> I have great interest on optically detected magnetic resonance. It is
> based on electron spin resonance technique, while detecting the change
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Thanks a million!
> > I have great interest on optically detected magnetic resonance. It is
> > based on electron spin resonance technique, while detecting the change
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> absorption by its effect on a microwave (X band, 10 GHz) spin resonance
> transition, at room temperature?
I 'd like to try both since my system would be able to detect EPR
signal and optical signal both.
The question is, according to many literatures, since photon takes
much more energy than microwave, monitoring EPR by detecting light
absorption/scattering should be much more sensitive than monitoring
light absorption by detecting EPR signal. If true, what is the merit
of the latter?
Thank you!
AES/newspost - 05 Nov 2004 01:07 GMT
> > > I have great interest on optically detected magnetic resonance. It is
> > > based on electron spin resonance technique, while detecting the change
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> light absorption by detecting EPR signal. If true, what is the merit
> of the latter?
My interest in it was purely as a demonstration experiment, for teaching
purposes. Make an X-band microwave cavity filled with ruby; sweep the
input microwave frequency across the ruby resonance and display the
X-band resonance on a scope; fire a ruby laser (or possibly a chopped UV
source) into the ruby; watch the X-band magnetic resonance change and
then recover.
Jim - 06 Nov 2004 05:54 GMT
> My interest in it was purely as a demonstration experiment, for teaching
> purposes. Make an X-band microwave cavity filled with ruby; sweep the
> input microwave frequency across the ruby resonance and display the
> X-band resonance on a scope; fire a ruby laser (or possibly a chopped UV
> source) into the ruby; watch the X-band magnetic resonance change and
> then recover.
Got it. Thank you very much!