Finite temperature quantum transfer-matrix simulations of the frustrated spin-1/2 chains

Magnet with Ferromagnetic Nearest-Neighbor and Antiferromagnetic Next-Nearest-Neighbor Exchange Interactions

“…4 The corresponding tensor components χ ij in the system of principal axes are (0.038, 0.041, 0.056) for χ (1) and those of χ (2) amount approximately to its diagonal elements. These values indicate that in the principal axes system g xx ≤ g yy < g zz which agrees qualitatively with the estimates of g-factors found earlier [16].…”

“…Analyzing only the experimental susceptibility data for three crystallographic directions [16], the following exchange couplings: J 1 = −30 ± 5 K, α = −0.50 ± 0.05 and the following g factors: g a = 2.00, g b = 2.19, g c = 2.30 were obtained. It means that the nn interactions have ferromagnetic character while nnn interactions are antiferromagnetic.…”

“…The results of the zero-field susceptibility measurements were reported in detail earlier [16] and were fitted within the model with both the nn and nnn couplings.…”

Dynamics of linarite: Observations of magnetic excitations

“…One of them expected just below saturation is the quadrupolar state of bound magnon pairs which is termed the spin-nematic state 19 . The J 1 -J 2 model has been used to describe various quasi-1D edge-sharing cuprates 12,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] . Unfortunately, for many of the candidates for exhibiting multipolar phases, the involved AFM magnetic couplings and thus the saturation field are quite large, making it difficult to probe the multipolar phases.…”

Spin-flop and antiferromagnetic phases of the ferromagnetic half-twist ladder compounds Ba3Cu3In4O12and Ba3Cu3Sc4O12

“…The half-twist geometry results in a different magnetic exchange pathway than in other 1D Cu 2+ chains with FM J 1 . [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Unlike Exchange constants J are difficult to assign or compute because they are small on the scale of electronic energies and depend on both direct overlap between magnetic centres and through-bond pathways. We considered J 22 > 0 in figure 1b between Cu2 in the same rung but did not find improved fits.…”