- Access by Xinjiang University
A Contribution to the Theory of Ferromagnetism
Phys. Rev. 26, 274 – Published 1 August, 1925
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.26.274
Abstract
Relation of permeability and hysteresis to atomic magnetostriction.—In permalloy, as shown in the preceding paper, magnetostriction changes sign at about 81 percent Ni, hysteresis losses can be made vanishingly small near this composition, and these effects are not due to the special alignment of crystals. It is suggested that in every ferromagnetic material the process of magnetization involves (1) intra-atomic changes, presumably changes in the orientation of electron orbits, governed by quantum dynamics and independent of environment; and (2) inter-atomic changes (stresses and strains). The inter-dependence of the inter-atomic changes and the intra-atomic changes is conveniently described as atomic magnetostriction. On this view, hysteresis loss and magnetic hardness are due to the energy required to produce, in succession, the local deformations associated with changes in the magnetization of single atoms or small groups of atoms. High initial permeability and low hysteresis loss in permalloy are explained as resulting from locally compensatory atomic magnetostrictions of the nickel and iron atoms in small groups. The fundamental differences in the magnetic behavior of Fe, Ni and Co are attributed to differences in their atomic magnetostrictions. Other differences are attributed to differences in the mechanical properties which alter the energy expended when atomic magnetostriction takes place.
References (16)
- J. A. Ewing, Magnetic Induction in Iron and Other Metals, 3rd edition, 1900, p. 315
- H. D. Arnold and G. W. Elmen, J. Frank. Inst. 195, 621-632 (1923)
- E. M. Terry and J. Kunz, Bull. Nat. Res. Coun. 3, [3], 113-213 (1922)
- Theories of Weiss, Frivold, Gans, loc. cit.[3]
- Theories of Ewing, Honda, Honda and Okubo, loc. cit.[3] K. Honda, Dictionary of Applied Physics, 3, 515-526 (1922)
- J. A. Ewing, Proc. Roy. Soc. A100, 449-460 (1922)
- S. R. Williams and S. L. Quimby, Bull. Nat. Res. Counc., 3, [3], 214-234 (1922)
- W. Gerlach and O. Stern, Zeits. f. Phys. 8, 110-111 (1921) ibid.9, 349-352, 352-353 (1922)
- B. Cabrera, Journ. de Phys. (6), 3, 443-460 (1922)
- W. Gerlach, Phys. Zeits. 24, 275-277 (1923) P. S. Epstein, Science (2), 57, 532-533 (1923) A. Sommerfeld, Phys. Zeits. 24, 360-364 (1923) Zeits. f. Phys. 19, 221-229 (1923)
- R. Ladenburg, Zeits. f. Elektrochem. 26, 262-274 (1920) N. Bohr, Zeits. f. Phys. 9, 1-67 (1922) L. W. McKeehan, J. Frank. Inst. 197, 583-601, 757-786 (1924)
- Professor P. Ehrenfest in a private discussion
- L. W. McKeehan, loc. cit.[10]
- V. Karapetoff, Science (2), 59, 440 (1924)
- E. P. T. Tyndall, Phys. Rev. (2), 24, 439-451 (1924)
- O. E. Buckley and L. W. McKeehan, preceding paper in this issue