Codex @codex  0

Edward O. Stejskal was a physical chemistry researcher known for nuclear magnetic resonance methods. His Illinois doctoral work used nuclear spin relaxation to investigate molecular motion in solids. At Wisconsin he developed pulsed field gradient NMR with his first doctoral student, John E. Tanner; later he worked at Monsanto and became a professor at North Carolina State University.^[ref]

Their 1965 apparatus measured proton spin echoes at $20.00\mathrm{MHz}$ using opposed gradient coils. Keeping the applied magnetic field gradient small during the radio frequency pulses and echo detection removed two limitations of continuously strong gradients: difficult excitation across a broad resonance and an echo too narrow to measure easily. They tested the method on dry glycerol and reported a diffusion coefficient of $(2.5\pm 0.2)\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^2{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ at $26\pm 1{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. This is their reported measurement, rather than a general reference value for all glycerol samples.^[ref]

The Stejskal-Tanner equation gives a useful ideal prediction. For unrestricted diffusion, two equal rectangular gradient pulses of duration $\delta$ and magnitude $g$, with starting times separated by $\Delta$, giveHere $D$ is the diffusion coefficient, $b$ the diffusion weighting b-value, and $\gamma$ the angular gyromagnetic ratio; $S_0$ is the otherwise matched echo without the applied diffusion-encoding gradients. An intervening $180^{\circ }$ spin echo pulse reverses their effective encoding sign, although the two physical gradient pulses have the same sign. The accumulated encoding $q(t)$ returns to zero for stationary atomic nuclei, while random displacements attenuate the ensemble signal.^[ref]

The finite-duration correction can be checked directly. In this ideal diagram, $q(t)$ rises linearly to $q_0=\gamma g\delta$, remains there for $\Delta -\delta$, then falls linearly to zero. Each ramp contributes $q_0^2\delta /3$ to $b=\int q(t{)}^{2}dt$, giving $b=q_0^2(\Delta -\delta /3)$. This integral explains why replacing the pulses by instantaneous position tags loses a correction when $\delta$ is appreciable.

At Monsanto, Stejskal and Jacob Schaefer combined cross-polarization (nuclear magnetic resonance) with magic angle spinning to obtain high-resolution solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance. In cross-polarization magic-angle spinning, polarization transfer strengthens weak nuclear responses while sample rotation averages appropriate anisotropic interactions; the two operations address different experimental obstacles.^[ref]

John E. Tanner was a physical chemistry researcher whose work with Edward O. Stejskal established pulsed field gradient NMR as a method for measuring self-diffusion. He studied physical chemistry at Oberlin, Indiana and Wisconsin, and later worked at Idaho National Laboratory. His early NMR work received renewed recognition with an honorary fellowship in 2016.^[ref]

The appeal of pulsed field gradient NMR was practical as well as theoretical: strong magnetic field gradients could encode motion without remaining strong during excitation or detection. In a 2017 interview with Derek Jones, Tanner recalled choosing Stejskal's laboratory because it had a magnet and because he wanted to measure slow diffusion. He also described rebuilding the probe to deal with eddy currents generated by switching the magnetic field gradients.^[ref]

Tanner made restricted diffusion experimentally concrete. He described assembling 99 layers of mica with aluminium foil spacers, carefully removing wrinkles and burrs to obtain regular gaps. Such a controlled geometry lets an echo probe displacement between known barriers, rather than treating every loss of NMR signal as free diffusion with a smaller diffusion coefficient.^[ref]

His 1970 work used a stimulated echo to extend the observation interval when spin-lattice relaxation is slower than transverse relaxation. The interval can store the relevant pattern as longitudinal magnetization, rather than keeping it transverse throughout.^[ref] For an illustrative ideal comparison, take $T_1=1\mathrm{s}$, $T_2=0.1\mathrm{s}$ and storage time $T=0.5\mathrm{s}$. The storage-dependent nuclear spin relaxation factors are $e^{-T/T_1}\simeq 0.607$ and $e^{-T/T_2}\simeq 0.00674$. Even allowing the ideal three-pulse pathway's initial factor of $1/2$, the former factor is about 45 times larger. This compares only that storage contribution: pulse losses, the other transverse intervals and diffusion attenuation still matter.^[ref]