No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Interfacial contribution to thickness dependent in-plane anisotropic magnetoresistance
7. Historically, AMR is often normalized to a resistivity which corresponds to the ideal bulk demagnetized state with equal volume fraction magnetized along 3 orthogonal axes; in reality this represents a less well-defined magnetization state than ρ⊥. We note that in general for a thin film the resistivity with perpendicular magnetization ρperp ≠ ρ⊥, further invalidating this common definition of the AMR ratio.
15.L. K. Bogart, Ph.D. thesis, Durham University (2010).
22. The expressions derived by Sondheimer in Reference 14 which are most commonly-used are valid only in the limiting cases tCo ≪ λCo and tCo ≫ λCo, which are not generally the case here. The multilayer F-S model used by Kobs et al.4 does not result in an accurate limiting value for the bulk resistivity of cobalt.
Article metrics loading...
We have studied in-plane anisotropic magnetoresistance(AMR) in cobaltfilms with overlayers having designed electrically interface transparency. With an electrically opaque cobalt/overlayer interface, the AMR ratio is shown to vary in inverse proportion to the cobaltfilm thickness; an indication that in-plane AMR is a consequence of anisotropic scattering with both volume and interfacial contributions. The interface scattering anisotropy opposes the volume scattering contribution, causing the AMR ratio to diminish as the cobaltfilm thickness is reduced. An intrinsic interface effect explains the significantly reduced AMR ratio in ultra-thin films.
Full text loading...
Most read this month