4.6 Article

Deformation of Neel-type skyrmions revealed by Lorentz transmission electron microscopy

期刊

APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS
卷 116, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/5.0002592

关键词

-

资金

  1. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)
  2. Office of Sponsored Research (OSR) [OSR-2016-CRG5-2977, CRF-2015-SENSORS-2708]
  3. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division [DE-AC02-05CH11231, KCWF16]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51801087]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neel-type magnetic skyrmions in multilayers are promising candidates for ultra-low power spintronic devices. To image the Neel-type skyrmions using Lorentz transmission electron microscopy (L-TEM), the samples must be tilted. Thus, the external magnetic field consists of both in-plane and out-of-plane components. To date, it is still not well known on the effect of the in-plane magnetic field on the L-TEM images, leading to ambiguities in retrieving the structure of Neel-type skyrmions. Here, Neel-type skyrmions in three [Pt/Co/Ta](20) multilayer samples, with the easy magnetization axis being tuned from the out-of-plane to the in-plane direction by increasing the Co thickness from 1.8 to 2.2nm, are imaged. When using a smaller defocus value (-2mm) and a higher magnification (x9100) of L-TEM, a surprising dark-bright-dark-bright double contrasted pattern, instead of the previously reported dark-bright contrasted pattern, is observed. The additional dark-bright contrasted pattern becomes more evident for thicker Co layer samples in which the magnetization axis tilts more toward the in-plane direction. Further analysis, via a combination of magnetic force microscopy experiments, micromagnetic simulations, and micromagnetic analysis to Lorentz TEM simulation, shows that the additional dark-bright features originate from the deformation of the Neel-type skyrmions within an in-plane magnetic field.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据