4.6 Article

Magnetic force microscopy measurements in external magnetic fields-comparison between coated probes and an iron filled carbon nanotube probe

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS
卷 108, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.3459879

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We performed magnetic force microscopy (MFM) measurements in external magnetic fields parallel to the sample plane to qualitatively study their effect on the magnetization of different kinds of MFM probes. As a test structure we used an array of rectangular ferromagnetic thin film elements aligned with the external magnetic field direction. MFM images were taken while the field was increased stepwise to monitor the onset of a tilt in the MFM probe magnetization. Three different probes were investigated: a conventional pyramidal probe coated with 40 nm of CoCrTa, a coated high aspect ratio MFM probe, and a MFM probe based on an iron filled carbon nanotube (FeCNT). The results show that the magnetization of the pyramidal probe is only stable in in-plane fields of up to similar to 60 mT, in larger fields a considerable in-plane component of the tip magnetization is observed. This makes it difficult to distinguish the effect of the external field on the sample from those on the MFM probe. The coated high aspect ratio probe is at first stable up to similar to 200 mT and then shows a history dependent behavior, in the second sweep the onset of the magnetization tilt is already visible at similar to 100 mT. With the FeCNT probe, no tilt of the probe magnetization could be observed in in-plane fields up to the experimental limit of 230 mT. Due to the large shape anisotropy of the enclosed iron nanowire its direction of magnetization stays mainly oriented along the long axis even in moderate fields that deviate from this easy axis. Consequently, this probe is best suited for MFM measurements in external fields. (C) 2010 American Institute of Physics. [doi: 10.1063/1.3459879]

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