Downfield isnt low field ... or is it?

  • Thread starter Miffymycat
  • Start date
  • #1
47
0
In CW or FT pmr, as chemical shift increases, why do we say "downfield" implying a lower magnetic field strength, when deshielded protons need a higher flip energy requiring a higher magnetic field strength and / or higher radio frequency radiation? Am I having a senior moment - apologies if so ...
 

Answers and Replies

  • #3
47
0
No - it's a different question. I understand that the energy gap increases with deshielding : my query is I am missing the point as to why we say downfield implying a weaker field if the larger gap needs a stronger applied field?!
 
  • #5
47
0
Thanks Dr Du yes this makes more sense. I hope there are others who would agree with this to provide confirmation / reassurance!
 
  • #6
506
14
Upfield/downfield is a relic of the CW NMR era, and should be banished into the abyss when it comes to discussing NMR nowadays. The IUPAC even agrees. It's just confusing, as it's juxtaposed with the shielding/deshielding discussion, which is the important thing to be clear about when discussing chemical shifts.
 

Related Threads on Downfield isnt low field ... or is it?

Replies
5
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
982
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
15K
Top