1975
DOI: 10.1016/0378-4363(75)90033-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the exchange interactions in some 3d-metal ionic compounds

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
63
1

Year Published

1989
1989
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 94 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
6
63
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In fact, the dependence of the magnetic coupling constant J on the distance between nearest neighbor magnetic centers is usually Jϳr Ϫn with 12уnу6, depending on the compound. 46 Therefore, it is preferable to use the experimental structure and thus avoid any bias introduced by the use of a different crystal structure. We will return to this point in the forthcoming discussion.…”
Section: Computational Detailsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In fact, the dependence of the magnetic coupling constant J on the distance between nearest neighbor magnetic centers is usually Jϳr Ϫn with 12уnу6, depending on the compound. 46 Therefore, it is preferable to use the experimental structure and thus avoid any bias introduced by the use of a different crystal structure. We will return to this point in the forthcoming discussion.…”
Section: Computational Detailsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, some of the compounds studied are classified as Isingtype systems whereas others are mostly of the Heisenberg type. 22,23,35 Since the fitting of the Hartree-Fock energies to the Ising or to the molecular field approximation to the to explain antiferromagnetic coupling is in principle accounted for by the UHF formalism. Previous calculations with the same model ͑see the references in the Introduction͒ and recent work on cluster models at various levels of theory [31][32][33][34] have shown that the UHF approach usually gives too small antiferromagnetic coupling constants ͑usually 20-30 % of the experimental value; the underestimation is shown 31,32 to be due to the small amount of electron-electron correlation included in the UHF approach͒, and a reasonably good description of the ferromagnetic interactions.…”
Section: Magnetic Coupling and Spin Densitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…X-ray diffraction [ 52 ] on LaECuO4 under quasihydrostatic pressure shows that the tetragonal-to-orthorhombic transition temperature is depressed by pressure. Decreasing orthorhombicity with pressure implies a pressure-induced reduction in the interlayer magnetic coupling; whereas the empirical rule [53] that the 2D exchange coupling J2D is proportional to 1/r ~2, where r is the distance between magnetic ions, implies an increasing in-plane magnetic coupling with pressure. Resistance measurements at 75 K find [32,45] dln Hc/dP ~ --0.4%/kbar, which together with [31] dln TN/dP "-~-0.2%/kbar implies that TN is determined primarily by the interlayer magnetic coupling rather than the in-plane superexchange.…”
Section: Magnetic Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 99%