Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Magnetic ordering of the martensite phase in Ni-Co-Mn-Sn-based ferromagnetic shape memory alloys

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For one Ni-Co-Mn-Sn alloy, the low-temperature martensite is a long-range antiferromagnet, and the nanoclusters seen by SANS are structural, not spin clusters.

desk verdict The SANS reinterpretation is the real contribution; the long-range AF claim is asserted beyond what the magnetometry can prove. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08860 v2 pith:S6256GB7 submitted 2019-08-23 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Sudip Kumar Sarkar , Sarita Ahlawat , S. D. Kaushik , P. D. Babu , Debasis Sen , Dirk Honecker , Aniruddha Biswas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords ferromagneticshapememoryalloysNi-Mn-SnHeuslermartensiteantiferromagnetismspinglasssuperparamagnetismsmall-angleneutronscatteringACsusceptibility
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 addresses a long-standing dispute about the magnetic ground state of the low-temperature martensite phase in Co-substituted Ni-Mn-Sn shape-memory alloys. Using DC magnetization, frequency-dependent AC susceptibility, and small-angle neutron scattering, it concludes that Ni45Co5Mn38Sn12 is a long-range antiferromagnet below about 180 K, not a spin glass or superparamagnet. For the neighboring composition Ni44Co6Mn40Sn10, the same analysis gives a superspin-glass state at low temperature, contradicting an earlier superparamagnetism assignment. The paper also argues that the nanometre-scale clusters visible in SANS are structural leftovers of untransformed austenite, not magnetic spin clusters, since they grow with temperature and persist across the magnetic transitions. If correct, this would settle how similar magnetization and SANS data should be interpreted across the Ni-Mn-Sn family.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing evidence is the frequency-dependent AC-susceptibility peak combined with the low-field virgin magnetization isotherms. The AC peak is analysed through four standard dynamical models, the Mydosh frequency shift, critical slowing down, Vogel-Fulcher, and Neel-Arrhenius, whose fitted parameters are compared with canonical ranges for spin glass, cluster glass, and superparamagnetism; the unphysical fitted values in the first alloy and the canonical superspin-glass values in the second decide the classification. In parallel, the metamagnetic jump in the virgin M-H loops below 180 K identifies the antiferromagnetic ground state directly. The SANS analysis uses a spherical form-factor model with a log-normal size distribution under the local monodisperse approximation, with the correlation peak and its temperature evolution used to characterise the nanoclusters; the distinction between magnetic and structural origin rests on the temperature dependence of cluster size and volume fraction rather than on separating nuclear and magnetic scattering.

What would settle it

Run small-angle neutron scattering with polarization analysis, or with an applied magnetic field, on Ni45Co5Mn38Sn12 across Tf and TCA: if the correlation peak near q about 0.05 inverse angstroms has no magnetic scattering component and survives into the paramagnetic austenite, the structural assignment is confirmed; if the magnetic scattering tracks the cluster peak or disappears at the magnetic transitions, the claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the low-temperature martensite in Ni45Co5Mn38Sn12 carries long-range antiferromagnetic order, established by a metamagnetic transition in the virgin magnetization isotherms below 180 K and by AC-susceptibility dynamics whose fitted parameters (Mydosh shift of 0.0017, critical-slowing-down exponent of 249.7, and microscopic attempt times near $10^{-43}$ to $10^{-99}$ s) fall far outside the canonical ranges for spin glasses and superparamagnets. On this basis the paper rules out both spin-glass and superparamagnetic ground states for this composition. For Ni44Co6Mn40Sn10, the same battery of tests yields parameters consistent with a canonical superspin glass, so the earlier superparamagnetism interpretation is replaced by superspin-glass freezing. The SANS correlation peak near q about 0.05 inverse angstroms is assigned to nanometre-scale structural clusters, most plausibly untransformed austenite, rather than to magnetic spin clusters, because the clusters grow from about 3 nm at 30 K to 11 nm at 300 K and survive above the freezing and Curie temperatures.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that the SANS-detected nanoclusters are structural rather than magnetic rests on the premise that their growth with temperature and persistence across the magnetic transitions are enough to prove they are not magnetic; the experiment did not separately measure nuclear and magnetic scattering, so a hypothetical magnetic cluster population that also grew and persisted would not be ruled out.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In Ni45Co5Mn38Sn12, the martensite phase is antiferromagnetic at low temperature; the ZFC/FC bifurcation and the 165 K peak in the ZFC curve are not evidence for spin-glass or superparamagnetic freezing.
  • The nanometre-sized clusters detected by SANS in these alloys should not automatically be taken as magnetic spin clusters; their growth from about 3 nm to about 11 nm with rising temperature and their persistence above Tf and TCA point to untransformed austenite.
  • Ni44Co6Mn40Sn10 has a superspin-glass ground state at low temperature rather than the superparamagnetic state assigned in an earlier SANS-based study.
  • The antiferromagnetic-versus-superspin-glass difference between the two compositions tracks the electron-per-atom ratio e/a, connecting magnetic ground state to composition in the Co-doped Ni-Mn-Sn system.
  • Combining AC susceptibility with SANS resolves ambiguous low-temperature magnetism in ferromagnetic shape-memory alloys where magnetization alone cannot distinguish antiferromagnetic order from cluster freezing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the structural-cluster interpretation holds generally, earlier SANS-only spin-cluster assignments in other Ni-Mn-based shape-memory alloys would need re-examination with AC-susceptibility or polarized-neutron checks before being accepted.
  • A direct test would be field-dependent or polarized SANS: if the correlation peak survives with unchanged intensity in the non-magnetic nuclear channel and disappears from the magnetic channel, the structural origin is confirmed; this is an extension the paper did not perform.
  • The observed coarsening of the nanoclusters with temperature, with large clusters growing at the expense of small ones, resembles Ostwald ripening and could be used as a probe of local martensitic-transformation kinetics through thermal cycling.
  • Compositional tuning of e/a may offer a practical route to select between antiferromagnetic and superspin-glass ground states in this alloy family, a consequence only implicit in the paper's comparison.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the low-temperature magnetic ground state of two Co-substituted Ni-Mn-Sn ferromagnetic shape memory alloys, Ni45Co5Mn38Sn12 and Ni44Co6Mn40Sn10, using DC magnetization, AC susceptibility, and small-angle neutron scattering (SANS), with supporting structural characterization by neutron diffraction and TEM. The central claims are: (i) the martensite phase of Ni45Co5Mn38Sn12 exhibits long-range antiferromagnetic (AF) order, ruling out spin-glass (SG) and superparamagnetic (SPM) behavior; (ii) Ni44Co6Mn40Sn10 instead shows a superspin-glass (SSG) ground state, contrary to an earlier SPM interpretation; and (iii) the nanometre-sized clusters detected by SANS in Ni45Co5Mn38Sn12 are structural (likely untransformed austenite) rather than magnetic, because they grow with temperature and persist beyond the magnetic transitions. The evidence for (i) includes metamagnetic-like S-shaped virgin M-H curves below 180 K, non-collapse of M vs H/T curves, a very small Mydosh parameter, unphysical parameters from SG/SPM fits, and the absence of expected SG/SPM signatures.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper would resolve conflicting reports on the magnetic ordering in a technically important family of magnetic shape-memory alloys, with implications for understanding exchange bias, magnetocaloric effects, and the microscopic origin of SANS-observed nanoclusters. The study combines multiple complementary techniques and explicitly tests competing models (SG, SPM, AF) rather than assuming one. The systematic AC-susceptibility analysis, including Mydosh, critical slowing-down, Vogel-Fulcher, and Néel-Arrhenius fits, is a useful template for classifying low-temperature magnetic states in martensitic Heusler alloys. The SANS analysis with quantitative size distributions and volume-fraction evolution is also careful and reproducible. However, the strength of the claim of long-range AF order and the structural assignment of the SANS clusters exceed what the presented data can unambiguously support, as detailed below.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1.4, Fig. 6 inset] The Arrott plot shown in the inset of Fig. 6 exhibits a positive intercept of the extrapolated high-field M² vs H/M curves, which the authors interpret as evidence of spontaneous magnetization. This is difficult to reconcile with a purely antiferromagnetic ground state, and the paper does not explain how a spontaneous moment coexists with the claimed long-range AF order in Ni45Co5Mn38Sn12. The authors mention a weak ferromagnetic contribution at higher temperatures (§3.1.4, around 225 K), but the magnitude and temperature evolution of this FM component in the AF state are not quantified or separated from the AF response. This ambiguity weakens the unambiguous assignment of a pure AF ground state and should be addressed, for example by analyzing the field dependence of the metamagnetic transition and the high-field slope of the Arrott plot.
  2. [§3.1.3] The neutron diffraction experiment performed at 4 K is used only for structural Le-Bail refinement of the martensite phase; no magnetic Bragg peaks, magnetic symmetry analysis, or comparison of 4 K and 300 K patterns is reported. For a long-range antiferromagnet, additional magnetic reflections or distinct intensity changes should be visible in the neutron diffraction data. Without this direct evidence, the claim of 'long-range AF order' in Ni45Co5Mn38Sn12 is inferred solely from magnetometry and AC susceptibility, which can mimic AF behavior in phase-separated or cluster-glass systems. The authors should either analyze the existing 4 K neutron data for magnetic scattering or explicitly soften the conclusion to 'AF-like correlations' or 'a metamagnetic ground state consistent with short-range or clustered AF order.'
  3. [§4, SANS discussion] The assignment of the SANS-detected nanoclusters to structural (untransformed austenite) rather than magnetic origin rests almost entirely on the observation that they grow with temperature and persist above Tf and TCA. However, the SANS data were collected in zero field and the total scattering cross-section was modeled without separating nuclear and magnetic contributions. The authors' premise, stated in §4 as 'If the clusters are of magnetic origin, they should have shown some significant changes across any of the magnetic transition,' is not a necessary consequence: magnetic clusters can persist and even grow if their size is governed by chemical or structural chemical ordering, or if inter-cluster interactions change with temperature. To robustly support the structural interpretation, the authors should perform polarized SANS or measure in a saturating magnetic field to isolate the magnetic scattering, or at least explicitly discuss why the temperature evolution alone is conclusive.
  4. [§3.2, Table 3] For Ni44Co6Mn40Sn10, the conclusion of an SSG ground state is based on AC-susceptibility parameters (Φ=0.027, zν=10.7, τ0=6.3×10⁻¹³ s) that fall in the expected SSG range. However, the low-field M-H data in Fig. 11(b) show weak S-shaped curves at 5, 20, and 40 K, which the authors describe as 'a weak AF order in this temperature range,' and the text states that above 40 K a FM behavior appears. The coexistence of weak AF order, a spontaneous magnetization (from the Arrott plot in Fig. 12 inset), and SSG dynamics in the same temperature range is not self-evidently consistent, and the paper does not explain how these observations coexist. Since the paper explicitly claims SSG as the ground state, the relationship between the weak AF-like features and the freezing transition should be clarified, or the claim should be qualified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says 'provide a clear evidence' and 'rule out SPM and SG orders' for Ni45Co5Mn38Sn12, but the evidence is indirect; rephrasing to 'consistent with AF order' or 'strong evidence against SPM and SG' would better match the experimental support.
  2. [Equation (6)] The displayed equation for the SANS intensity contains corrupted characters ('drrqSrVrNrqPnqI pt') and is difficult to read; the authors should typeset it properly and define all symbols consistently.
  3. [Table 3 / text] The table is referred to as both 'Table 3' and 'Table III' in the text; please use a consistent numbering style throughout.
  4. [§3.1.4, Fig. 7] The caption of Fig. 7(b) uses both TP and Tf inconsistently; the variables should be defined clearly, especially because the text around equations (2)-(4) uses Tf for the zero-frequency freezing temperature while the fits use TP.
  5. [References] Some references are incomplete or inconsistent (e.g., Ref. [12] lists only an incomplete author list, and Refs. [44] and [60] appear with irregular formatting); the authors should proofread the reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the AF/SSG conclusions are drawn from measured magnetization, AC-susceptibility model fits, and SANS temperature trends, with no prediction reducing to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the AF ground state for Ni45Co5Mn38Sn12 is concluded from measured low-field M-H metamagnetic transitions, non-collapse of M versus H/T isotherms, and frequency-dependent AC-susceptibility fits whose Mydosh, critical-slowing-down, Vogel-Fulcher and Neel-Arrhenius parameters are compared with literature ranges and found incompatible with SG/SPM. Those are falsification tests applied to fitted outputs, not inputs restated as predictions. The SANS cluster sizes and volume fractions are extracted by fitting the measured scattering cross-section, and the structural (untransformed-austenite) interpretation is an inference from growth with temperature and persistence above Tf, TCA, and As, not an identity imposed by the fitting model. The paper itself flags the inferential character of this assignment in Sec. 4 ('Clearly it is difficult to attribute their origin to magnetic nature from the evidence that is presented so far. In all likelihood, they are of structural nature'), which is a stated limitation rather than a circular reduction. The only self-citations, refs. [66-67], support the peripheral e/a-versus-MT-temperature relation and do not carry the magnetic-order claims. The skeptic's objection that the 4 K neutron diffraction was not used to index magnetic Bragg peaks, and that the positive Arrott intercept suggests spontaneous magnetization, concerns the strength of the evidence, not whether any prediction is equivalent to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The load-bearing assumptions are the standard SPM/SG diagnostic criteria, the AF-FM transition interpretation, and the inference from temperature dependence that SANS clusters are structural.

free parameters (3)
  • SANS cluster radii (log-normal median and polydispersity, regions II and III) = 3-4 nm and 11-13 nm across 30-300 K
    Fitted per temperature with eqs. (6)-(8); their growth with temperature is the main evidence that the clusters are structural.
  • SANS contrast factor Δρ and number density nt = not reported; kept constant in fits
    Fixed inputs to eq. (6) that set absolute intensity and volume fraction; no independent calibration is provided.
  • AC susceptibility spin-dynamics parameters (τ0, zν, Ea/KB, T0, Φ) = e.g., Φ=0.0017, τ0=8.34e-43 s, zν=249.7 for alloy 1; Φ=0.027, τ0=6.3e-13 s, zν=10.7 for alloy 2
    Fitted to frequency-dependent χ'(T) peaks; used to reject SG/SPM in alloy 1 and identify SSG in alloy 2.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Local monodisperse approximation with spherical form factors and log-normal size distribution describes the SANS data.
    Invoked in §3.1.5 (eqs. 6-8) to extract cluster sizes; assumes dilute, non-interacting, isotropic scatterers.
  • domain assumption A metamagnetic jump in the virgin low-field M-H curve is a signature of field-induced antiferromagnetic-to-ferromagnetic transition.
    Used in §3.1.4 and Fig. 5(d) to assign AF ground state; no magnetic neutron diffraction was performed.
  • domain assumption Superparamagnetism requires collapse of M vs H/T isotherms above the blocking temperature and sigmoidal M-H curves.
    Standard SPM diagnostic applied in §3.1.4 (Fig. 6) and §3.2 (Fig. 12) to rule out SPM.
  • domain assumption Spin-glass and SPM models (CSD, Vogel-Fulcher, Neel-Arrhenius) should give physically reasonable parameters, e.g., 10^-13 to 10^-7 s for τ0 and 2 to 10 for zν.
    Central to rejecting SG in §3.1.4; unphysical fitted values (τ0 ≈ 10^-46 to 10^-99 s, zν ≈ 250) are taken as disqualifying.
  • domain assumption Magnetic spin clusters should shrink with increasing temperature and disappear above the magnetic ordering temperature.
    Stated in §4; it is the logical bridge from the SANS temperature evolution to the structural-cluster conclusion.
  • domain assumption The prepared Ni44Co6Mn40Sn10 alloy matches Bhatti et al.'s sample because martensitic transformation temperatures are close.
    Used in §3.2 to justify a head-to-head comparison with the earlier SPM report; EDS composition differs slightly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic ordering of the martensite phase in Ni-Co-Mn-Sn-based ferromagnetic shape memory alloys." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S6256GB7

@misc{pith2026190808860,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic ordering of the martensite phase in Ni-Co-Mn-Sn-based ferromagnetic shape memory alloys},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S6256GB7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08860}
}
read the original abstract

The magnetic state of low temperature martensite phase in Co-substituted Ni-Mn-Sn-based ferromagnetic shape memory alloys (FSMAs) has been investigated, in view of numerous conflicting reports of occurrences of spin glass (SG), superparamagnetism (SPM) or long range anti-ferromagnetic (AF) ordering. Combination of dc magnetization, ac susceptibility and small angle neutron scattering (SANS) studies provide a clear evidence for AF order in martensitic phase of Ni45Co5Mn38Sn12 alloy and rule out SPM and SG orders. Identical studies on another alloy of close composition of Ni44Co6Mn40Sn10 point to presence of SG order in martensitic phase and absence of SPM behavior, contrary to earlier report. SANS results do show presence of nanometre-sized clusters but they are found to grow in size from 3 nm at 30 K to 11 nm at 300 K, and do not correlate with magnetism in these alloys.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Karaca H E, Karaman I, Basaran B, Ren Y, Chumlyakov Y I and Maier H J 2009 Adv. Funct. Mater. 19 983

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Manosa L, Gonzalez-Alonso D, Planes A, Bonnot E, Barrio M, Tamarit J L, Aksoy S and Acet M 2010 Nat. Mater. 9 478

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Krenke T, Duman E, Acet M, Wassermann E F, Moya X, Manosa L and Planes A 2005 Nat. Mater. 4 450

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Kainuma R, Imano Y, Ito W, Sutou Y, Morito H, Okamoto S, Kitakami O, Oikawa K, Fujita A, Kanomata T and Ishida K 2006 Nature 439 957. 19

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Energy Mater

    Srivastava V, Song Y, Bhatti K P and James R D 2011 Adv. Energy Mater. 1 97

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Han Z D, Wang D H, Zhang C L, Tang S L, Gu B X and Du Y W 2006 Appl. Phys. Lett. 89 182507

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Koyama K, Okada H, Watanabe K, Kanomata T, Kainuma R, Ito W, Oikawa K and Ishida K 2006 Appl. Phys. Lett. 89 182510

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Yu S Y, Liu Z H, Liu G D, Chen J L, Cao Z X, Wu G H, Zhang B and Zhang X X, 2006 Appl. Phys. Lett. 89 162503

    work page 2006

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Kainuma R, Imano Y, Ito W, Morito H, Sutou Y, Oikawa K, Fujita A, Ishida K, Okamoto S, Kitakami O and Kanomata T 2006 Appl. Phys. Lett. 88 192513

    2006

  2. [10]

    Yu S Y, Ma L, Li G D, Liu Z H, Chen J L, Cao Z X, Wu G H, Zhang B and Zhang X X 2007 Appl. Phys. Lett. 90 242501

    2007

  3. [11]

    Alloys Compd

    Umetsu R Y, Ito K, Ito W, Koyama K, Kanomata T, Ishida K and Kainuma R 2011 J. Alloys Compd. 5 1389

    2011

  4. [12]

    Phys.: Condens

    Siruguri V, Babu P D, Kaushik S D, Biswas A, Sarkar S K, Krishnan M and Chaddah P 2012 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 49 496011

    2012

  5. [13]

    Cong D Y, Roth S and Schultz L 2012 Acta Mater. 60 5335

    2012

  6. [14]

    Wang Y D, Huang E W, Ren Y, Nie Z H, Wang G, Liu Y D, Deng J N, Choo H, Liaw P K, Brown D E and Zuo L 2008 Acta Mater. 56 913

    2008

  7. [15]

    Srivastava V, Chen X and James R D 2010 Appl. Phys. Lett. 97 014101

    2010

  8. [16]

    Aksoy S, Acet M, Deen P P, Manosa L and Planes A 2009 Phys. Rev. B 79 212401

    2009

  9. [17]

    Phys.: Condens

    Planes A, Manosa L and Acet M 2009 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 21 233201

    2009

  10. [19]

    Chatterjee S, Giri S, De S K and Majumdar S 2009 Phys. Rev. B 79 092410

    2009

  11. [20]

    Singh N, Borgohain B, Srivastava A K, Dhar A and Singh H K 2016 Appl. Phys. A 122 237

    2016

  12. [21]

    Tian F, Cao K, Zhang Y, Zeng Y, Zhang R, Chang T, Zhou C, Xu M, Song X and Yang S 2016 Sci. Rep. 6 30801

    2016

  13. [23]

    Phys.: Condens

    Umetsu R Y, Fujita A, Ito W, Kanomata T and Kainuma R 2011 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 23 326001. 20

    2011

  14. [24]

    Srivastava S K, Srivastava V K, Varga L K, Khovaylo V V, Kainuma R, Nagasako M and Chatterjee R 2011 J. Appl. Phys. 109 083915

    2011

  15. [25]

    Liao P, Jing C, Wang X L, Yang Y J, Zheng D, Li Z, Kang B J, Deng D M, Cao S X, Zhang J C and Lu B 2014 Appl. Phys. Lett. 104 92410

    2014

  16. [26]

    Agarwal S, Banerjee S and Mukhopadhyay P K 2013 J. Appl. Phys. 114 133904

    2013

  17. [27]

    Cong D Y, Roth S, Liu J, Luo Q, Potschke M, Hurrich C and Schultz L 2010 Appl. Phys. Lett. 96 112504

    2010

  18. [28]

    Perez-Landazabal J I, Recarte V, Sanchez-Alarcos V, Gomez-Polo C and Cesari E 2013 Appl. Phys. Lett. 102 101908

    2013

  19. [29]

    Bhatti K P, El-Khatib S, Srivastava V, James R D and Leighton C 2012 Phys. Rev. B 85 134450

    2012

  20. [30]

    Phys.: Condens

    Kumar D 2014 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 26 276001

    2014

  21. [31]

    Binder K and Young A P 1986 Rev. Mod. Phys. 58 801

    1986

  22. [32]

    Mydosh J A 1993 Spin Glasses: An Experimental Introduction (London: Taylor and Francis)

    1993

  23. [33]

    Jing C, Yang Y, Yu D, Li Z, Wang X, Kang B, Cao S, Zhang J, Zhu J and Lu B 2014 Adv. Mat. Res. 875 272

    2014

  24. [34]

    Krenke T, Acet M, Wassermann E F, Moya X, Manosa L and Planes A 2005 Phys. Rev. B 72 014412

    2005

  25. [35]

    Rev B 73 174413

    Krenke T, Acet M, Wassermann E F, Moya X, Manosa L and Planes A 2006 Phys. Rev B 73 174413

    2006

  26. [36]

    Wang B M, Liu Y, Ren P, Xia B, Ruan K B, Yi J B, Ding J, Li X G and Wang L 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 077203

    2011

  27. [37]

    Cong D Y, Roth S, Potschke M, Hurrich C and Schultz L 2010 Appl. Phys. Lett. 97 021908

    2010

  28. [38]

    Nogues J and Schuller I K 1999 J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 192 203–232

    1999

  29. [39]

    Nowak U, Usadel K D, Keller J, Miltenyi P and Guntherodt G 2002 Phys. Rev. B 66 014430

    2002

  30. [40]

    Alloys Compd

    Venkateswarlu B, Krishnan R H, Chelvane J A, Babu P D and Kumar N H 2019 J. Alloys Compd. 777 373-381

    2019

  31. [41]

    Yasin S M, Saha R, Srinivas V, Kasiviswanathan S and Nigam A K 2016 J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 418 158–162

    2016

  32. [42]

    Banerjee S K 1964 Phys. Lett. 12 16–17. 21

    1964

  33. [43]

    Sahoo R, Nayak A K, Suresh K G and Nigam A K 2011 J. Appl. Phys. 109 12390

    2011

  34. [44]

    Phys.: Condens

    Bhatti I N, Rawat R, Banerjee A and Pramanik A K 2014 J. Phys.: Condens. Mater. 27 016005

    2014

  35. [45]

    Li M M, Shen J L, Wang X, Ma L, Li G K, Zhen C M, Hou D L and Wang M 2018 Intermetallics 96 13–17

    2018

  36. [46]

    Goya G F, Berquo T S, Fonseca F C and Morales M P 2003 J. Appl. Phys. 94 3520

    2003

  37. [47]

    Ma L, Wang W H, Lu J B, Li J Q, Zhen C M, Hou D L and Wu G H 2011 Appl. Phys. Lett. 99 182507

    2011

  38. [48]

    Thakur M, Patra M, Majumdar S and Giri S 2009 J. Appl. Phys. 105 073905

    2009

  39. [49]

    Malinowski A, Bezusyy V L, Minikayev R, Dziawa P, Syryanyy Y and Sawicki M 2011 Phys. Rev. B 84 024409

    2011

  40. [50]

    Mulder C A M, Duyneveldt A J V and Mydosh J A 1981 Phys. Rev. B 23 1384–1396

    1981

  41. [51]

    Dormann J L, Bessais L and Fiorani D 1988 J. Phys. C 21 2015

    1988

  42. [52]

    Bedanta S and Kleemann W 2009 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 42 013001

    2009

  43. [53]

    Parker D, Ladieu F, Vincent E, Meriguet G, Dubois E, Dupuis V and Perzynski R 2005 J. Appl. Phys. 97 10A502

    2005

  44. [54]

    Neel L 1949 Ann. Geophys. 5 99

    1949

  45. [55]

    W F 1963 Phys

    Brown Jr. W F 1963 Phys. Rev. 130 1677

    1963

  46. [56]

    Blundell S 2001 Magnetism in Condensed Matter, Oxford University Press

    2001

  47. [57]

    Pedersen J 1994 J. Appl. Cryst. 27 595-608

    1994

  48. [58]

    Guinier G F A, Walker B C and Yudowith L K 1955 Small Angle Scattering of X - rays, Wiley, New York

    1955

  49. [59]

    Aitchison J 1957 The Lognormal Distribution, Cambridge University Press

    1957

  50. [60]

    Weissmueller J, Michels A, Barker J G, Wiedenmann A, Erb U and Shull R D 2001 Phys. Rev. B 63 214414

    2001

  51. [61]

    Deschamps A, Militzer M and Poole W J 2001 ISIJ International 41 196–205

    2001

  52. [62]

    Borgohain B, Siwach P K, Singh N and Singh H K 2018 J. Magn. and Magn. Mat. 454 13–22

    2018

  53. [63]

    Chernenko V A, Kakazei G N, Perekos A O, Cesari E and Besseghini S 2008 J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 320 1063

    2008

  54. [64]

    Liu D M, Nie Z H, Wang G, Wang Y D, Brown D E, Pearson J, Liaw P K and Ren Y 2010 Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527 3561

    2010

  55. [65]

    Chatterjee S, Giri S, Majumdar S and De S K 2008 Phys. Rev. B 77 224440. 22

    2008

  56. [66]

    Alloys Comp

    Sarkar S K, Biswas A, Babu P D, Kaushik S D, Srivastava A, Siruguri V and Krishnan M 2013 J. Alloys Comp. 586 515-523

    2013

  57. [67]

    Alloys Comp

    Sarkar S K, Sarita, Babu P D, Biswas A, Siruguri V and Krishnan M 2016 J. Alloys Comp. 670 281-288. List of Tables Table 1 . EDX results showing chemical composition of Ni45Co5Mn38Sn12 and Ni44Co6Mn40Sn10 alloys. Table 2. Martensitic transition temperatures of the alloys obtai...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.