4.5 Article

Enhancement in Thermally Generated Spin Voltage at the Interfaces between Pd and NiFe2O4 Films Grown on Lattice-Matched Substrates

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW APPLIED
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.014014

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF ECCS Grant [1509875]
  2. NSF CAREER Award [0952929]
  3. Materials Science and Engineering Division of the Office of Science of the US DOE
  4. NSF [DMR-1809571]
  5. Ramon y Cajal program [RyC-2012-11709]
  6. Spanish Ministry of Science Innovation and Universities through the 'Severo Ochoa' Programme for Centres of Excellence in RD [SEV-2015-0496]
  7. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the priority program Spin Caloric Transport [SPP 1538]
  8. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  9. Division Of Materials Research [0952929] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Efficient spin injection from epitaxial ferrimagnetic NiFe2O4 thin films into a Pd layer is demonstrated via spin Seebeck effect measurements in the longitudinal geometry. The NiFe2O4 films (60 nm to 1 mu m) are grown by pulsed-laser deposition on isostructural spinel MgAl2O4, MgGa2O4, and CoGa2O4 substrates with lattice mismatch varying between 3.2 and 0.2%. For the thinner films (<= 330 nm), an increase in the spin Seebeck voltage is observed with decreasing lattice mismatch, which correlates well with a decrease in the Gilbert damping parameter as determined from ferromagnetic resonance measurements. High-resolution transmission electron microscopy studies indicate substantial decrease of antiphase boundary and interface defects that cause strain relaxation, i.e., misfit dislocations, in the films with decreasing lattice mismatch. This highlights the importance of reducing structural defects in spinel ferrites for efficient spin injection. It is further shown that angle-dependent spin Seebeck effect measurements provide a qualitative method to probe for in-plane magnetic anisotropies present in the films.

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

4.5
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