Temperature vs. magnetic susceptibility

Fig. 4. Static magnetic susceptibility vs temperature. Nanotubes with the magnetic field perpendicular to the tubes (+), parallel to the tubes (o), unprocessed CNT-containing material (x) and planar graphite (solid line) [31],...

Fig. 11.57 Plot of the reciprocal of magnetic susceptibility vs. temperature for three, magnetic behaviors (a) itie Curie law (b) the Curie-Weiss law for a ferromagnetic substance with Curie temperature, Tc, (c) the Curie-Weiss law for an antiferromagnetic, substance with Neel temperature, T. ...

Fig. 61. Reciprocal magnetic susceptibility vs temperature for CegMSbij, M = Mn, Zn. Inset Molar susceptibility vs temperature for CegMnSbij.

It is risky, of course, to generalize from one oxide to another, but in the absence of adequately completed studies with anyone of the oxides, the assumption concerning the density of carriers seems justified. All of the superconducting oxides display R(T)fs similar to those cited above. In the case of strontium titanate, SrTiOg.., Schooley et al. (15) have shown that the critical superconducting temperature determined from the midpoints of the abrupt decreases in the resistance vs temperature and the magnetic susceptibility vs temperature depend on the density of carriers determined from measurements of Hall coefficients. Thus the results of Tc vs density of carriers is shown in Figure 4. Therein, one observes that the Tc s from both R(T) and x(T) increase to maxima near 10 carriers cm 3 and thereafter they decrease. 

Figure 1. Magnetic susceptibility vs. temperature plot for YBa Cuo07 measured in a field of 12 Gauss. J...

Figure 4 Magnetic susceptibility vs. temperature curves for ( ) YBa2Cu307 and ( ) YBa2Cu307 2.

Fig. 11.4. Inverse magnetic susceptibility vs temperature for (La, Th)Ce alloys with La, Th matrix compositions of 10, 45, 65, 80, 90 and lOOat.% Th [after Huber et al. (1975)].

Fig. 11.15. Inverse magnetic susceptibility vs temperature for CeSn, (open triangles), Celn, (solid circles) and CePb, (open circles). Measurements were made in a magnetic field of 19kOe [after Tsuchida and Wallace (1965)].

Fig. 11.20. Magnetic susceptibility vs temperature for several nonmagnetic Yb compounds with nonintegral valence. The rapid increase below 50 K is attributed to less than 1% of Yb20j impurity. For comparison, the magnetic susceptibility of YbjOj (Yb ) and YbAlj (Yb ) are also shown [after Sales (1974) Maple and Wohlleben (1974)].

Fig. 1.9. (a) Magnetic susceptibility vs. temperature for CoFe204 nanoparticles under field cooled and zero-field cooled conditions. The applied field is 2,000 G. (b) shows the variation of blocking temperature (Tb) with diameter of nanoparticles (plot produced with data from [40])... 

Fig. 4.26. Magnetic susceptibility vs. temperature curves of 8.5 and 32.5 nm ReOs nanoparticles. Inset shows the field dependence of magnetization of the 8.5 and 32.5 nm particles at 5K (reproduced with permission from [250])...

Fig. 103. Inverse magnetic susceptibility vs. temperature of TmSeg jjTea for pressures of 0.93 and 1.71 GPa. In the inset the effective moment is shown vs. pressure. The arrow at 1.4 GPa indicates the SMT. (After Boppart and Wachter 1984c.)...

Fig. 140. Magnetic susceptibility vs temperature for PANI-CSA samples from metallic side ( ) to insulating side (A). Reproduced by permission of the American Physical Society from N. S. Sariciftci, A J. Heeger, and Y. Cao, Phys. Rev. B 49,5988 (1994). Copyright 1994, American Physical Society.

Fig. 34. Inverse magnetic susceptibility vs. absolute temperature for several samples Ro jCao sMuOj compared with LaMnOj and LaojBaojMnC, alter Goodenough and Zhou (1998).

Fig. 4 Magnetization vs. temperature curves of (a) 6 nm and (b) 14 nm MnO particles under FC and ZFC conditions using a magnetic field of 100 Oe. The insets show inverse susceptibility vs. temperature curves.

Fig. 8 The temperature dependence of dc magnetization of (a) 3 nm and (b) 7 nm NiO nanoparticles under ZFC and FC conditions (If = 100 Oe). The inset shows the inverse susceptibility vs. temperature curves of the (a) 3 nm and (b) 7 nm particles (c) shows the data for TOPO-capped 3 nm NiO nanoparticles,...

Fig. 129. MnSiFj fiHjO, single crystal. Entropy, specific heat and susceptibilities vs. temperature. Susceptibilities derived from initial gradient of the magnetization curves (open triangles), ballistic susceptibility (full triangles) [6505].

Magnetic studies show that the above compound is paramagnetic in nature in the temperature range 5-300 K. The magnetic susceptibility (xm) along with (Xm) vs T plots (1 Tesla) obtained from a DC-magnetization study of the powdered... 

Figure 4.7. Magnetic susceptibility (x) vs temperature measurements for a Fe-0.68at%Nb alloy (Ferrier ef al. 1964). heating, x cooling.

Figure 14 In (a) is shown the variation of the susceptibility with temperature for a Bi2Ca2Mn06+y crystal obtained while warming the sample in a field of 500G after having cooled the sample in zero field. The magnetization vs. field curve measured at 10K on the same sample is shown in (b).

The magnetic susceptibility of V0S04(3.5 H2O) has been measured by Pferrakis88 over a temperature range of 145°. A plot of % vs. 1/T gives a straight line with slope 0.335 and intercept 130 X 10 6. Thus... 

---