Nuclear resonant magnetometry and its application to Fe/Cr multilayers

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 93, Issue 3, 2004, Pages

  L'Abbe C ^a   Meersschaut, J ^b   Sturhahn, W ^b   Jiang, J S ^b   Toellner, T S ^b   Alp, E E ^b   Bader, S D ^b  

^a KU LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIFERROMAGNETISM; CORRELATION METHODS; ELECTRON ENERGY LEVELS; IRON; MAGNETRON SPUTTERING; MONOCHROMATORS; MULTILAYERS; NEUTRON REFLECTION; NEUTRON SCATTERING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; POLARIZATION; QUANTUM THEORY; SYNCHROTRON RADIATION; THICKNESS MEASUREMENT; VECTORS; X RAY DIFFRACTION;

ENERGY SEPARATION; INTERLAYER COUPLING; NUCLEAR RESONANT MAGNETOMETRY (NRM); NUCLEAR RESONANT SCATTERING;

MAGNETIZATION;

EID: 4344713080     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.037201     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Special issues on Nuclear Resonant Scattering of Synchrotron Radiation [Hyperfine Interact. 123/124 (1999); 125 (2000)].
2. Special issues on Nuclear Resonant Scattering of Synchrotron Radiation [Hyperfine Interact. 123/124 (1999); 125 (2000)].
3. Special issues on Nuclear Resonant Scattering of Synchrotron Radiation [Hyperfine Interact. 123/124 (1999); 125 (2000)].
4. T. Shinjo and W. Keune, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 200, 598 (1999).
5. L. Niesen et al., Phys. Rev. B 58, 8590 (1998).
6. R. Röhlsberger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 237201 (2002).
7. R. Röhlsberger et al., Phys. Rev. B 67, 245412 (2003).
8. D. L. Nagy et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 157202 (2002).
9. P. Grünberg et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2442 (1986).
10. A. Schreyer et al., Europhys. Lett. 32, 595 (1995).
11. V. Lauter-Pasyuk et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 167203 (2002).
12. S.G.E. te Velthuis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 127203 (2002).
13. E. Gerdau et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1141 (1986).
14. G. J. Perlow et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 74 (1960).
15. S. S. Hanna et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 513 (1960).
16. U. Bergmann et al., Phys. Rev. B 50, 5957 (1994).
17. One could determine the sign of the hyperfine field by observing whether the hyperfine splitting increases or decreases on application of a large external field. This approach, however, cannot be used for magnetization measurements since the sign information should also be accessible in the presence of small external fields where the sample is not necessarily in saturation.
18. We follow the convention of J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (Wiley, New York, 1975).
19. E. E. Fullerton et al., Phys. Rev. B 48, 15755 (1993).
20. http://www.aps.anl.gov
21. K. Hirano, T. Ishikawa, and S. Kikuta, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 336, 343 (1993).
22. W. Sturhahn, Hyperfine Interact 125, 149 (2000).
23. J. P. Hannon and G. T. Trammell, Phys. Rev. 169, 315 (1968); 186, 306 (1969).
24. J. P. Hannon and G. T. Trammell, Phys. Rev. 169, 315 (1968); 186, 306 (1969).
25. In Refs. [23,24], the interface region is modeled by six reduced hyperfine field components. However, due to the predominant contribution of the core region in our spectra, we are not sensitive enough to the interface to allow for such a detailed hyperfine field modeling. We opted to use only one interface component since this gave already exceptionally good fit results.
26. T. S. Toellner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3475 (1995).
27. V. M. Uzdin et al., Phys. Rev. B 63, 104407 (2001).