Abstract

The Jeffries–Abragam effect in an electron–nuclear coupled spin system ( S=12, I = 1) is studied in detail. From a population-distribution analysis of the system, the nuclear orientation parameters are computed and their temperature dependence discussed. Conditions for obtaining stimulated emission are examined in detail. The results are compared with those of an earlier paper.

© 1966 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. K. L. Bhatia, M. L. Narchal, Appl. Opt. 4, 175 (1965).
    [CrossRef]
  2. A. W. Overhauser, Phys. Rev. 89, 689 (1953); Phys. Rev. 92, 411 (1953).
    [CrossRef]
  3. C. D. Jeffries, Phys. Rev. 106, 164 (1957).
    [CrossRef]
  4. A. Abragam, W. G. Proctor, Compt. Rend. 246, 2253 (1958).

1965 (1)

1958 (1)

A. Abragam, W. G. Proctor, Compt. Rend. 246, 2253 (1958).

1957 (1)

C. D. Jeffries, Phys. Rev. 106, 164 (1957).
[CrossRef]

1953 (1)

A. W. Overhauser, Phys. Rev. 89, 689 (1953); Phys. Rev. 92, 411 (1953).
[CrossRef]

Abragam, A.

A. Abragam, W. G. Proctor, Compt. Rend. 246, 2253 (1958).

Bhatia, K. L.

Jeffries, C. D.

C. D. Jeffries, Phys. Rev. 106, 164 (1957).
[CrossRef]

Narchal, M. L.

Overhauser, A. W.

A. W. Overhauser, Phys. Rev. 89, 689 (1953); Phys. Rev. 92, 411 (1953).
[CrossRef]

Proctor, W. G.

A. Abragam, W. G. Proctor, Compt. Rend. 246, 2253 (1958).

Appl. Opt. (1)

Compt. Rend. (1)

A. Abragam, W. G. Proctor, Compt. Rend. 246, 2253 (1958).

Phys. Rev. (2)

A. W. Overhauser, Phys. Rev. 89, 689 (1953); Phys. Rev. 92, 411 (1953).
[CrossRef]

C. D. Jeffries, Phys. Rev. 106, 164 (1957).
[CrossRef]

Cited By

OSA participates in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (8)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Curves showing the relation between polarization and Δ for the four cases of interest for competing pumps. The curve a · b · c stands for the curve corresponding to Case a, approximation b; c = 1 stands for competing pumps, c = 2 stands for noncompeting pumps with the flip–flip pump dominating and c = 3 stands for noncompeting pumps with flip-flop pump dominating.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Curves showing the relation between polarization and Δ for noncompeting pumps.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Curves showing the relation between alignment and Δ for competing pumps. The primed curves are plotted on the scale marked on the right.

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Curves showing the relation between alignment and Δ for noncompeting pumps. The primed curves are plotted on the scale marked on the right.

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Curves showing the relation between enhancement and Δ for competing pumps. The primed curves are plotted on the scale marked on the right.

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Curves showing the relation between enhancement and Δ for noncompeting pumps.

Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Curves showing the relation between normalized signal-power output and Δ for competing pumps.

Fig. 8
Fig. 8

Curves showing the relation between normalized signal-power output and Δ for competing pumps.

Tables (6)

Tables Icon

Table I Competing Pumps, Polarization: Static Value = ( e - 2 δ - 1 ) ( e - Δ - 1 ) ( 1 + e - Δ ) ( 1 + e - δ + e - 2 δ )

Tables Icon

Table II Noncompeting Pumps, Polarization: Static Value = ( e - 2 δ - 1 ) ( e - Δ - 1 ) ( 1 + e - Δ ) ( 1 + e - δ + e - 2 δ )

Tables Icon

Table III Competing Pumps: A + 2 3 = Σ m 2 N m Σ N m ; Static Value = ( 1 + e - 2 δ ) ( 1 + e - δ + e - 2 δ )

Tables Icon

Table IV Noncompeting Pumps: A + 2 3 = Σ m 2 N m Σ N m ; Static Value = ( 1 + e - 2 δ ) ( 1 + e - δ + e - 2 δ )

Tables Icon

Table V Competing Pumps: Normalized Signal-Power Output/nWn; Static Value = ( e - 2 δ - 1 ) ( 1 + e - δ + e - 2 δ )

Tables Icon

Table VI Noncompeting Pumps: Normalized Signal-Power Output/nWn; Static Value = ( e - 2 δ - 1 ) ( 1 + e - δ + e - 2 δ )

Metrics