, which was mostly written in the context of NMR.  I believe it is also consistent with the Isomeric shift page, although it's a little harder for me to follow the description on that page.  Nevertheless, the equation on the Mössbauer Spectroscopy page is equivalent to the equation on the Isomeric shift page, even though it was written in a different format (by someone other than myself) in the context of Chemical Shift.  Bottom line, we have one phenomenon that is called Chemical Shift in the context of NMR, Isomeric Shift in the context of Atomic Spectroscopy, and both of these terms are used in the context of Mössbauer Spectroscopy with "Isomer Shift" being the preferred term.
# From Wikipedia: "The Zeeman effect (/ˈzeɪmən/; Dutch pronunciation: [ˈzeːmɑn]), named after the Dutch physicist Pieter Zeeman, is the effect of splitting a spectral line into several components in the presence of a static magnetic field."  Hyperfine splitting is the splitting of otherwise degenerate nuclear energy states by a static magnetic field.  Thus, hyperfine splitting is the Zeeman effect in the context of nuclear energy states.  They are the same phenomenon and I see no reason to treat them differently, simply because there are a few cases where said magnetic field occurs naturally (eg. ferromagnetic materials) and does not require application of an additional external magnetic field to observe the effect.  On the other hand, it is true that there is an entire subfield of Mössbauer-Zeeman Spectroscopy, where an external magnetic field is applied to non-magnetic samples to induce Hyperfine splitting and observe the underlying hyperfine structure.  If someone wanted to expand the article to cover that topic, it would be welcome.  I'm not sure I'm really qualified to do so.
Stokerm (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response 

message: This figure is supposed to represent the Zeeman splitting of the 3/2 and 1/2 levels in Fe57.   
:
But it is not correct:  the splitting of the 3/2 levels is even, unlike the figure, which suggests that there is a larger gap between the upper two and the lower two levels.   This is wrong.   Heaven help all the people who have been led astray by this figure.  What is needed is a correct figure and a formula in the text that makes it clear how big the magnetic energy is when transitioning from one state to the next.
Qwerty123uiop (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this incorrect figure in here?