4.6 Article

High and Ultra-High Coercive Materials in Spring-Exchange Systems-Review, Simulations and Perspective

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 15, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma15196506

关键词

permanent magnets; hard magnetic materials; Monte Carlo magnetic simulations; spring-exchange magnets

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper discusses spring-exchange magnetic systems that consist of magnetically soft and hard phases. It consists of two parts: a review of hard magnetic materials, focusing on ultra-high coercive compounds and selected spring-exchange systems; and a theoretical discussion based on Monte Carlo micromagnetic simulations on the possible enhancement of the hard magnetic properties of systems with magnetically soft, high, and ultra-high coercive phases. The analyzed systems show potential for improving the |BH|(max) parameter, bridging the gap between conventional and Nd-based permanent magnets. The simulations also indicate the advantages and limitations of spring-exchange composites, which could reduce the need for rare earth elements in permanent magnet applications.
The paper refers to the spring-exchange magnetic systems containing magnetically soft and hard phases. This work consists of two parts. The first part is a brief review of hard magnetic materials, with special attention paid to ultra-high coercive compounds, as well as selected spring-exchange systems. The second part is a theoretical discussion based on the Monte Carlo micromagnetic simulations about the possible enhancement of the hard magnetic properties of systems composed of magnetically soft, as well as high and ultra-high coercive, phases. As shown, the analyzed systems reveal the potential for improving the |BH|(max) parameter, filling the gap between conventional and Nd-based permanent magnets. Moreover, the carried-out simulations indicate the advantages and limitations of the spring-exchange composites, which could lead to a reduction in rare earth elements in permanent magnet applications.

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