| Literature DB >> 26171292 |
Arne Fischer1, Robert Kruk1, Di Wang1, Horst Hahn2.
Abstract
A custom-designed apparatus was used for the fine-tuned co-deposition of preformed Fe clusters into antiferromagnetic Cr matrices. Three series of samples with precisely defined cluster sizes, with accuracy to a few atoms, and controlled concentrations were fabricated, followed by a complete characterization of structure and magnetic performance. Relevant magnetic characteristics, reflecting the ferromagnetic/antiferromagnetic coupling between Fe clusters and the Cr matrix, i.e., blocking temperature, coercivity field, and exchange bias were measured and their dependence on cluster size and cluster concentration in the matrix was analyzed. It is evident that the blocking temperatures are clearly affected by both the cluster size and their concentration in the Cr matrix. In contrast the coercivity shows hardly any dependence on size or inter-cluster distance. The exchange bias was found to be strongly sensitive to the cluster size but not to the inter-cluster distances. Therefore, it was concluded to be an effect that is purely localized at the interfaces.Entities:
Keywords: cluster; cluster deposition; exchange bias; matrix
Year: 2015 PMID: 26171292 PMCID: PMC4464357 DOI: 10.3762/bjnano.6.117
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Beilstein J Nanotechnol ISSN: 2190-4286 Impact factor: 3.649
Figure 1EFTEM (left) and STEM (right) micrographs of a 10 vol % Fe1000/Cr sample prepared on a TEM grid + amorphous carbon film with an Fe cluster equivalent thickness of 0.2 nm. The EFTEM image shows the Fe cluster distribution in the sample and the STEM image individual Fe clusters, it was recorded using EDX and the Fe K signal.
Figure 2Blocking temperature TB versus approximated nearest neighbor distances DNN for Fe/Cr samples. The solid lines on three series of samples with 500, 1000 and 2000 atoms are just guides to the eye. A clear dependence of TB on the cluster size as well as DNN is visible.
Figure 3Hc versus DNN for Fe/Cr samples. Hc mainly depends on DNN, no clear effect of the cluster size is visible in the investigated region.
Figure 4Left: Heb versus DNN for the three series of samples with different cluster sizes. DNN has no effect on Heb, while a pronounced effect is found for the size of the embedded clusters. Right: Average Heb versus R−1 for the three cluster sizes showing a linear relation.