Inferring Grain Size Distributions from Magnetic Hysteresis in M-type Hexaferrites

Abolghasem Ataie; Masoud Ataei; Mohammad Jafar Molaei

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Inferring Grain Size Distributions from Magnetic Hysteresis in M-type Hexaferrites

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Magnetic hysteresis loops carry enough statistical information to infer the grain size distribution of M-type hexaferrites, including the critical single-domain radius, without microscopy.

desk verdict Inventive inverse-hysteresis framework, but the Brown-relation mapping in Eq. 8 is backward, so the inferred grain-size distribution is not physically meaningful as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12566 v1 pith:XQJCCBO2 submitted 2025-06-14 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.data-anstat.AP

Masoud Ataei , Mohammad Jafar Molaei , Abolghasem Ataie This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.data-anstat.AP

keywords magnetichysteresisgrainsizedistributionM-typehexaferritesModifiedLognormalPower-lawcoercivityinverseparameterestimationstructuralmemorynucleation-growth

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

The paper claims that magnetic hysteresis loops contain enough statistical information to recover the underlying grain size distribution of M-type hexaferrite powders, including the critical grain radius that separates single-domain from multi-domain behavior, without any imaging. It builds a chain: a stochastic nucleation-growth process produces a Modified Lognormal Power-law (MLP) grain radius distribution, Brown's relation converts grain radius into a coercivity distribution, and a first-order relaxation model turns that coercivity distribution into dynamic hysteresis loops. Least-squares fitting of the full measured loop then recovers the five model parameters. A sympathetic reader would care because, if the claim is right, a routine bulk magnetic measurement becomes a non-destructive statistical probe of microstructure, and the fitted parameters track processing-induced changes such as grain fragmentation and structural memory.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Modified Lognormal Power-law (MLP) distribution, a grain-radius density with a lognormal core and a power-law tail, obtained by starting from a lognormally distributed initial radius and multiplying by exponential growth whose duration is an exponential stopping time. This distribution is propagated through Brown's relation H = H0(1 − Rc/R) to yield a closed-form coercivity density, and then embedded in the dynamic magnetization equation τ dM/dt + M = Meq with Meq = Ms ∫ tanh(H(t)/h) f_{H|R>Rc}(h) dh. The five parameters (µ, σ, ω, τ, Rc) are jointly fitted by minimizing the squared discrepancy between simulated and measured hysteresis loops, which is what allows the critical radius and grain statistics to be inferred from magnetic data alone.

What would settle it

Measure the actual grain size distributions of the three powders by electron microscopy with sufficient sampling, and compare the histograms to the MLP distributions predicted from the loop fits; if the inferred Rc or the shape parameters disagree with the imaging data, the inversion is not recovering the claimed microstructure. A cheaper test is to generate synthetic hysteresis loops from known MLP parameters and check whether least-squares optimization recovers those known parameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's claim is that the full hysteresis loop is a statistical fingerprint of the grain ensemble: from a single measured loop, the parameters (µ, σ, ω, τ, Rc) of a stochastic nucleation-growth model can be recovered by inverse optimization, and these parameters encode the grain size distribution, the critical radius for coercivity mechanisms, and the magnetization relaxation time. The paper reports that the resulting simulated loops reproduce the measured coercivity, slope, and saturation for raw, nitrogen-treated, and recalcined strontium hexaferrite, with inferred parameters that move in the directions expected from grain fragmentation and the structural memory effect.

Load-bearing premise

The whole inference stands on the assumption that five free parameters can be uniquely recovered from a single hysteresis loop and that the fitted distribution is the real grain size distribution; the paper fits the same loops it then explains and never checks against an independently measured grain size distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Hysteresis measurements could serve as a non-destructive, statistically representative alternative to electron microscopy for grain size analysis in ferrites.
The critical grain radius Rc, normally treated as a fixed material constant, could be estimated per sample from magnetic data and used to track how processing shifts the single-domain to multi-domain transition.
The fitted MLP parameters, especially the tail index ω, could provide a quantitative measure of the competition between nucleation and growth during heat treatment, including the suppression of anomalous grain growth.
The structural memory effect—where recalcination restores the ferrite phase while preserving outer particle morphology—could be read directly from hysteresis loops rather than from micrographs.
The same inversion framework could extend to other functional ceramics and to frequency-dependent loss measurements, since the model already contains an explicit relaxation time.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: the identifiability of the five parameters from a single loop is asserted rather than demonstrated; a synthetic test with known MLP parameters would show whether the least-squares fit can actually recover them.
Beyond the paper: a direct quantitative comparison between the predicted MLP distribution and a carefully sampled electron-microscopy histogram on the same powders would settle whether the inverted distribution is the true microstructure or merely a flexible curve that reproduces the loop.
Beyond the paper: because the model is fit to the same hysteresis loops it explains, model-comparison against simpler phenomenological hysteresis models is needed to show that the inferred grain-size parameters are not artifacts of overfitting.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: this paper proposes something genuinely new—a pipeline that fits a five-parameter grain-size distribution plus relaxation time directly to full hysteresis loops—but the forward model linking grain radius to coercivity is internally inverted, so the inferred distributions are not physically meaningful as written. The MLP distribution derivation is clean, and the Jacobian transform is correct, but that doesn't fix the mapping.

What the paper does well: the stochastic nucleation-growth model yielding the MLP distribution is nicely derived, with closed-form moments, and the idea of treating the critical radius as a fit parameter is clever. The inverse optimization framework is clearly described. If the forward map were correct, this would be a useful tool for magnetic materials characterization.

The main problem is Eq. 8. The text says Rc is the radius above which domain wall motion reduces coercivity, which implies H should be near H0 just above Rc and drop as R grows. The equation H = H0(1 - Rc/R) does the opposite: H(Rc+) ≈ 0 and H→H0 as R→∞. So larger grains get higher coercivity, which is opposite to standard hexaferrite behavior and to the paper's own description. Because f_H is derived from that equation via the Jacobian, all the fitted parameters (µ, σ, ω, Rc) are attached to a wrong physical relationship. The inferred mean grain sizes in Table 1 cannot be trusted.

The second issue is validation. The model is fit to the same loops it then 'predicts,' and there is no quantitative comparison against measured grain size distributions (the TEM in Fig. 3 is used only qualitatively). No error bars, no identifiability study—with five parameters from a single loop, uniqueness is a real concern. And the measurement frequency f in Eq. 17 is never stated, so τ is on shaky ground.

The reader's verdict is conditional; I'd go further. The sign error is load-bearing. A referee might help the authors fix the forward model (e.g., a relation that peaks near Rc and decays for larger grains) and re-do the inference with proper validation. As it stands, the main claim is not supported.

Who is this for? Anyone working on magnetic hysteresis inversion or ferrite process control would be interested in the approach, but they should read the equations carefully. It deserves peer review in the sense that a serious referee could redirect the work, but I would not accept it in anything close to this form.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a stochastic-dynamic framework to infer the latent grain size distribution of M-type hexaferrites from magnetic hysteresis loops. Grain radii are modeled with a Modified Lognormal Power-law (MLP) distribution generated by lognormally distributed initial radii and exponential growth durations; coercivity is mapped from radius via an inverse-linear Brown relation; a first-order relaxation ODE with a distributed coercivity equilibrium term produces rate-dependent hysteresis. The parameters (μ, σ, ω, τ, Rc) are fit by least squares to three experimental loops (raw, nitrogen-treated, and calcined SrFe12O19), and the inferred parameters are interpreted as microstructural descriptors. The paper claims this establishes hysteresis as a non-destructive statistical microstructural probe.

Significance. If the central inference claim were validated, the framework would be a valuable complement to microscopy, enabling ensemble-level grain statistics and critical-radius estimates from routine hysteresis measurements. The algebraic derivation of the MLP moments and the Jacobian transform are presented cleanly, and the hysteresis-loop fitting is well posed in principle. However, the validation currently stops at reproducing the fitted loops; there is no quantitative check against measured grain size distributions, no uncertainty or identifiability analysis, and the forward map in Eq. (8) is internally inverted relative to the physical description. These gaps are load-bearing for the paper's central claim.

major comments (3)

[§4.1, Eq. (8)] Eq. (8) sets H = H0(1 − Rc/R) for R > Rc. The text immediately above states that Rc is the radius above which domain-wall motion begins to reduce coercivity from the ideal single-domain value H0. That physical description requires H ≈ H0 just above Rc and a decrease as R grows; Eq. (8) instead gives H → 0 as R → Rc+ and H → H0 as R → ∞. The larger-grain/higher-coercivity trend is opposite both to the stated description and to the usual single-domain/multi-domain behavior for hexaferrites. Because f_H(h) in Eq. (12) is obtained from Eq. (8) by the Jacobian method, the fitted parameters (μ, σ, ω, Rc) are not connected to physical grain radii as claimed. The forward model must be corrected, and the inference rerun and revalidated, before the central claim can be assessed.
[§5, Fig. 5 and Table 1] The paper's only external check is a qualitative reference to TEM images from [8] (Fig. 3); the inferred MLP distribution is never compared quantitatively with a measured grain size distribution. The loop agreement shown in Fig. 5 is a least-squares fit to the same data used for optimization (Eq. 20), so it is not an independent prediction. Please provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., inferred CDF or histogram overlaid on measured grain radii from TEM/SEM, with a goodness-of-fit statistic) for at least one sample, and report the uncertainties on the inferred parameters.
[§5, Eqs. (17)–(20)] Five parameters (μ, σ, ω, τ, Rc) are estimated from a single hysteresis loop, but no identifiability or sensitivity analysis is given. In addition, the cycling frequency f in Eq. (17) is never specified for the experimental loops, and τ and f enter the solution only through the product τ f in Eq. (19); without f, the τ values in Table 1 are not identifiable. Please report f, provide confidence intervals or profile-likelihood/identifiability results, and demonstrate with synthetic-data experiments that the five parameters can be recovered uniquely.

minor comments (5)

[§4.1, Eq. (15)] E[H] is computed with the untruncated inverse moment E[1/R] from Eq. (14), while Eq. (16) defines the conditional distribution used in the magnetization model; the mean should be recomputed under the truncation R > Rc for consistency.
[§4.1] The inverse-linear form of Eq. (8) is attributed to Brown's relation, but ref. [7] (Brown 1959) concerns nucleation-field inequalities; please cite a specific source for this grain-size-dependent inverse-linear functional form.
[§5, Fig. 5] The plotted loops lack measurement conditions (frequency, temperature, maximum field) and any error or fitting-quality metric (e.g., R² or RMSE), so the claim that the model 'accurately recovers' the loops is not quantified.
[§2] Refs. [5,6] define the MLP distribution for stellar mass functions; the transfer of this distribution to ceramic grain growth should be justified more explicitly, beyond the analogy in Section 3.
[Fig. 3 caption] If the TEM micrograph is taken from ref. [8], a permissions/citation statement should be included; if it is an original micrograph, give the measurement conditions.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The loop agreement is a fit, not a prediction: the five model parameters, including Rc and the MLP grain-size parameters, are optimized against the same magnetization curves that are then displayed as 'predicted' loops, with no independent test of the inferred grain-size distribution.

fitted input called prediction [Section 5, Eq. (20) and Figure 5 discussion]
"The parameter estimation problem is formulated as an inverse model calibration: given empirical magnetization data {Hi, M(Hi)}n i=1, we solve for the parameter vector θ = (µ, σ, ω, τ, Rc) that minimizes the discrepancy between measured and predicted magnetization. The loss function is expressed as follows: L(θ) = Pn i=1 (M(Hi; θ) − M(Hi))2 ... Figure 5 compares the empirical hysteresis loops with theoretical predictions. The model accurately recovers coercivity, slope, and saturation in each case."

The five parameters (µ, σ, ω, τ, Rc) are selected by minimizing the squared error between the model and the very same hysteresis loops used to produce the 'predicted' curves. Agreement after such fitting is mathematically expected and cannot serve as independent validation. The paper then presents inferred microstructural descriptors (e.g., E[R], Rc, and the grain-size distribution encoded in µ, σ, ω) as if they were validated by the loop fit, but no comparison against measured grain-size statistics from imaging is provided beyond a qualitative citation to [8]. Thus the 'predictions' of the hysteresis loop reduce to a least-squares fit, and the inferred grain-size distribution remains an untested model output rather than an independently verified inference.

full rationale

The core derivation chain — MLP grain-size distribution, Brown's relation, Jacobian propagation to coercivity density, and first-order relaxation dynamics — is a self-contained forward model, so the mathematical derivation is not circular in the sense of Eq. X being defined as Eq. Y. However, the central claim of 'inferring' grain-size statistics from hysteresis is weakened by a fitted-input-as-prediction step: the parameters are optimized against the full loops and then the same loops are displayed as 'model predictions.' The agreement is therefore a fit quality measure, not an out-of-sample prediction. No independent validation against measured grain-size distributions or coercivity distributions is performed; the only external check is a qualitative reference to prior TEM imaging [8], which is also authored by the same group (Ataie et al.). That self-citation is not itself load-bearing for the model equations, but it is the sole empirical support for the microstructural interpretation. The internal inconsistency in Brown's relation noted by the skeptic (Eq. 8 predicts H → 0 as R → Rc+ and H → H0 for large R, opposite to the text's description) is a correctness concern, not a circularity concern. On balance, the paper is partially circular in its validation strategy but not by construction in its derivation; a score of 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on five fitted parameters plus a series of modeling assumptions (MLP form, Brown's relation, tanh switching, first-order relaxation, and the reliability of external data from [8]). No new physical entities are introduced, but the inference is only as strong as the identifiability of these parameters, which is not demonstrated.

free parameters (5)

μ (lognormal location) = 6.147, 5.039, 5.124
Fitted to hysteresis loops for the three samples; controls the typical grain radius scale.
σ (lognormal scale) = 0.339, 0.770, 1.381
Fitted to hysteresis loops; controls the spread of the grain size distribution.
ω (tail index) = 3.034, 3.321, 3.588
Fitted to hysteresis loops; governs the power-law tail and is interpreted as a nucleation/growth balance.
τ (relaxation time) = 0.534 s, 0.344 s, 0.838 s
Fitted to hysteresis loops; represents magnetization lag but is not physically meaningful without the unspecified field frequency.
Rc (critical grain radius) = 0.608 μm, 0.249 μm, 0.581 μm
Fitted to hysteresis loops; a key claimed novelty, but its identification is not tested for uniqueness.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Grain sizes in the studied hexaferrites follow the MLP distribution.
The MLP form is assumed a priori based on a stochastic nucleation-growth process, but its validity for these materials is not tested against measured grain size histograms (Section 3).
domain assumption Brown's relation H = H0(1 - Rc/R) describes coercivity of grains larger than Rc.
Adopted from the literature; no micromagnetic validation for these samples is provided (Section 4.1, Eq. 8).
ad hoc to paper Equilibrium magnetization is given by the integral of tanh(H/h) over the conditional coercivity distribution.
This switching function is introduced without derivation in Eq. 18; it is a modeling choice, not a consequence of the earlier equations.
domain assumption Magnetization dynamics follow a first-order relaxation with a single time constant τ.
Eq. 19 is a standard low-pass approximation, but the number of relaxation processes and their physical origin are not established.
domain assumption The experimental hysteresis data and imaging observations from reference [8] are accurate and representative.
The paper relies entirely on previously published experimental data, which is not included in the preprint.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inferring Grain Size Distributions from Magnetic Hysteresis in M-type Hexaferrites." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQJCCBO2

@misc{pith2026250612566,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inferring Grain Size Distributions from Magnetic Hysteresis in M-type Hexaferrites},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQJCCBO2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12566}
}

read the original abstract

We develop a stochastic-dynamic framework to infer latent grain size distribution from magnetic hysteresis data in M-type hexaferrite materials, offering an alternative to imaging-based characterization. A stochastic nucleation-growth process yields a Modified Lognormal Power-law grain size distribution. This is combined with Brown's relation to obtain a coercivity probability distribution, which is embedded within a dynamic magnetization model. A key feature is the joint estimation of microstructural parameters, including the critical grain radius, through inverse optimization of full hysteresis loops. Experimental validation on hydrothermally synthesized strontium hexaferrite subjected to nitrogen treatment and recalcination reveals interpretable trajectories of nucleation, growth, and structural memory encoded in the magnetic response.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[8]

Ataie, A., Ponton, C.B., Harris, I.R., Heat treatment of strontium hexaferrite powder in nitrogen, hydrogen and carbon atmospheres: a novel method of changing the magnetic properties, Journal of Materials Science, 31, 5521–5527, 1996

work page 1996
[1]

Cullity, B.D., Graham, C.D., Introduction to Magnetic Materials, John Wiley & Sons, 2011

work page 2011
[2]

Abbaschian, R., Abbaschian, L., Reed-Hill, R.E., Physical Metallurgy Principles , Cengage Learning Stamford, 2010

work page 2010
[3]

Pullar, R.C., Hexagonal ferrites: a review of the synthesis, properties and applications of hexaferrite ceramics, Progress in Materials Science, 57(7), 1191–1334, 2012

work page 2012
[4]

Molaei, M.J., Ataei, M., Ataie, A., Structural memory effects in M-type hexaferrite magnets, International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology , 2025, Early view, in press. 14

work page 2025
[5]

Basu, S., Jones, C.E., On the power-law tail in the mass function of protostellar conden- sations and stars., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 347(3), L47–L51, 2004

work page 2004
[6]

Basu, S., Gil, M., Auddy, S., The MLP distribution: a modified lognormal power-law model for the stellar initial mass function., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449(3), 2413–2420, 2015

work page 2015
[7]

Brown Jr, W.F., Micromagnetics, domains, and resonance, Journal of Applied Physics, 30(4), S62–S69, 1959

work page 1959

Show all 42 references

[9]

Teran, A.V ., Bill, A., Bergmann, R.B., Time-evolution of grain size distributions in ran- dom nucleation and growth crystallization processes,Physical Review B, 81(7), 075319, 2010

2010
[10]

Bergmann, R.B., Growth, Characterization and Electronic Applications of Si-based thin films, Research Signpost, 2002

2002
[11]

Bergmann, R.B., Shi, F.G., Queisser, H.J., Krinke, J., Formation of polycrystalline sil- icon with log-normal grain size distribution, Applied Surface Science , 123, 376–380, 1998

1998
[12]

Kumomi, H., Shi, F.G., Alternative origin of log-normal size distributions of crystallites in controlled solid-phase crystallization of amorphous Si thin films, Physical Review Letters, 82(13), 2717, 1999

1999
[13]

Bolyachkin, A.S., Komogortsev, S.V ., Power-law behavior of coercivity in nanocrys- talline magnetic alloys with grain-size distribution, Scripta Materialia , 152, 55–58, 2018

2018
[14]

Bance, S., Seebacher, B., Schrefl, T., Exl, L., Winklhofer, M., Hrkac, G., Zimanyi, G., Shoji, T., Yano, M., Sakuma, N., others, Grain-size dependent demagnetizing factors in permanent magnets, Journal of Applied Physics, 116(23), 2014

2014
[15]

Lee, W.K., Ilavsky, J., Particle size distribution in ferrofluid macro-clusters, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 330, 31–36, 2013

2013
[16]

Herzer, G., Grain size dependence of coercivity and permeability in nanocrystalline ferromagnets, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 26(5), 1397–1402, 1990

1990
[17]

Pisane, K.L., Despeaux, E.C., Seehra, M.S., Magnetic relaxation and correlating effec- tive magnetic moment with particle size distribution in maghemite nanoparticles, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 384, 148–154, 2015. 15

2015
[18]

Chakraverty, S., Bandyopadhyay, M., Coercivity of magnetic nanoparticles: a stochastic model, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 19(21), 216201, 2007

2007
[19]

Skomski, R., Balamurugan, B., Manchanda, P., Chipara, M., Sellmyer, D.J., Size depen- dence of nanoparticle magnetization, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics , 53(1), 1–7, 2016

2016
[20]

Mayergoyz, I.D., Mathematical Models of Hysteresis and Their Applications, Academic Press, 2003

2003
[21]

Bertotti, G., Hysteresis in Magnetism: For Physicists, Materials Scientists, and Engi- neers, Academic Press, 1998

1998
[22]

Yari, P., Chugh, V .K., Saha, R., Tonini, D., Rezaei, B., Mostufa, S., Xu, K., Wang, J.P., Wu, K., Static and dynamic magnetization models of magnetic nanoparticles: an appraisal, Physica Scripta, 98(8), 082002, 2023

2023
[23]

P ´al, L., Stochastic model of hysteresis, Physical Review E, 61(4), 3490, 2000

2000
[24]

Zidari ˇc, B., Miljavec, D., A new ferromagnetic hysteresis model for soft magnetic composite materials, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials , 323(1), 67–71, 2011

2011
[25]

Gilles, C., Bonville, P., Rakoto, H., Broto, J.M., Wong, K.K.W., Mann, S., Magnetic hysteresis and superantiferromagnetism in ferritin nanoparticles, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 241(2-3), 430–440, 2002

2002
[26]

Jiles, D.C., Atherton, D.L., Theory of ferromagnetic hysteresis, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 61(1-2), 48–60, 1986

1986
[27]

Jiles, D.C., Hysteresis models: non-linear magnetism on length scales from the atomistic to the macroscopic,Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 242, 116–124, 2002

2002
[28]

Dutz, S., Hergt, R., M ¨urbe, J., M ¨uller, R., Zeisberger, M., Andr¨a, W., T¨opfer, J., Belle- mann, M.E., Hysteresis losses of magnetic nanoparticle powders in the single domain size range, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 308(2), 305–312, 2007

2007
[29]

Actis, D.G., Medina, G.A.M., Vel ´asquez, A.A., Pereda, C., S ´anchez, L.M., Alvarez, V .A., Arboleda, D.M., Z ´elis, P.M., S ´anchez, F.H., Dipolar interactions among mag- netic dipoles of iron oxide particles dispersed in mili-size hydrogel beads, Journal of Magnetism and Ma...

2020
[30]

Zhang, R., Qian, M., Zhang, X., Qin, F., Wei, L., Xing, D., Cui, X., Sun, J., Geng, L., Peng, H., Magnetocaloric effect with low magnetic hysteresis loss in ferromagnetic Ni- Mn-Sb-Si alloys, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 428, 464–468, 2017

2017
[31]

Mahmood, S.H., Bsoul, I., Tuning the magnetic properties of M-type hexaferrites, Magnetic Oxides and Composites, 31, 49, 2018. 16

2018
[32]

Le Breton, J.M., Nachbaur, V ., Fitchorova, O., Hexaferrite Permanent Magnets and Applications, Modern Ferrites: Emerging Technologies and Applications , 2, 91–101, 2022

2022
[33]

Urbano-Pe ˜na, M.A., Salazar-Mu˜noz, V .E., Palomares-S´anchez, S.A., Compean-Garc´ıa, V .D., Betancourt, I., Gir´on, C.B., Ruiz, F., Optimization of magnetic properties: Investi- gating the interaction of synthesis temperature, particle size, and monodomain formation in bariu...

2024
[34]

Jing, P., Du, J., Wang, J., Wei, J., Pan, L., Li, J., Liu, Q., Width-controlled M-type hexagonal strontium ferrite (SrFe 12O19) nanoribbons with high saturation magnetiza- tion and superior coercivity synthesized by electrospinning, Scientific Reports , 5(1), 15089, 2015

2015
[35]

Luo, H., Rai, B.K., Mishra, S.R., Nguyen, V .V ., Liu, J.P., Physical and magnetic properties of highly aluminum doped strontium ferrite nanoparticles prepared by auto- combustion route, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 324(17), 2602–2608, 2012

2012
[36]

Goto, K., Ito, M., Sakurai, T., Studies on magnetic domains of small particles of barium ferrite by colloid-SEM method,Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 19(7), 1339, 1980

1980
[37]

Kitakami, O., Goto, K., Sakurai, T., A study of the magnetic domains of isolated fine particles of Ba ferrite, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 27(12R), 2274, 1988

1988
[38]

Rezlescu, L., Rezlescu, E., Popa, P.D., Rezlescu, N., Fine barium hexaferrite powder prepared by the crystallisation of glass, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 193(1-3), 288–290, 1999

1999
[39]

Porter, D.A., Easterling, K.E., Phase Transformations in Metals and Alloys (Revised Reprint), CRC Press, 2009

2009
[40]

Buschow, K.H.J., Handbook of Magnetic Materials, 15, Elsevier, 2003

2003
[41]

Singh, J.P., Chae, K.H., Srivastava, R.C., Caltun, O.F.,Ferrite Nanostructured Magnetic Materials: Technologies and Applications, Woodhead Publishing, 2023

2023
[42]

Fredriksson, H., ˚Akerlind, U., Solidification and Crystallization Processing in Metals and Alloys, John Wiley & Sons, 2012. 17

2012

Pith tools

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

[1] [8]

Ataie, A., Ponton, C.B., Harris, I.R., Heat treatment of strontium hexaferrite powder in nitrogen, hydrogen and carbon atmospheres: a novel method of changing the magnetic properties, Journal of Materials Science, 31, 5521–5527, 1996

work page 1996

[2] [1]

Cullity, B.D., Graham, C.D., Introduction to Magnetic Materials, John Wiley & Sons, 2011

work page 2011

[3] [2]

Abbaschian, R., Abbaschian, L., Reed-Hill, R.E., Physical Metallurgy Principles , Cengage Learning Stamford, 2010

work page 2010

[4] [3]

Pullar, R.C., Hexagonal ferrites: a review of the synthesis, properties and applications of hexaferrite ceramics, Progress in Materials Science, 57(7), 1191–1334, 2012

work page 2012

[5] [4]

Molaei, M.J., Ataei, M., Ataie, A., Structural memory effects in M-type hexaferrite magnets, International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology , 2025, Early view, in press. 14

work page 2025

[6] [5]

Basu, S., Jones, C.E., On the power-law tail in the mass function of protostellar conden- sations and stars., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 347(3), L47–L51, 2004

work page 2004

[7] [6]

Basu, S., Gil, M., Auddy, S., The MLP distribution: a modified lognormal power-law model for the stellar initial mass function., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449(3), 2413–2420, 2015

work page 2015

[8] [7]

Brown Jr, W.F., Micromagnetics, domains, and resonance, Journal of Applied Physics, 30(4), S62–S69, 1959

work page 1959