Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Measuring the ferromagnetic resonance cone angle via static dipolar fields using diamond spins

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read NV-center ensembles in diamond quantitatively measure the ferromagnetic resonance cone angle of micro-scale V[TCNE] disks by sensing precession-induced static dipolar field changes, finding at least 6 degrees at 0.53 G.

desk verdict Solid, honest metrology paper extending NV stray-field FMR sensing to V[TCNE] ensembles; the headline cone-angle value is conditional on simulation and phase-branch assumptions, but the work deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00148 v1 pith:ILYCWHUE submitted 2025-05-30 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

B. A. McCullian , M. Chilcote , H. Yusuf , E. Johnston-Halperin , G. D. Fuchs This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords ferromagneticresonanceNVcentersindiamondprecessionconeangleV[TCNE]dipolarstrayfieldsspinechomagnetometrymicromagneticsimulationquantumsensingofmagnetism
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Ferromagnetic resonance cone angles are usually inferred from indirect signals that need careful microwave calibration; this paper tries to make the measurement direct and self-calibrating. It uses an ensemble of nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond as local magnetometers that read the small change in the static stray dipolar field of a pair of V[TCNE] disks when they precess. From that field change and a micromagnetic model of the static field, the authors extract the cone angle, and they calibrate the microwave drive amplitude with the same NV spins via Rabi nutation. They find the V[TCNE] disks reach a cone angle of at least 6 degrees with a microwave field of only 0.53 G. If the method holds up, it gives a table-top, non-invasive route to quantitative FMR metrology that does not require frequency matching between the magnet and the sensor.

What carries the argument

The FMR-echo sequence is the central mechanism: a spin-echo pulse sequence on the NV ensemble ($\pi/2_x$-$\tau$-$\pi_x$-$\tau$-$\pi/2_y$) with the final pulse phase set so that the readout is linearly sensitive to small phase shifts, while a microwave drive far detuned from the NV resonance excites FMR in the disks during the dephasing window. The accumulated NV phase is $\varphi = \gamma\tau\Delta B_{d,\mathrm{NV}}$, and the cone angle follows from $\theta_M = \cos^{-1}(1 - \Delta B_{d,\mathrm{NV}}/B_{d,\mathrm{NV}})$. Micromagnetic simulations provide the static dipolar field $B_{d,\mathrm{NV}}$ at the ensemble, and NV Rabi nutations provide the microwave amplitude $H_1$, completing the quantitative drive-response link.

What would settle it

Measure the cone angle of the same V[TCNE] disk pair with an independent technique that does not rely on the simulated static field, for example magnetoresistance detection or magneto-optical Kerr/Faraday probing on a witness sample, and compare with the FMR-echo result; a systematic disagreement beyond the stated error bars would show that the simulated $B_{d,\mathrm{NV}}$ calibration is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the precession cone angle of a micro-scale ferrimagnet can be recovered from a static measurement: when FMR is driven in the V[TCNE] disk pair, the time-averaged magnetization along the equilibrium direction drops, and the accompanying change in the static dipolar field at the NV ensemble, $\Delta B_{d,\mathrm{NV}}$, is related to the cone angle by $\theta_M = \cos^{-1}(1 - \Delta B_{d,\mathrm{NV}}/B_{d,\mathrm{NV}})$. Using this relation plus micromagnetic simulations for $B_{d,\mathrm{NV}}$, the authors measure cone angles as a function of microwave amplitude and report at least 6 degrees at 0.53 G. The same NV ensemble independently measures the microwave field amplitude via Rabi nutation, so the link between drive and response is established by one self-calibrating probe.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result rests on the assumption that the micromagnetic simulation of the static stray dipolar field at the NV ensemble, using literature values for saturation magnetization and exchange stiffness and no uniaxial anisotropy, is accurate enough; any error in that simulated field scales the extracted cone angle.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FMR cone angles become measurable on table-top equipment with no electrical contact, no optical access to the magnetic layer, and no frequency matching between the sensor and the magnet.
  • One self-calibrating probe supplies both sides of the drive-response relation: the same NV spins measure the microwave amplitude (Rabi nutation) and the cone angle, removing the standing-wave calibration problem of conventional FMR.
  • Because the echo does not require the magnetic dynamics to match the NV frequency, the technique should extend to high-frequency dynamics such as antiferromagnetic resonance in canted magnets.
  • Recording two quadratures of the final NV spin state would remove the 90-degree phase ambiguity and let the same measurement characterize the onset of nonlinear cone-angle saturation (Suhl instabilities).
  • The demonstrated 6-degree cone at less than 1 G points to V[TCNE] as a practical low-power drive material for spintronics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the calibration-light approach generalizes, the same FMR-echo protocol on a scanning single-NV probe could map the cone angle and possibly the local stray-field profile point by point, replacing global simulations with a direct field measurement.
  • The linear cone-angle-versus-drive trend at low power implies that the method could serve as a fast screening tool: for a fixed microwave amplitude, the extracted cone angle should vary inversely with damping across candidate spintronics materials, which is a testable prediction.
  • Because the technique senses the static stray field, it may also be sensitive to the spatial distribution of precession amplitude, not just the uniform mode; a non-uniform mode would produce a different $\Delta B_{d,\mathrm{NV}}$ signature at the ensemble, an extension the paper does not develop.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper demonstrates a nitrogen-vacancy (NV) center based method for measuring the ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) cone angle of a micro-scale V[TCNE] disk pair. A spin-echo sequence detects changes in the static dipolar stray field when the disks are driven at FMR, and the authors convert these changes into a cone angle using Eq. (1), with the static stray-field projection B_d,NV obtained from mumax3 simulations. The microwave drive amplitude is calibrated directly from NV Rabi nutations, and the FMR dispersion is measured without frequency matching between the NV spins and the magnetic dynamics. The central experimental claim is that the V[TCNE] disks can be driven to a cone angle of at least 6 degrees at a microwave field amplitude of only 0.53 G.

Significance. If the result holds, the work is significant: it provides a local, non-invasive, calibration-light route to FMR cone-angle metrology that does not require frequency matching, electrical contacts, or optical access to the magnetic layer. The use of a spin-echo sequence to suppress inhomogeneous broadening, the explicit inclusion of photon-shot-noise and fit uncertainties, and the direct microwave-field calibration are notable strengths. However, the absolute cone-angle scale rests on simulated static stray fields that are not independently measured, and the headline point at 0.53 G is phase-ambiguous. These issues currently limit the support for the central quantitative claim, even though the underlying method is promising.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI, Eq. (1), Appendix B.3] The conversion from the measured ΔB_d,NV to the cone angle requires the static dipolar-field projection B_d,NV, which is not measured but taken from mumax3 simulations that assume M_sat = 9549 A/m, A_ex = 2.2e-15 J/m, and zero uniaxial anisotropy. Any systematic error in B_d,NV enters the extracted θ_M directly; for small angles θ_M ≈ sqrt(2ΔB_d,NV/B_d,NV), so a fractional error in B_d,NV produces roughly half that fractional error in θ_M. The ±10% M_sat uncertainty is said to be included in the vertical error bars, but the propagation through the simulation is not shown, and the Appendix B.3 cell-size test on a smaller geometry (t=100 nm, d=1 µm, s=500 nm) finds a 4% difference in B_d,NV between (20 nm)^3 and (4 nm)^3 cells, which is not directly applicable to the experimental geometry (t=700 nm, d=9.5 µm, s=1.5 µm). Since the paper itself notes in Section VII that future studies can directly probe these stray fields, the current absolute cone-angle scale is not independently anchored.
  2. [Section VI, Fig. 5(e) and 5(k)] The headline result — a cone angle of at least 6° at H1 = 0.53 G — rests on the red data point in Fig. 5(k), which is obtained by assuming that the NV phase accumulated at the resonance peak exceeds 90°. Because the measured signal is proportional to sin(φ), the data in panel (e) are equally consistent with a phase below 90°, which would give a smaller ΔB_d,NV and hence a smaller cone angle. The 'at least' statement is therefore not uniquely determined by the measurement unless the phase ambiguity is resolved (e.g., by the two-quadrant readout suggested in Section VII). This is load-bearing because the 0.53 G point is the one that crosses the 6° threshold.
  3. [Appendix B.3] The discretization-error test is performed on a scaled-down geometry (t=100 nm, d=1 µm, s=500 nm), not on the experimental disk pair (t=700 nm, d=9.5 µm, s=1.5 µm). The 4% difference in B_d,NV between cell sizes reported for the test geometry cannot be transferred quantitatively to the actual geometry, where the larger thickness and separation change the field profile at h=50 nm. The authors should either run the scaling test at the experimental dimensions or provide a concrete argument for why the 4% bound applies to the actual geometry.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II] The phrase 'an NV center ensemble seth= 50 nm beneath the surface' appears to contain a typo; it should likely read 'set h = 50 nm' or 'with h = 50 nm beneath the surface.'
  2. [Appendix B.2] The sentence 'The PL amplitudes in Figure B.1(a) suggest a static field angle suggest a magnetic field angle change of approximately 0.3°' contains a duplicated verb; please rephrase.
  3. [Section VI, Eq. (1)] The symbol δB_d,NV in Eq. (1) is referred to as ΔB_d,NV elsewhere in the text and figures; please unify the notation for clarity.
  4. [Figure 5 caption] The caption states that the red data point 'assumes that the lowest three data points in panel (e) have accrued more than 90° of phase.' Since the alternative phase assignment would yield a smaller cone angle, it would be useful to state explicitly that the headline 'at least 6°' depends on this assumption.
  5. [Section V] The definitions of θ_a = 2.4° and θ = 52.3° are introduced close together; a brief sentence explaining that θ is the angle of the applied field relative to the film normal, whereas θ_a is the angle of the applied field relative to the NV axis, would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cone angle is extracted from an independently measured NV phase shift and a simulated static field; the headline value is not fitted to itself, though the simulation-based B_d,NV scale is an acknowledged limitation.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The paper measures a spin-echo phase that is proportional to the change in the static dipolar field projected along the NV axis (phi = gamma*tau*Delta B_d,NV), and independently obtains the static field scale B_d,NV from mumax3 simulations using literature values M_sat = 9549 A/m and A_ex = 2.2e-15 J/m, as stated in Appendix B.3. The cone angle is then computed from Eq. (1), theta_M = arccos(1 - Delta B_d,NV / B_d,NV). Nothing in this chain fits theta_M to a target value, and B_d,NV is not extracted from the measured Delta B_d,NV. The fitted FMR parameters (4*pi*M_eff = 84.6 +/- 8.8 G and gamma/2pi = 2.716 +/- 0.005 MHz/G) are used to confirm the resonance condition and are compared with literature, not used to produce the cone angle. The microwave amplitude H1 is measured separately via NV Rabi nutations away from the disks, so the claim that 0.53 G drives a 6-degree cone angle is not forced by construction. The paper cites several prior works by the same group for material parameters such as M_sat, A_ex, and damping, but those citations supply external characterization results, not the cone-angle result itself, and they do not constitute a uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The paper explicitly notes in Section VII that 'future studies can directly probe these stray fields' and that a 'verification of FMR-echo measurements of the cone angle against magnetoresistance measurements will be useful,' which are honest limitations rather than indicators that the derivation is circular. Overall, the core measurement is self-contained against the target claim; the main vulnerability is the accuracy of the simulated static stray-field scale, which is a correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The central claim rests on a small set of material and simulation axioms, and on two fitted dispersion parameters that do not enter the cone-angle extraction.

free parameters (3)
  • Effective magnetization 4*pi*M_eff = 84.6 +/- 8.8 G
    Obtained by fitting the FMR dispersion (Eq. 2) to the measured resonance frequencies in Figure 4 inset. Used to confirm material properties, not to extract cone angle.
  • Gyromagnetic ratio gamma/2*pi = 2.716 +/- 0.005 MHz/G
    Obtained from the same dispersion fit in Eq. (2). Not used in cone-angle extraction.
  • Applied field angle theta_a = 2.4 degrees
    Chosen so that the simulated total field B_t aligns with the NV axis at 512 G near the avoided level crossing. Set by a calibration procedure using micromagnetic simulation, not by fitting the cone-angle result.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The static stray dipolar field B_d,NV computed by mumax3 with M_sat=9549 A/m, A_ex=2.2e-15 J/m, and no uniaxial anisotropy is accurate at h=50 nm beneath the disk pair.
    The conversion in Eq. (1) uses this simulated B_d,NV; incorrect simulation would scale the cone angle proportionally. The cell-size scaling test mitigates discretization error, but the material parameters are taken from literature.
  • domain assumption The NV ensemble senses a uniform Delta-B_d,NV and the spin-echo phase is phi = gamma*tau*Delta-B_d,NV.
    Ensemble averaging and field gradients across the NV cloud are not explicitly modeled; the echo removes inhomogeneous dephasing but the phase-to-field conversion assumes a single field value.
  • domain assumption The magnetization is saturated along the applied field so that the cone angle relation theta_M = cos^-1(1 - Delta-M_z/M_z) holds.
    Valid because the applied field is large compared to anisotropy, as argued in Appendix B.3.
  • domain assumption V[TCNE] has negligible uniaxial anisotropy under the applied fields used.
    Assumed in Appendix B.3; justified by the applied field being an order of magnitude larger than reported anisotropy fields.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measuring the ferromagnetic resonance cone angle via static dipolar fields using diamond spins." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ILYCWHUE

@misc{pith2026250600148,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measuring the ferromagnetic resonance cone angle via static dipolar fields using diamond spins},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ILYCWHUE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00148}
}
abstract

We demonstrate quantitative measurement of the ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) precession cone angle of a micro-scale sample of vanadium tetracyanoethylene (V[TCNE]$_{x\sim 2}$) using diamond spins. V[TCNE]$_{x\sim 2}$ is a low-damping, low-magnetization ferrimagnet with potential for scalable spintronics applications. Our study is motivated by the persistent need for quantitative metrology to accurately characterize magnetic dynamics and relaxation. Recently, diamond spins have emerged as sensitive probes of static and dynamic magnetic signals. Unlike analog sensors that require additional calibration, diamond spins respond to magnetic fields via a frequency shift that can be compared with frequency standards. We use a spin echo-based approach to measure the precession-induced change to the static stray dipolar field of a pair of V[TCNE]$_{x\sim 2}$ discs under FMR excitation. Using these stray dipolar field measurements and micromagnetic simulations, we extract the precession cone angle. Additionally, we quantitatively measure the microwave field amplitude using the same diamond spins, thus forming a quantitative link between drive and response. We find that our V[TCNE]$_{x\sim 2}$ sample can be driven to a cone angle of at least 6$^{\circ}$ with a microwave field amplitude of only 0.53 G. This work highlights the power of diamond spins for local, quantitative magnetic characterization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00148 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a). A pair is chosen because this geometry provides a more uniform stray dipolar field than a single disk. The substrate is a 50-micron-thick diamond membrane with an 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Sensing the cone angle via static dipolar fields. (a) The disk pair magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. FMR-echo sensing scheme (a) A Bloch sphere representation of the FMR-echo protocol. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. FMR-echo spectroscopy of V[TCNE] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Cone angle sensing using the FMR-echo protocol. (a-e) FMR-echo signal versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The top 5µm was removed by alternating O 2 and Ar/Cl plasma etching [46] to release surface stress due to polishing

    Diamond substrate fabrication Our starting substrate is a≈50-µm-thick type IIa diamond membrane with<1 part- per-billion nitrogen impurities. The top 5µm was removed by alternating O 2 and Ar/Cl plasma etching [46] to release surface stress due to polishing. The diamond was implanted with nitrogen ions and subsequently annealed at 1100 ◦ C for 2 hours to ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    V[TCNE] x∼2 disk pair fabrication Given the relatively low temperature and high pressure deposition conditions, it is possible to integrate patterned V[TCNE] x∼2 with preexisting, on-chip device structures such as mi- crowave waveguides and alignment markers using electron-beam lithography. This approach relies on two innovations unique to V[TCNE] x∼2 pat...

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    We determine these values for all measurements using the following procedure

    Procedure for determining ⃗Ba and ⃗Bd Quantifying the changes in the disk pair’s static dipolar field as measured by the NV center ensemble requires that we know the magnitude and direction of both ⃗Bd and ⃗Ba. We determine these values for all measurements using the following procedure. First, we leverage the sensitivity of the NV centers’ photoluminesce...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The results are shown in Figure B.1(a)

    Continuous-wave FMR angle sensing We experimentally verify that ⃗Ba and ⃗Bd are not collinear using a simple, continuous- wave FMR detection scheme using the NV center ensemble. The results are shown in Figure B.1(a). We perform sweeps of the microwave drive frequency using a conventional CW ODMR scheme (B.1(b)) at an applied field of 550 G and with high ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Micromagnetic Simulations We use the mumax3 micromagnetic simulation package to simulate the dipolar fields of the disk pair [41]. In micromagnetics, the maximum allowable cell dimension is typically 75% of the exchange length, which for V[TCNE] x∼2 has been reported to be anywhere from 9.7 nm [27] to 21 nm [35]. Our disk pair volume is sufficiently large...

    work page

  6. [6]

    H. M. Olson, P. Krivosik, K. Srinivasan, and C. E. Patton, Ferromagnetic resonance saturation and second order suhl spin wave instability processes in thin permalloy films, Journal of Applied Physics102, 023904 (2007), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2756481/14989486/023904 1 online.pdf

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2756481/14989486/023904 2007

  7. [7]

    Suhl, The theory of ferromagnetic resonance at high signal powers, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids1, 209 (1957)

    H. Suhl, The theory of ferromagnetic resonance at high signal powers, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids1, 209 (1957)

    work page 1957

  8. [8]

    S. I. Kiselev, J. C. Sankey, I. N. Krivorotov, N. C. Emley, R. J. Schoelkopf, R. A. Buhrman, and D. C. Ralph, Microwave oscillations of a nanomagnet driven by a spin-polarized current, Nature425, 380–383 (2003)

    work page 2003

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Zahedinejad, H

    M. Zahedinejad, H. Fulara, R. Khymyn, A. Houshang, M. Dvornik, S. Fukami, S. Kanai, H. Ohno, and J. ˚Akerman, Memristive control of mutual spin hall nano-oscillator synchroniza- tion for neuromorphic computing, Nature Materials21, 81–87 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Slavin and V

    A. Slavin and V. Tiberkevich, Excitation of spin waves by spin-polarized current in magnetic nano-structures, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics44, 1916 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    M. V. Costache, S. M. Watts, C. H. van der Wal, and B. J. van Wees, Electrical detection of spin pumping: dc voltage generated by ferromagnetic resonance at ferromagnet/nonmagnet contact, Phys. Rev. B78, 064423 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    H. T. Nembach, P. Mart ´ ın Pimentel, S. J. Hermsdoerfer, B. Leven, B. Hille- brands, and S. O. Demokritov, Microwave assisted switching in a ni81fe19 ellip- soid, Applied Physics Letters90, 062503 (2007), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2450645/1436755...

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    M. V. Costache, S. M. Watts, M. Sladkov, C. H. van der Wal, and B. J. van Wees, Large cone angle magnetization precession of an individual nanopatterned ferromagnet with dc electrical detection, Applied Physics Letters89, 232115 (2006), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pd...

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    Moriyama, X

    T. Moriyama, X. Fan, Y. Q. Wen, H. W. Zhang, and J. Q. Xiao, Ferromagnetic resonance spectroscopy with very large precession cone angle in magnetic tunnel junctions, IEEE Trans- actions on Magnetics45, 2047 (2009). 23

    2009

  7. [15]

    Kuhlmann, A

    N. Kuhlmann, A. Vogel, and G. Meier, Magnetization dynamics and cone angle precession in permalloy rectangles, Phys. Rev. B85, 014410 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Gerrits, P

    T. Gerrits, P. Krivosik, M. L. Schneider, C. E. Patton, and T. J. Silva, Direct detection of nonlinear ferromagnetic resonance in thin films by the magneto-optical kerr effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 207602 (2007)

    2007

  9. [17]

    Bahlmann, R

    N. Bahlmann, R. Gerhardt, M. Wallenhorst, and H. D¨ otsch, Determination of the fer- rimagnetic precession cone of in-plane magnetized garnet films using optical modulation technique, Journal of Applied Physics80, 3977 (1996), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/80/7/397...

    1996

  10. [18]

    H. G. Bauer, P. Majchrak, T. Kachel, C. H. Back, and G. Woltersdorf, Nonlinear spin-wave ex- citations at low magnetic bias fields, Nature Communications6, 10.1038/ncomms9274 (2015)

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Andrich, C

    P. Andrich, C. F. de las Casas, X. Liu, H. L. Bretscher, J. R. Berman, F. J. Heremans, P. F. Nealey, and D. D. Awschalom, Long-range spin wave mediated control of defect qubits in nanodiamonds, npj Quantum Information3, 10.1038/s41534-017-0029-z (2017)

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Kikuchi, D

    D. Kikuchi, D. Prananto, K. Hayashi, A. Laraoui, N. Mizuochi, M. Hatano, E. Saitoh, Y. Kim, C. A. Meriles, and T. An, Long-distance excitation of nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond via surface spin waves, Applied Physics Express10, 103004 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Bertelli, J

    I. Bertelli, J. J. Carmiggelt, T. Yu, B. G. Simon, C. C. Pothoven, G. E. W. Bauer, Y. M. Blanter, J. Aarts, and T. van der Sar, Magnetic resonance imaging of spin-wave transport and interference in a magnetic insulator, Science Advances6, 10.1126/sciadv.abd3556 (2020)

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    T. X. Zhou, J. J. Carmiggelt, L. M. G¨ achter, I. Esterlis, D. Sels, R. J. St¨ ohr, C. Du, D. Fer- nandez, J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, F. B¨ uttner, E. Demler, and A. Yacoby, A magnon scattering platform, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, 10.1073/pnas.2019473118 (2021)

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    C. Du, T. van der Sar, T. X. Zhou, P. Upadhyaya, F. Casola, H. Zhang, M. C. Onbasli, C. A. Ross, R. L. Walsworth, Y. Tserkovnyak, and A. Yacoby, Control and local mea- surement of the spin chemical potential in a magnetic insulator, Science357, 195 (2017), https://www.science....

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    McCullian, M

    B. McCullian, M. Chilcote, V. Bhallamudi, C. Purser, E. Johnston-Halperin, and P. Ham- mel, Broadband optical detection of ferromagnetic resonance from the organic-based ferrimag- 24 net v[tcne] x using n-vcenters in diamond, Physical Review Applied14, 10.1103/physrevap- plied...

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    Koerner, R

    C. Koerner, R. Dreyer, M. Wagener, N. Liebing, H. G. Bauer, and G. Woltersdorf, Fre- quency multiplication by collective nanoscale spin-wave dynamics, Science375, 1165 (2022), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abm6044

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Solyom, M

    A. Solyom, M. Caouette-Mansour, B. Ruffolo, P. Braganca, L. Childress, and J. C. Sankey, Single-spin spectroscopy of spontaneous and phase-locked spin-torque-oscillator dynamics, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 054055 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Fukami, J

    M. Fukami, J. C. Marcks, D. R. Candido, L. R. Weiss, B. Soloway, S. E. Sullivan, N. Delegan, F. J. Heremans, M. E. Flatt´ e, and D. D. Awschalom, Magnon-mediated qubit coupling deter- mined via dissipation measurements, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, e2313...

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    C. M. Purser, V. P. Bhallamudi, F. Guo, M. R. Page, Q. Guo, G. D. Fuchs, and P. C. Hammel, Spinwave detection by nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond as a function of probe–sample separation, Applied Physics Letters116, 202401 (2020), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/d...

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    van der Sar, F

    T. van der Sar, F. Casola, R. Walsworth, and A. Yacoby, Nanometre-scale probing of spin waves using single electron spins, Nature Communications6, 10.1038/ncomms8886 (2015)

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    H. Yu, M. Harberts, R. Adur, Y. Lu, P. C. Hammel, E. Johnston- Halperin, and A. J. Epstein, Ultra-narrow ferromagnetic resonance in organic- based thin films grown via low temperature chemical vapor deposition, Ap- plied Physics Letters105, 012407 (2014), https://pubs.aip.org/...

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    H. Liu, C. Zhang, H. Malissa, M. Groesbeck, M. Kavand, R. McLaughlin, S. Jamali, J. Hao, D. Sun, R. A. Davidson, L. Wojcik, J. S. Miller, C. Boehme, and Z. V. Vardeny, Organic-based magnon spintronics, Nature Materials17, 308–312 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Franson, N

    A. Franson, N. Zhu, S. Kurfman, M. Chilcote, D. R. Candido, K. S. Buchanan, M. E. Flatt´ e, H. X. Tang, and E. Johnston-Halperin, Low-damping ferromagnetic resonance in electron-beam patterned, high-q vanadium tetracyanoethylene magnon cavities, APL Materials7, 121113 (2019), ...

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    H. Liu, H. Malissa, R. M. Stolley, J. Singh, M. Groesbeck, H. Popli, M. Kavand, S. K. Chong, V. V. Deshpande, J. S. Miller, C. Boehme, and Z. V. Vardeny, Spin wave excitation, detection, and utilization in the organic-based magnet, v(tcne) (tcne = tetracyanoethylene), Advanced...

    2020

  26. [34]

    H. F. H. Cheung, M. Chilcote, H. Yusuf, D. S. Cormode, Y. Shi, S. Kurfman, A. Franson, M. E. Flatt´ e, E. Johnston-Halperin, and G. D. Fuchs, Raman spectroscopy and aging of the low-loss ferrimagnet vanadium tetracyanoethylene, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C125, 20380–203...

    2021

  27. [35]

    Yusuf, M

    H. Yusuf, M. Chilcote, D. R. Candido, S. Kurfman, D. S. Cormode, Y. Lu, M. E. Flatt´ e, and E. Johnston-Halperin, Exploring a quantum-information-relevant magnonic material: Ultralow damping at low temperature in the organic ferrimagnet v[tcne]x, A VS Quantum Science3, 026801 ...

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    A. H. Trout, S. W. Kurfman, Y. Shi, M. Chilcote, M. E. Flatt´ e, E. Johnston-Halperin, and D. W. McComb, Probing the structure of vanadium tetracyanoethylene using electron energy- loss spectroscopy, APL Materials10, 081102 (2022), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apm/article- pdf/doi...

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    K. I. Pokhodnya, A. J. Epstein, and J. S. Miller, Thin-film v[tcne] magnets, Advanced Materials 12, 410 (2000)

    2000

  30. [38]

    de Caro, M

    D. de Caro, M. Basso-Bert, J. Sakah, H. Casellas, J.-P. Legros, L. Valade, and P. Cassoux, Cvd-grown thin films of molecule-based magnets, Chemistry of Materials12, 587–589 (2000)

    2000

  31. [39]

    Harberts, Y

    M. Harberts, Y. Lu, H. Yu, A. J. Epstein, and E. Johnston-Halperin, Chemical vapor deposi- tion of an organic magnet, vanadium tetracyanoethylene, Journal of Visualized Experiments 10.3791/52891-v (2015)

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    N. Zhu, X. Zhang, I. H. Froning, M. E. Flatt´ e, E. Johnston-Halperin, and H. X. Tang, Low loss spin wave resonances in organic-based ferrimagnet vanadium tetracyanoethylene thin films, Applied Physics Letters109, 082402 (2016), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10...

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    Q. Xu, H. F. H. Cheung, D. S. Cormode, T. O. Puel, S. Pal, H. Yusuf, M. Chilcote, M. E. Flatt´ e, E. Johnston-Halperin, and G. D. Fuchs, Strong photon-magnon coupling using a litho- graphically defined organic ferrimagnet, Advanced Science11, 10.1002/advs.202310032 (2024)

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    I. H. Froning, M. Harberts, Y. Lu, H. Yu, A. J. Epstein, and E. Johnston-Halperin, Thin-film encapsulation of the air-sensitive organic-based ferrimagnet vanadium tetracya- noethylene, Applied Physics Letters106, 122403 (2015), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10....

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    Plachy, K

    R. Plachy, K. I. Pokhodnya, P. C. Taylor, J. Shi, J. S. Miller, and A. J. Epstein, Ferrimagnetic resonance in films of vanadium [tetracyanoethanide] x, grown by chemical vapor deposition, Phys. Rev. B70, 064411 (2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    J. S. Bola, H. Popli, R. M. Stolley, H. Liu, H. Malissa, O. Kwon, C. Boehme, J. S. Miller, and Z. V. Vardeny, Fabrication method, ferromagnetic resonance spectroscopy and spintron- ics devices based on the organic-based ferrimagnet vanadium tetracyanoethylene, Advanced Functio...

    2021

  37. [45]

    R. J. Epstein, F. M. Mendoza, Y. K. Kato, and D. D. Awschalom, Anisotropic interactions of a single spin and dark-spin spectroscopy in diamond, Nature Physics1, 94–98 (2005)

    2005

  38. [46]

    Vansteenkiste, J

    A. Vansteenkiste, J. Leliaert, M. Dvornik, M. Helsen, F. Garcia- Sanchez, and B. Van Waeyenberge, The design and verification of mu- max3, AIP Advances4, 107133 (2014), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4899186/12878560/107133 1 online.pdf

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    J. F. Barry, J. M. Schloss, E. Bauch, M. J. Turner, C. A. Hart, L. M. Pham, and R. L. Walsworth, Sensitivity optimization for nv-diamond magnetometry, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015004 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    X. Fan, E. Himbeault, Y. S. Gui, A. Wirthmann, G. Williams, D. Xue, and C.-M. Hu, Electrical detection of large cone angle spin precession from the linear to the nonlinear regime, Journal of Applied Physics108, 046102 (2010), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.10...

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    C. S. Wolfe, V. P. Bhallamudi, H. L. Wang, C. H. Du, S. Manuilov, R. M. Teeling-Smith, A. J. Berger, R. Adur, F. Y. Yang, and P. C. Hammel, Off-resonant manipulation of spins in diamond via precessing magnetization of a proximal ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B89, 180406 27 (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    Boventer, H

    I. Boventer, H. T. Simensen, A. Anane, M. Kl¨ aui, A. Brataas, and R. Lebrun, Room- temperature antiferromagnetic resonance and inverse spin-hall voltage in canted antiferro- magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 187201 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    H. Chen, N. F. Opondo, B. Jiang, E. R. MacQuarrie, R. S. Daveau, S. A. Bhave, and G. D. Fuchs, Engineering electron–phonon coupling of quantum defects to a semiconfocal acoustic resonator, Nano Letters19, 7021 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Chilcote, M

    M. Chilcote, M. Harberts, B. Fuhrmann, K. Lehmann, Y. Lu, A. Fran- son, H. Yu, N. Zhu, H. Tang, G. Schmidt, and E. Johnston-Halperin, Spin-wave confinement and coupling in organic-based magnetic nanostruc- tures, APL Materials7, 111108 (2019), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apm/arti...

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.