Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T14:16:16.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Note on Magnetostriction in Single Crystals of Iron and Nickel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

F. C. Powell
F. C. Powell
Affiliation:
Gonville and Caius College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The magnetisation of a single crystal of a ferromagnetic substance is accompanied by a distortion of the crystal which depends on the intensity and direction of magnetisation. Webster has shown that the magnetostriction in unsaturated states may be accounted for in an entirely satisfactory manner by making the assumption (for which the evidence is entirely convincing) that at ordinary temperatures an apparently unmagnetised crystal consists of small regions magnetised to saturation in various directions, so as to give no resultant magnetisation to the whole crystal, and that these regions possess natural directions of easy magnetisation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , October 1931 , pp. 561 - 569
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Philosophical Society 1931

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* Webster, , Proc. Phys. Soc. London, vol. 42, p. 431 (1930).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

† Akulov, , Zeit. für Phys. Vol. 52, p. 389 (1928)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vol. 59, p. 254 (1930).

‡ Becker, , Zeit. für Phys. Vol. 62, p. 253 (1930)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vol. 64, p. 660 (1930).

§ Becker, loc. cit.; Akulov, , Zeit. für Phys. vol. 64, p. 817 (1930).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

* Voigt, , Lehrbuch der Kristallphysik, §§ 277 et seq.Google Scholar

* Cf. Maxwell, , Electricity and Magnetism, Third Edition, §437.Google Scholar

* Voigt, loc. cit.

* More precisely, Becker finds that S=0·6, and the factor 2 in his expression for the energy must be omitted.

* Since κ is now independent of μ, Akulov ought to have obtained the same result (in his case μ=0) but failed to do so because he assumed c 44 = 2(c 11 − c 12) instead of the relation above.

† Goens, and Schmid, , Naturwissenschaften, vol. 19, p. 520 (1931).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

‡ Honda, and Mashiyama, , Sci. Rep. Tôhoku, vol. 15, p. 755 (1926).Google Scholar

* Kaya, , Sci. Rep. Tôhoku, vol. 17, p. 639 (1928).Google Scholar