Advertisement

NMR on 3He Adsorbed in Grafoil at Near Monolayer Completion: The Solid Phase

  • B. P. Cowan
  • J. R. Owers-Bradley
  • A. L. Thomson
  • M. G. Richards

Abstract

The effect of mobility of adsorbed atoms on thermal measurements such as specific heat and vapor pressure isotherms is not very direct. NMR relaxation times, however, do provide temporal information of a quite direct kind. Existing relaxation time data come principally from three studies. Rollefson,1 using graphitized carbon black as substrate, carried out cw NMR measurements at 20.5 MHz. He concluded that for fractional coverages x above 0.7 of a completed monolayer the NMR line which is narrowed by motion at 4 K, broadens as the sample is cooled, reaching the rigid lattice value for the case of x = 0.9 by about 2.5 K. Grimmer and Luszcynski,2 using pulsed NMR methods on 3He adsorbed in grafoil, found that T2 at 1 K and 4 K for a monolayer was about half as long at 20 MHz as at 10 MHz, which rules out dipole-dipole coupling as the main relaxation mechanism. Hedge, Lerner, and Daunt3 working at 5.5 MHz in grafoil found a similar change to Rollefson in the NMR line width as a function of temperature for a sample near monolayer completion (x = 0.96), but the low temperature line width was still a factor 4 lower than the rigid lattice line width, suggesting some quantum tunnelling was occurring.

Keywords

Quantum Tunnelling Fractional Coverage Rigid Lattice Tunnelling Frequency Single Activation Energy 
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).
    R. J. Rollefson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 410 (1972).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. (2).
    D. P. Grimmer and K. Luszczynski, in “Low Temperature Physics, LT-13”, (Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Low Temp. Phys., Boulder, Col., 1972) (Plenum Press, New York, 1973).Google Scholar
  3. (3).
    S. G. Hegde, E. Lerner and J. G. Daunt, Phys. Lett. 49A, 437 (1974).ADSGoogle Scholar
  4. (4).
    M. G. Richards, Adv. Mag. Res. 5 305 (1971).Google Scholar
  5. (5).
    W. J. Mullin, D. J. Creswell and B. P. Cowan, J. Low Temp. Phys. 25, 247 (1976).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. (6).
    B. P. Cowan, M. G. Richards, A. L. Thomson and W. J. Mullin, to be published in Phys. Rev. Lett.Google Scholar
  7. (7).
    M. Bretz, J. G. Dash, D. C. Hickernell, E. O. McLean and O. E. Vilches, Phys. Rev. A8, 1589 (1973); for the melting curve of 3He films in grafoil, see the Ph.D. thesis of S. Hering (University of Washington, 1975, unpublished).ADSGoogle Scholar
  8. (8).
    D. L. Husa, D. C. Hickernell and J. E. Piott in “Monolayer and Submonolayer Helium Films,” edited by J. G. Daunt and E. Lerner, (Plenum Press, New York, 1973) p. 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. (9).
    D. F. Brewer, D. J. Creswell, Y. Goto, M. G. Richards, J. Rolt and A. L. Thomson, Ref. 8, p. 101.Google Scholar
  10. (10).
    M. Bretz, G. B. Huff and H. G. Dash, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 729 (1972).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. (11).
    J. R. Gaines, K. Luszczynski and R. E. Norberg, Phys. Rev. 131, 901 (1963).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. (12).
    J. K. Kjems, L. Passeil, H. Taub, J. G. Dash and A. D. Novaco, Phys. Rev. B 13, 1446 (1976).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. (13).
    M. Bretz, private communication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. P. Cowan
    • 1
  • J. R. Owers-Bradley
    • 1
  • A. L. Thomson
    • 1
  • M. G. Richards
    • 1
  1. 1.Sussex UniversityBrightonEngland

Personalised recommendations