KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Physics / 2018 / Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 2

Monte Carlo simulation of dynamic phase transition properties of core-shell magnetic nanoparticles with similar volumes

Erol VATANSEVER
Sayfa
210–222
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

However, there are some differences in the context of remanence behaviors between spherical and cubic core-shell nanoparticles.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:We implement Monte Carlo simulations to determine dynamic phase transition features of both cubical and spherical nanoparticles composed of spin-1/2 cores surrounded by a spin-1 shell layer.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The particles are subjected to an oscillating magnetic field.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:However, there are some differences in the context of remanence behaviors between spherical and cubic core-shell nanoparticles.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Core-shell cubical and spherical nanoparticles · dynamic phase transitions · Monte Carlo simulations

Abstract

We implement Monte Carlo simulations to determine dynamic phase transition features of both cubical and spherical nanoparticles composed of spin-1/2 cores surrounded by a spin-1 shell layer. The particles are subjected to an oscillating magnetic field. We plan these particles such that they have similar volumes. It is observed that the nonequilibrium magnetic phase transition temperatures of the particles with similar volumes explicitly depend on their geometrical shapes as well as the system parameters. The cubic one has a higher transition temperature than the spherical one for the small interface coupling, whereas the transition temperature of the spherical particle becomes higher than that of the cubic one with further increment in antiferromagnetic coupling. We also analyze the magnetic features of the particles, such as dynamic remanence and coercivity treatments. Our simulation results suggest that the spherical particle has almost the same coercivity behavior as the cubic one for some considered system parameters. However, there are some differences in the context of remanence behaviors between spherical and cubic core-shell nanoparticles.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

VATANSEVER, E. (2018). Monte Carlo simulation of dynamic phase transition properties of core-shell magnetic nanoparticles with similar volumes. Turkish Journal of Physics, Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 2, 210–222. https://ajindex.com/articles/377851

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (22)

  1. Ruhrig, M.; Khamsehpour, K. J.; Kirk, J. N.; Chapman, P.; Aitchison, M.; McVitie, S.; Wilkinsons, C. D. W. IEEE T. Magn. 1996, 32, 4452-4457.
  2. Schre, T.; Fidler, J.; Kirk, K. J.; Chapman, J. N. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 1997, 175, 193-204.
  3. Fan, Z.; Lu, J. G. International Journal of High Speed Electronics and Systems 2006, 16, 883-896.
  4. Su, Y. C.; Skomski, R.; Sorge, K. D.; Sellmyer, D. J. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2004, 84, 1525-1527.
  5. Margeat, O.; Tran, M.; Spasova, M.; Farle, M. Phys. Rev. B 2007, 75, 134610. Puntes, V.; Krishnan, K.; Alivisatos, A. Science 2001, 291, 2115-2117.
  6. Park, J.; An, K.; Hwang, Y.; Park, J. G.; Noh, H. J.; Kim, Y. J.; Park, J. H.; Hwang, N. M.; Hyeon, T. Nat. Mater. 2004, 3, 891-895.
  7. Niu, X.; Stagon, S. P.; Huang, H.; Baldwin, J. K.; Misra, A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013, 110, 136102. Cozzoli, P.; Snoeck, E.; Garcia, M.; Giannini, C.; Guagliardi, A.; Cervellino, A.; Gozzo, F.; Hernando, A.; Achterhold, K.; Ciobanu, N. et al. Nano Lett. 2006, 6, 1966-1972.
  8. Roca, A.; Morales, M.; O'Grady, K.; Serna, C. Nanotechnology 2006, 17, 2783-2788.
  9. Berkowitz, A. E.; Kodama, R. H.; Makhlouf, S. A.; Parker, F. T.; Spada, F. E.; McNiff, E. J. Jr.; Foner, S. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 1999, 196, 591-594.
  10. Pankhurst, Q. A.; Connolly, J.; Jones, S. K.; Dobson, J. J. Phys. D 2003, 36, R167-R181. Rivas, J.; Bonobre-Lopez, M.; Pineiro-Redondo, Y.; Rivas, B.; Lopez-Quintela, M. A. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2012, 324, 3499-3502.
  11. Ivanov, Y. P.; Alfadhel, A.; Alnassar, M.; Perez, J. E.; Vazquez, M.; Chuvilin, A.; Kosel, J. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 24189. Bader, S. D. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2006, 78, 1. Kittel, C. Phys. Rev. 1946, 70, 965-971.
  12. Chudnovsky, E. M.; Gunther, L. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1988, 60, 661-664.
  13. Kneller, E. F.; Luborsky, F. E. J. Appl. Phys. 1963, 34, 656-658.
  14. Nogues, J.; Sort, J.; Langlais, V.; Skumryev, V.; Surinach, S.; Munoz, J. S.; Baro, M. D. Phys. Rep. 2005, 422, 65-117.
  15. Iglesias, O.; Labarta, A.; Batlle, X. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2008, 8, 2761-2780.
  16. Leite, V. S.; Figueiredo, W. Physica A 2005, 350, 379-392.
  17. Leite, V. S.; Figueiredo, W. Phys. Lett. A 2008, 372, 898-903.
  18. Kaneyoshi, T. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2009, 321, 3430-3435.
  19. Kaneyoshi, T. Phys. Stat. Sol. B 2005, 242, 2938-2948.
  20. Wang, C. D.; Lu, Z. Z.; Yuan, W. X.; Kwok, S. Y.; Teng, B. H. Phys. Lett. A 2011, 375, 3405-3409.
  21. Keskin, M.; Sarli, N.; Deviren, B. Sol. Stat. Commun. 2011, 151, 1025-1030.
  22. Zaim, A.; Kerouad, M.; Boughrara, M. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2013, 331,