Magnetoresistance of magnetic multilayers containing three types of magnetic layers

Michez, Lisa; Hickey, B. J.; Shatz, Smadar; Wiser, Nathan

doi:10.1103/physrevb.67.092402

Cited by 9 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…71 that their postulated δ Co/Cu = 0.25 would have only minor effects on AΔR for simple I-multilayers, and via Fig. 49 [191] returned to the fray with data for S and I samples with 3 different F-layers. They argued that the data could be qualitatively understood considering only the relative orientations of the moments of adjacent F-layer pairs.…”

Section: (I) Vs (S) For [Co(1)/cu/co(6)/cu] N 'Mfp#1'mentioning

confidence: 62%

“…(1) They disputed the Eid claim that going from Cu (20) to CuGe(40) reduced λ/t from 5 to 1/5. Based on their own calculations [191], they argued that the 'neck' deviations of the Fermi surface of Cu from sphericity should lead to a much larger value of ρ b λ b and thus larger λ. Choosing, without details, a factor of 5 in increase in ρ b λ b gave an inferred λ/t = 1 for CuGe (40), which they claimed was large enough to sustain their mean-free-path argument.…”

Section: (I) Vs (S) For [Co(1)/cu/co(6)/cu] N 'Mfp#1'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What is in dispute is their interpretation. The 'mfp#1' interpretation by Bozec et al [79,188,[191][192][193][194][195], is that all that matters in CPP-MR is the relative orientation of the moments of adjacent F-layers. Eid et al [185,189,190] have argued that, while this model can fit some data sets, it cannot fit others with very short local λs.…”

Section: (I) Vs (S) For [Co(1)/cu/co(6)/cu] N 'Mfp#1'mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

CPP magnetoresistance of magnetic multilayers: A critical review

Bass

2016

Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a comprehensive, critical review of data and analysis of Giant (G) Magnetoresistance (MR) with Current-flow Perpendicular-to-the-layer-Planes (CPP-MR) of magnetic multilayers [F/N] n (n = number of repeats) composed of alternating nanoscale layers of ferromagnetic (F) and non-magnetic (N) metal, or of spin-valves that allow control of anti-parallel (AP) and parallel (P) orientations of the magnetic moments of adjacent F-layers. GMR, a large change in resistance when an applied magnetic field changes the moment ordering of adjacent F-layers from AP to P, was discovered in 1988 in the geometry with Current flow in the layer-Planes (CIP). The CPP-MR has two advantages over the CIP-MR: (1) relatively simple two-current series-resistor (2CSR) and more general Valet-Fert (VF) models allow more direct access to the underlying physics; and (2) it is usually larger, which should be advantageous for devices. When the first CPP-MR data were published in 1991, it was not clear whether electronic transport in GMR multilayers is completely diffusive or at least partly ballistic. It was not known whether the properties of layers and interfaces would vary with layer thickness or number. It was not known whether the CPP-MR would be dominated by scattering within the F-metals or at the F/N interfaces. Nothing was known about: (1) spin-flipping within F-metals, characterized by a spin-diffusion length, ; (2) interface specific resistances (AR = area A times resistance R) for N1/N2 interfaces; (3) interface specific resistances and interface spin-dependent scattering asymmetry at F/N and F1/F2 interfaces; and (4) spin-flipping at F/N, F1/F2 and N1/N2 interfaces. Knowledge of spin-dependent scattering asymmetries in F-metals and F-alloys, and of spin-flipping in N-metals and N-alloys, was limited. Since 1991, CPP-MR measurements have quantified the scattering and spin-flipping parameters that determine GMR for a wide range of F-and N-metals and alloys and of F/N pairs. This review is designed to provide a history of how knowledge of CPP-MR parameters grew, to give credit for discoveries, to explain how combining theory and experiment has enabled extraction of quantitative information about these parameters, but also to make clear that progress was not always direct and to point out where disageements still exist. To limit its length, the review considers only collinear orientations of the moments of adjacent F-layers. To aid readers looking for specific information, we have provided an extensive table of contents and a detailed summary. Together, these should help locate over 100 figures plus 17 tables that collect values of individual parameters. In 1997, CIP-MR replaced anisotropic MR (AMR) as the sensor in read heads of computer hard drives. In principle, the usually larger CPP-MR was a contender for the next generation read head sensor. But in 2003, CIP-MR was replaced by the even larger Tunneling MR (TMR), which has remained the read-head sensor ever since. However, as memory bits shrink to where the relative...

show abstract

Section: (I) Vs (S) For [Co(1)/cu/co(6)/cu] N 'Mfp#1'mentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: (I) Vs (S) For [Co(1)/cu/co(6)/cu] N 'Mfp#1'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (I) Vs (S) For [Co(1)/cu/co(6)/cu] N 'Mfp#1'mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

CPP magnetoresistance of magnetic multilayers: A critical review

Bass

2016

Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12 These data include the detailed shape of the MR͑H͒ curves both for the separated and the interleaved configurations, and the many differences between the MR͑H͒ curves for the 2M and the 3M multilayers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dependence of the magnetoresistance of magnetic multilayers on the number of magnetic layers

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Of particular interest are measurements in the current perpendicular to the plane of the layer ͑CPP͒ mode of the magnetic-field dependence of the magnetoresistance MR͑H͒ for multilayers containing two types of magnetic layers ͑denoted 2M multilayers͒. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] There are two distinct experimental situations. One may measure the MR͑H͒ curve after the magnetic field has been swept back and forth, which is the usual case.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetoresistance of as-prepared samples of magnetic multilayers: A unified picture

2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We discuss the magnetic-field dependence of the magnetoresistance MR͑H͒ of magnetic multilayers for samples in the as-prepared state ͑meaning the first time the magnetic field is swept͒, pointing out the importance of the electron-scattering mean-free path. We show that the value of MR͑0͒ in the as-prepared state is related to MR͑H͒ data for field-swept samples ͑meaning samples for which the magnetic field has been swept back and forth͒. We use this relationship to obtain the value of MR͑0͒ for an as-prepared sample. Our prediction agrees with the data.

show abstract

Magnetoresistance of magnetic multilayers containing three types of magnetic layers

Cited by 9 publications

References 20 publications

CPP magnetoresistance of magnetic multilayers: A critical review

CPP magnetoresistance of magnetic multilayers: A critical review

Dependence of the magnetoresistance of magnetic multilayers on the number of magnetic layers

Magnetoresistance of as-prepared samples of magnetic multilayers: A unified picture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About