Curie temperatures and 0°K magnetic moments of zinc-substituted lithium ferrites
Because of their several attractive features including relatively high Curie temperatures, substituted lithium ferrites have become important for applications at microwave frequencies. Néel collinear arrangement of spins onA andB sublattices is unable to satisfactorily explain the 0°K saturation moments and the observed Curie temperatures of the zinc-substituted lithium ferrites, especially at concentrations of zincz>0·3 in the formula Li0·5−z/2ZnzFe2·5−z/2O4. Rosencaig’s localized canting model has been extended and used to compute 0°K magnetic moments and Curie temperatures of these ferrites with substitution levels up toz=0·7. Reasonably good agreement between the calculated and experimental values, both for the 0°K magnetic moments and the Curie temperatures, has been obtained using exchange parameters ratios based on the valuesJ aa=−20°K,J bb=−8°K andJ ab=J ba=−29°K.
KeywordsFerrites Curie temperature magnetisation localised spin canting exchange parameter
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Dorman J L, Merceron T and Nogues M 1981Applied Mössbauer effect, Proc. Int. Conf., JaipurGoogle Scholar
- Feldmann P, Simonet W, Desvignes J M and Le Gall H 1979 Joint Intermag 3M Conf. (New York), Abst. 7P-10 (Unpublished work)Google Scholar
- Geller S, Williams H J, Spinola G P and Sherwood R C 1964Bell. Sys. Tech. J. 43 565Google Scholar
- Gorter E W 1954Phillips. Res. Rep. 9 295Google Scholar
- Néel L 1948Ann. Phys. (Paris) 3 137Google Scholar
- Nogues M, Dorman J L, Perrin M, Simonet W and Gibert P 1979IEEE Trans. MAG-15 1729Google Scholar
- Pran Kishan, Chatterjee S N, Nagpaul L K and Laroia K K 1981Indian J. Pure Appl. Phys. 19 83Google Scholar
- Rosencwaig A 1970Can. J. Phys. 48 2857, 2868Google Scholar
- Simonet W and Hermosin A 1978IEEE Trans. MAG-14 903Google Scholar
- Srivastava C M, Srinivasan G and Nanadikar N G 1979Phys. Rev. B19 499Google Scholar
- Zhilyakov S M, Ivolga V V, Mel’ tsev V I and Naiden E P 1977Sov. Phys. Sol. State 19 1817Google Scholar