Visible to the public Biblio

Filters: Keyword is micromagnetic simulations  [Clear All Filters]
Hohlfeld, J., Czoschke, P., Asselin, P., Benakli, M..  2019.  Improving Our Understanding of Measured Jitter (in HAMR). IEEE Transactions on Magnetics. 55:1–11.

The understanding of measured jitter is improved in three ways. First, it is shown that the measured jitter is not only governed by written-in jitter and the reader resolution along the cross-track direction but by remanence noise in the vicinity of transitions and the down-track reader resolution as well. Second, a novel data analysis scheme is introduced that allows for an unambiguous separation of these two contributions. Third, based on data analyses involving the first two learnings and micro-magnetic simulations, we identify and explain the root causes for variations of jitter with write current (WC) (write field), WC overshoot amplitude (write-field rise time), and linear disk velocity measured for heat-assisted magnetic recording.

Davila, Y. G., Júnior, F. A. Revoredo, Peña-Garcia, R., Padrón-Hernández, E..  2019.  Peak in Angular Dependence of Coercivity in a Hexagonal Array of Permalloy Spherical Nanocaps. IEEE Magnetics Letters. 10:1–3.

Micromagnetic simulations of coercivity as a function of external magnetic field direction were performed for a hexagonal array of hemispherical Permalloy nanocaps. The analysis was based on hysteresis loops for arrangements of nanocaps of variable thickness (5 nm and 10 nm). The angular dependence of coercivity had a maximum at about 80° with respect to the arrangement plane. An increase in coercivity with nanocap thickness is related to the magnetization reversal mechanism, where the dipole energy of individual caps generates an effective intermediate axis, locking the magnetic moments. The coercivity has maximum values of 109 Oe for 5 nm and 156 Oe for 10 nm thickness. The remanence decreases monotonically with angle. This is associated with the influence of shape anisotropy, where the demagnetizing field in the plane of the array is much smaller than the demagnetizing field perpendicular to the plane.