4.6 Article

Modeling of the Impact of Convection and Magnetic Field onto Electrodeposition and Functional Properties of CoRe Alloys

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 126, 期 22, 页码 9437-9445

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.2c00445

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a study on the electrodeposition of binary CoRe alloys from citrate and citrate-pyrophosphate electrolytes under the conditions of natural and forced convection caused by mechanical stirring and when a constant magnetic field (CMF) is applied. It is shown that a change in the complex composition of electrolytes can significantly change the chemical composition and properties of the obtained coatings. The use of CMF can improve the quality of electrolytic CoRe alloys and obtain coatings with properties close to those of hard magnetic materials.
This paper presents a study of the electrodeposition of binary CoRe alloys from citrate and citrate-pyrophosphate electrolytes under the conditions of natural and forced convection caused by mechanical stirring and when a constant magnetic field (CMF) is applied. It is shown that a change in the complex composition of electrolytes makes it possible to radically change the chemical composition and properties of the obtained coatings: from an alloy deposited from a citrate solution and containing a significant amount of rhenium (up to 72.5 at. %) and which is nonmagnetic to coatings deposited from a citrate-pyrophosphate electrolyte containing 8-40 at. % rhenium and exhibiting magnetic properties. A model of the influence of CMF is proposed, which takes into account the convective flow not only in the direction along but also in the direction perpendicular to the electrode surface and the forces acting on the hydrogen bubbles, which are released during the alloy electrodeposition. The use of CMF makes it possible to improve the quality of electrolytic CoRe alloys and to obtain coatings close in their properties to those of hard magnetic materials.

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