Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Effect of Magnetic Anisotropy on Magnetoelastic Waves in Ni/LiNbO3 Hybrid Device

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that SAW absorption in Ni/LiNbO3 hybrids is set by substrate-imprinted biaxial anisotropy plus dipolar interactions, and that uniaxial-only models miss the angular maps.

desk verdict Solid experimental evidence for biaxial anisotropy in Ni on LiNbO3, but the modeling overclaims the role of dipolar interactions. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03254 v1 pith:3YSVSQ22 submitted 2025-09-03 cond-mat.mes-hall

Minwoo Yu , Moojune Song , Minseok Kang , Mujin You , Yunyoung Hwang , Albert Min Gyu Park , Byong-Guk Park , Kab-Jin Kim
show 1 more author
Junho Suh
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords surfaceacousticwavesmagnetoelasticcouplingmagnon-phononmagneticanisotropybiaxialdipolarinteractionmagneto-opticalKerreffectNi/LiNbO3hybriddevice
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

This paper aims to establish that the angle-dependent absorption of surface acoustic waves by a nickel film on lithium niobate is set by a magnetic energy landscape with both uniaxial (twofold) and biaxial (fourfold) anisotropy, imprinted by the substrate, plus a long-range dipolar term. The authors measure SAW transmission as a function of magnetic field strength and angle on two devices with different SAW propagation directions, and they use magneto-optical Kerr effect (MOKE) coercivity maps to show that the easy-axis-to-hard-axis separation is 120° and 100°, not the 90° expected for pure uniaxial anisotropy. With an extended single-domain free energy, a magnetization-dynamics calculation, and an absorbed-power formula, the paper reproduces the measured absorption maps, while the uniaxial-only model does not. The practical stake is that substrate crystal orientation becomes a design knob for tuning magnetoelastic coupling in spin-acoustic hybrid devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the extended single-domain magnetic free-energy density $G = -H\cos(\varphi_h-\varphi_m)+B_{u1}\sin^2(\varphi_m-\varphi_1)+B_{u2}\sin^4(\varphi_m-\varphi_2)+\frac{A}{M_s}k^2+\frac{\mu_0 M_s}{2}\frac{1-e^{-kd}}{kd}$, which adds a biaxial $\sin^4$ term and a dipolar term to the usual Zeeman and uniaxial terms. Its role is to fix the equilibrium magnetization angle $\varphi_m$ by energy minimization; because magnetoelastic absorption strength depends on $\varphi_m$ relative to the SAW wavevector, the angle shifts this landscape produces under field rotation create the double-dip and field-angle features in the data. The companion machinery is the standard magnetization-dynamics equation (LLG), with absorbed power $P = \frac{\omega\mu_0}{2}\mathrm{Im}(\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{me}}^T\chi\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{me}})V$ converting the dynamic response into transmission maps, and the MOKE coercivity fit $H_c(\theta)=K_0+K_1\sin(2\theta+\varphi_1)+K_2\sin(4\theta+\varphi_2)$ providing the empirical evidence for twofold and fourfold symmetry.

What would settle it

Measure the spin-wave resonance field as a function of in-plane field angle on the same Ni films at the same microwave frequencies; its minima should fall at the easy-axis angles predicted by Eq. (3) with the Table I parameters (120° and 100° separations for the two devices). If the resonance-field map instead shows 90°-separated minima, or if re-fitting a uniaxial-only model reproduces the full SAW absorption maps, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the angular dependence of SAW absorption in Ni/LiNbO3 devices is governed by an energy landscape containing both uniaxial and biaxial in-plane anisotropy inherited from the LiNbO3 substrate, plus a long-range dipolar interaction. MOKE coercivity maps fit the form $H_c(\theta)=K_0+K_1\sin(2\theta+\varphi_1)+K_2\sin(4\theta+\varphi_2)$, with easy-axis-to-hard-axis separations of 120° and 100° in the two devices instead of the 90° expected for pure uniaxial anisotropy. Minimizing the extended free energy and integrating the magnetization-dynamics equation reproduces the absorption features for both X-axis and Y'-axis propagation, whereas the uniaxial-only calculation does not; the paper concludes that both biaxial anisotropy and dipolar interactions are essential.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two- and fourfold shapes of the coercivity measurements are a faithful fingerprint of the anisotropy energy used in the SAW calculation, even though the strengths of those anisotropy terms are fitted to the SAW data rather than derived from the MOKE curves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The optimum external-field angle for magnetoelastic absorption is set by the substrate crystal orientation, not by a fixed 45° rule.
  • Devices with SAW propagation along different LiNbO3 axes require different uniaxial and biaxial anisotropy parameters, and a uniaxial-only model fails to capture the absorption maps.
  • The dipolar interaction term, with its film-thickness factor, is part of the energy landscape needed to reproduce the measured field-angle dependence.
  • The observed twofold-plus-fourfold coercivity pattern can serve as a diagnostic for the anisotropy symmetry relevant to SAW-magnon coupling in a given device.
  • Choosing the LiNbO3 cut or engineering interfacial strain becomes a practical way to tune the operating field angle of spin-acoustic devices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not run: angle-resolved ferromagnetic resonance on the same Ni films should show resonance-field minima separated by the same 120° and 100° angles seen in the coercivity maps, giving a direct check of the equilibrium-energy assumption.
  • Because the dipolar term in Eq. (3) scales with film thickness through $(1-e^{-kd})/(kd)$, the model predicts that the SAW absorption angular map changes systematically with Ni thickness; fabricating films from 10 to 40 nm would test that prediction.
  • The fourfold anisotropy phase $\varphi_2$ is tied to the substrate crystal orientation, so rotating the LiNbO3 cut should rotate the absorption features by the corresponding angle; this is a direct consequence of the paper's strain mechanism but is not tested here.
  • If the strain-driven mechanism is generic, the same biaxial-plus-dipolar treatment may apply to other magnetostrictive films on piezoelectric substrates, since nothing in the model is specific to nickel's chemistry.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports SAW absorption measurements in Ni/LiNbO3 hybrid devices with two SAW propagation directions (along the LiNbO3 X axis and Y' axis), showing that the angular dependence of SAW-magnon coupling differs between the two devices. MOKE measurements reveal a combination of twofold and fourfold angular dependence of the coercivity, which the authors interpret as biaxial magnetic anisotropy. To explain the SAW absorption maps, the authors extend the Stoner-Wohlfarth model with uniaxial and biaxial anisotropy terms, exchange, and a dipolar interaction term, and compare LLG-based absorption calculations to the experimental maps. The central claim is that both biaxial anisotropy and dipolar interactions are essential to reproduce the observed SAW-magnon coupling behavior, and that the LiNbO3 crystal orientation controls the optimum field angle through substrate-induced anisotropy.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the work provides a concrete materials-engineering handle for SAW-magnon hybrid devices: substrate orientation and interface strain determine the anisotropy landscape, and therefore the optimal field direction for magnetoelastic coupling. The raw experimental observation of distinct angular absorption maps for devices on the X and Y' axes, plus the fourfold component in the MOKE coercivity, is a useful and apparently solid contribution. However, the theoretical support is weakened by the fact that all four anisotropy parameters are fitted to the same SAW data being explained, and the specific role of the dipolar term is not isolated. The manuscript also makes a mathematical claim (fourfold symmetry) that does not match the functional form used. With additional calculations and a clearer parameter-identification strategy, the work could become a convincing demonstration of substrate-controlled anisotropy in SAW-magnon devices.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (3) and Section VI] The claim that dipolar interactions are essential is not supported by the calculation as presented. The last term in Eq. (3), (mu0 Ms / 2)(1 - exp(-kd))/(kd), depends only on fixed material and wave-vector parameters and has no dependence on the magnetization angle phi_m or the polar angle theta for the in-plane configuration considered here. Such a constant cannot shift the equilibrium magnetization direction or shape the angular absorption maps, so the stated conclusion in Section VI that 'dipolar interactions are essential' does not follow from Eq. (3). The angularly dependent dipolar expression does appear in Appendix B, Eq. (B2), as sin^2(theta) cos^2(phi), but that expression is not equivalent to the term written in Eq. (3). The authors should reconcile the two forms and, crucially, show a calculation with biaxial anisotropy alone and the dipolar term switched off, so that the role of the dipolar term is actually isolated.
  2. [Section V and Table I] The anisotropy parameters Bu1, Bu2, phi1, and phi2 are selected to provide the 'best reproducibility of the experimental results' (Section V, Table I) using the same SAW absorption maps that are then shown as agreement with the model in Fig. 4. This circular fitting procedure weakens the evidential value of the comparison. The MOKE data independently support the existence of a biaxial symmetry component, but the specific magnitudes of Bu1 and Bu2 are not derived from the MOKE K1 and K2 values, so the model parameters are not independently constrained. The authors should either extract the anisotropy strengths from the MOKE measurements, or report fit residuals, parameter sensitivity, and a comparison of the fitted values with independently measured anisotropy fields, to demonstrate that the agreement is not simply a consequence of the number of free parameters.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (2) and Section V, Eq. (3)] The claimed correspondence between the fourfold MOKE component and the model anisotropy term is not mathematically sound. The term Bu2 sin^4(phi_m - phi2) in Eq. (3) has the Fourier expansion 3/8 - (1/2) cos[2(phi_m - phi2)] + (1/8) cos[4(phi_m - phi2)], so it is dominated by a twofold component and is not a pure fourfold term. This does not correspond to the sin(4 theta + phi2) term fitted in Eq. (2). Additionally, Hc(theta) is a coercivity, i.e., a switching field, not an equilibrium anisotropy energy curvature, so the angular form of Hc does not directly translate into the free-energy terms of Eq. (3) without further justification. The authors should clarify the exact relationship between the fitted coercivity function and the anisotropy energy, and either replace Bu2 sin^4 with a genuine fourfold term or explain why the twofold admixture is acceptable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III] The word 'Appedix' in the sentence 'as shown in the Appedix A' is a typo; it should read 'Appendix A.'
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B2)] The notation and physical content of Eq. (B2) differ from Eq. (3) for the dipolar term; the manuscript should use a single consistent expression for the dipolar energy throughout, or explicitly state the approximations leading from Eq. (B2) to Eq. (3).
  3. [Table I] Table I lists 'B1, B2' as magnetoelastic coupling constants with a value of 14 T, but the main text and Eq. (3) use Bu1 and Bu2 for anisotropy fields; this notation collision is confusing and should be fixed.
  4. [Section IV] The fitted values of K0, K1, K2, phi1, and phi2 for the MOKE coercivity curves are not reported in the text or in a table; providing these values would allow readers to judge the quality of the fits and the relative strength of the fourfold component.
  5. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B9)-(B12)] The second derivatives G11, G12, G22, and G3 are introduced without defining the notation G3 or explaining how these derivatives connect to the susceptibility components used in Eq. (5); a brief explanation would make the derivation self-contained.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

SAW absorption 'reproduction' is a parameter fit; dipolar-essential claim is not independently established.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V (Calculation), Appendix C / Table I]
    "The parameters used in the calculations are summarized in Appendix C. The selected values of Bu1, Bu2, φ1, and φ2 provide the best reproducibility of the experimental results and are in good agreement with previous reports [12, 22, 23]."

    The anisotropy parameters Bu1, Bu2, φ1, and φ2 are selected for 'best reproducibility' of the very SAW absorption maps that Section VI then claims the model 'successfully reproduces.' This makes the agreement in Fig. 4 a fit to the target data, not an independent prediction. The MOKE measurements independently show a fourfold component in Hc(θ), but the paper never converts the MOKE coefficients K1, K2 into the model parameters; the Bu values are tuned directly against the SAW data. Therefore the conclusion that biaxial anisotropy and dipolar interactions are 'essential' is not derived from first principles or from the independent MOKE channel—it is a fitted input renamed as a successful reproduction.

full rationale

The central validation of the model is circular in the sense that the model's free parameters are fitted to the same experimental absorption maps that the calculation is then said to predict. Section V explicitly says the selected values 'provide the best reproducibility of the experimental results,' so the agreement in Fig. 4(c),(f) is a measure of the flexibility of the ansatz, not an independent confirmation. The MOKE data do provide independent evidence for a fourfold-symmetric component in the coercivity (Eq. 2), which weakens the circularity for the biaxial part, but no quantitative link is established between the fitted Hc(θ) coefficients and the Bu1, Bu2 values used in the model; the latter are simply adjusted to the SAW data. Additional non-circular but load-bearing problems compound this: the dipolar term as written in Eq. (3) has no φ_m dependence and therefore cannot by itself shift the equilibrium magnetization angle or shape the angular absorption; the φ-dependent dipolar contribution appears only in the Appendix B second derivative G22 (Eq. B11), not in the main free energy. Also, the claim that dipolar interactions are 'essential' is never isolated, since no calculation with biaxial anisotropy alone and the dipolar term switched off is shown. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [12]) are used only for parameter-range consistency and are not load-bearing. Overall, the central 'successful reproduction' reduces by construction to a parameter fit, so partial circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative explanation of the SAW absorption relies on eight fitted anisotropy parameters (Bu1, Bu2, phi1, phi2 per device) and on assumed values for damping, magnetoelastic constants, and strains. The MOKE analysis adds another set of fit parameters whose values are not reported or connected quantitatively to the SAW model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Bu1, Device 1 = 0.76 mT
    Uniaxial anisotropy strength, selected for best fit to SAW absorption of Device 1 (Table I).
  • Bu2, Device 1 = 0.25 mT
    Biaxial anisotropy strength, fitted to SAW absorption of Device 1 (Table I).
  • phi1, Device 1 = 145 deg
    Easy axis of the uniaxial term, fitted to SAW absorption of Device 1 (Table I).
  • phi2, Device 1 = 55 deg
    Easy axis of the biaxial term, fitted to SAW absorption of Device 1 (Table I).
  • Bu1, Device 2 = 0.89 mT
    Uniaxial anisotropy strength, selected for best fit to SAW absorption of Device 2 (Table I).
  • Bu2, Device 2 = 0.38 mT
    Biaxial anisotropy strength, fitted to SAW absorption of Device 2 (Table I).
  • phi1, Device 2 = 60 deg
    Easy axis of the uniaxial term, fitted to SAW absorption of Device 2 (Table I).
  • phi2, Device 2 = -30 deg
    Easy axis of the biaxial term, fitted to SAW absorption of Device 2 (Table I).
  • MOKE coercivity fit parameters K0, K1, K2, phi1, phi2 = not reported numerically
    Used to show the fourfold symmetry in Eq. (2); numerical values are not given, so they cannot be quantitatively compared to the SAW model parameters.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Single-domain macrospin assumption: the magnetization of the 20-nm Ni film is described by a single angle phi_m.
    Section V minimizes the free energy of a single moment and uses one angle in Eq. (3); no domain structure or magnetization gradients are modeled.
  • domain assumption MOKE coercivity angular dependence (Eq. 2) reflects the same biaxial anisotropy energy that controls the SAW response (Eq. 3).
    The paper transfers the symmetry of Hc(theta) into the free-energy form without deriving a quantitative relation between coercivity and anisotropy constants; the actual Bu1, Bu2 are fitted separately.
  • domain assumption The dipolar (magnetostatic) energy for the spin wave in a film of thickness d is (mu0 Ms/2)[eta cos^2(theta)+(1-eta) sin^2(theta) cos^2(phi)] with eta=(1-e^{-kd})/(kd), as in Appendix B Eq. (B2).
    This term is taken from prior literature (Ref. 12) and is not benchmarked against a direct measurement in this paper.
  • domain assumption Values of Gilbert damping alpha=0.1, magnetoelastic constants B1=B2=14 T, and strains epsilon_xx=1e-6, epsilon_xy=1e-7 are appropriate for this Ni film.
    These are taken from previous reports or assumed (Table I); they are not measured in this work, though they mainly scale the absorption amplitude.
  • standard math The LLG equation and the magnetoelastic susceptibility formalism of Dreher et al. (Ref. 31) apply to this system.
    Standard theory, used without modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effect of Magnetic Anisotropy on Magnetoelastic Waves in Ni/LiNbO3 Hybrid Device." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3YSVSQ22

@misc{pith2026250903254,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effect of Magnetic Anisotropy on Magnetoelastic Waves in Ni/LiNbO3 Hybrid Device},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3YSVSQ22}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03254}
}
read the original abstract

We study the effects of magnetic anisotropy and crystalline axes in surface acoustic waves (SAWs) driven magnetic resonances of Ni/LiNbO3 hybrid devices. SAW absorption from the interaction with magnons in Ni displays a strong anisotropic dependence on the direction of the applied in-plane magnetic field. Magnetic anisotropy is further investigated by magneto-optical Kerr effect measurements to show both uniaxial and biaxial anisotropy components in Ni films on LiNbO3. By introducing a dipolar interaction term in addition to the anisotropies, we successfully explain the anisotropic SAW absorption in our devices. These findings show the importance of substrate-induced anisotropy and long-range dipolar effects in SAW-magnons hybrid devices and indicate future directions for optimizing these spin-acoustic devices through comprehensive anisotropy engineering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03254 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic top view of the device structure and experimental setup for magnetostrictive coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a),(b) Normalized SAW transmission as a function of the magnitude and orientation of the magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a),(b) Polar plots of coercivity extracted from hysteresis loops measured at various magnetic-field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a),(b) Experimental results for Device 1 and Device 2, respectively. (c),(f) Calculation results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a-f) Magnetic field dependence of SAW transmission for device 1; (g-l) corresponding measurements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kurizki and et al., Quantum technologies with hybrid systems, Proc

    G. Kurizki and et al., Quantum technologies with hybrid systems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 3866 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    M. V. Gustafsson and et al., Propagating phonons coupled to an artificial atom, Science 346, 207 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Chu and et al., Quantum acoustics with superconducting qubits, Science 358, 199 (2017)

    Y. Chu and et al., Quantum acoustics with superconducting qubits, Science 358, 199 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    K. J. Satzinger and et al., Quantum control of surface acoustic-wave phonons, Nature563, 661 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Lachance-Quirion and et al., Hybrid quantum systems based on magnonics, Appl

    D. Lachance-Quirion and et al., Hybrid quantum systems based on magnonics, Appl. Phys. Express 12, 070101 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    A. A. Clerk and et al., Hybrid quantum systems with circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nat. Phys. 16, 257 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Hioki and et al., Coherent oscillation between phonons and magnons, Commun

    T. Hioki and et al., Coherent oscillation between phonons and magnons, Commun. Phys. 5, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Xu and et al., Nonreciprocal surface acoustic wave propagation via magneto-rotation coupling, Sci

    M. Xu and et al., Nonreciprocal surface acoustic wave propagation via magneto-rotation coupling, Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz5012 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Sasaki and et al., Magnetization control by angular momentum transfer from surface acoustic wave to ferromagnetic spin moments, Nat

    R. Sasaki and et al., Magnetization control by angular momentum transfer from surface acoustic wave to ferromagnetic spin moments, Nat. Commun. 12, 1 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Liao and et al., Nonreciprocal magnetoacoustic waves with out-of-plane phononic angular momenta, Sci

    L. Liao and et al., Nonreciprocal magnetoacoustic waves with out-of-plane phononic angular momenta, Sci. Adv. 10, eadf2164 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Weiler and et al., Elastically driven ferromagnetic resonance in nickel thin films, Phys

    M. Weiler and et al., Elastically driven ferromagnetic resonance in nickel thin films, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 117601 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Hwang and et al., Strongly coupled spin waves and surface acoustic waves at room temperature, Phys

    Y. Hwang and et al., Strongly coupled spin waves and surface acoustic waves at room temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 057201 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    K¨ uß and et al., Nonreciprocal magnetoacoustic waves in dipolar-coupled ferromagnetic bilayers, Phys

    M. K¨ uß and et al., Nonreciprocal magnetoacoustic waves in dipolar-coupled ferromagnetic bilayers, Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 034037 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    K¨ uß and et al., Giant surface acoustic wave nonreciprocity with low magnetoacoustic insertion loss in cofeb/ru/cofeb synthetic antiferromagnets, ACS Appl

    M. K¨ uß and et al., Giant surface acoustic wave nonreciprocity with low magnetoacoustic insertion loss in cofeb/ru/cofeb synthetic antiferromagnets, ACS Appl. Electron. Mater.5, 4082 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Matsumoto and et al., Large surface acoustic wave nonreciprocity in synthetic antiferromagnets, Appl

    H. Matsumoto and et al., Large surface acoustic wave nonreciprocity in synthetic antiferromagnets, Appl. Phys. Express 15, 063001 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Matsumoto and et al., Acoustoelectric nonlocal spin-wave-power detector for studying magnon- phonon coupling, Phys

    H. Matsumoto and et al., Acoustoelectric nonlocal spin-wave-power detector for studying magnon- phonon coupling, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 054001 (2024). 12

    2024

  9. [17]

    Zhao and et al., Direct imaging of resonant phonon-magnon coupling, Phys

    C. Zhao and et al., Direct imaging of resonant phonon-magnon coupling, Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 014011 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Rovirola and et al., Study of the magnetoelastic effect in nickel and cobalt thin films at ghz range using x-ray microscopy, Phys

    M. Rovirola and et al., Study of the magnetoelastic effect in nickel and cobalt thin films at ghz range using x-ray microscopy, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023105 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    H. Komiyama and et al., Quantitative evaluation method for magnetoelastic coupling between surface acoustic waves and spin waves using electrical and optical measurements, arXiv preprint (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Kimel and et al., The 2022 magneto-optics roadmap, J

    A. Kimel and et al., The 2022 magneto-optics roadmap, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 55, 463001 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Kunz and et al., Coherent surface acoustic wave–spin wave interactions detected by micro-focused brillouin light scattering spectroscopy, Appl

    Y. Kunz and et al., Coherent surface acoustic wave–spin wave interactions detected by micro-focused brillouin light scattering spectroscopy, Appl. Phys. Lett. 124, 152404 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Hatanaka and et al., On-chip coherent transduction between magnons and acoustic phonons in cavity magnomechanics, Phys

    D. Hatanaka and et al., On-chip coherent transduction between magnons and acoustic phonons in cavity magnomechanics, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 034024 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Gao and et al., Magnetoacoustic waves controlled by in-plane uniaxial magnetic anisotropy, Appl

    R. Gao and et al., Magnetoacoustic waves controlled by in-plane uniaxial magnetic anisotropy, Appl. Phys. Lett. 121, 042404 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Ito and et al., Uniaxial in-plane magnetic anisotropy mechanism in ni, fe, and ni-fe alloy films deposited on single crystal y-cut 128° linbo3 using magnetron sputtering, J

    M. Ito and et al., Uniaxial in-plane magnetic anisotropy mechanism in ni, fe, and ni-fe alloy films deposited on single crystal y-cut 128° linbo3 using magnetron sputtering, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.564, 170177 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Hashimoto, Surface Acoustic Wave Devices in Telecommunications, Vol

    K.-y. Hashimoto, Surface Acoustic Wave Devices in Telecommunications, Vol. 116 (Springer, 2000)

    2000

  18. [26]

    Weser and et al., The complexity of surface acoustic wave fields used for microfluidic applications, Ultrasonics 106, 106119 (2020)

    R. Weser and et al., The complexity of surface acoustic wave fields used for microfluidic applications, Ultrasonics 106, 106119 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Yamada and et al., Effect of li/nb ratio on the saw velocity of 128 °y–x linbo3 wafers, Jpn

    K. Yamada and et al., Effect of li/nb ratio on the saw velocity of 128 °y–x linbo3 wafers, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 26, S2 (1987)

    1987

  20. [28]

    Hubert and R

    A. Hubert and R. Sch ¨afer, Magnetic domains: the analysis of magnetic microstructures (Springer, 1998)

    1998

  21. [29]

    Landau and E

    L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, On the theory of the dispersion of magnetic permeability in ferromagnetic bodies, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion 8, 101 (1935)

    1935

  22. [30]

    T. L. Gilbert, A phenomenological theory of damping in ferromagnetic materials, IEEE Trans. Magn. 40, 3443 (2004)

    2004

  23. [31]

    Dreher and et al., Surface acoustic wave driven ferromagnetic resonance in nickel thin films: Theory and experiment, Phys

    L. Dreher and et al., Surface acoustic wave driven ferromagnetic resonance in nickel thin films: Theory and experiment, Phys. Rev. B86, 134415 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Tateno and Y

    S. Tateno and Y. Nozaki, Highly nonreciprocal spin waves excited by magnetoelastic coupling in a ni/si bilayer, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 034027 (2020). 13

    2020

  25. [33]

    Gao and et al., Acoustically driven spin wave resonance in ni/128° y-cut linbo3 hybrid devices with the beam steering effect, Appl

    R. Gao and et al., Acoustically driven spin wave resonance in ni/128° y-cut linbo3 hybrid devices with the beam steering effect, Appl. Phys. Lett. 123, 232402 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Kawada and et al., Spin current generation by acousto-electric evanescent wave, arXiv preprint (2024)

    T. Kawada and et al., Spin current generation by acousto-electric evanescent wave, arXiv preprint (2024). FIGURES Port 2 VNA Bragg Reflector IDT Ni film k H 𝜑ℎ 800 μm × 10−2 Y’ axis // k X axis Y’ axis X axis // k Port 1 Frequency (GHz) 0.9885 0.9895 0.9905 0.91126 0.91226 0.9...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.