Date : 9/21/2021 7:01:05 AM
From : "Asaf Pesach"
To : "sdannyp@campus.technion.ac.il"
Cc : "OLEG RIVIN" , "eladc"
Subject : Re: Muon paper final draft


הי דניאל,

עבודה יפה מאוד!

שאלה פרקטית: אם אני מביו נכון, האנטיפרומגנטיות בתרכובת עם הגדוליניום באה לידי ביטוי ב- interlayer, כלומר בין שכבות קרבידים, מצב דיפולי. היינו זו תכונה תלת מימדית? השאלה היא מה קורה לאחר הקילוף ל- 2D. הרי אז  האנטיפרומגנטיות קורסת וייתכן והמגנטיות תעלם? האם זה סותר את האנאיזוטרופיות שבאה לידי ביטוי באלפא נמוך כל כך (שאז היינו מצפים ל- exchange בתוך השכבה הקרבידית?).

שלח לפרסום בהקדם!

בהצלחה,

אסף





From: sdannyp@campus.technion.ac.il <sdannyp@campus.technion.ac.il>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:54 PM
To: eladc; keren@physics.technion.ac.il
Cc: OLEG RIVIN; Asaf Pesach
Subject: RE: Muon paper final draft
 

Hi El’ad,

 

  1. I removed the “super” from the text. We do not have an indication on the type of interaction from this phenomenological model. As for the additional contributions, I can only mention that there is an indication for dipole interaction between planes since a similar value for alpha was calculated in a different material assuming dipolar interactions. I removed some text from the discussion.
  2. Removed this line. On second thought this conclusion is meaningless in mean field theory as it does not care about the geometry of the lattice but only on the average exchange.

 

The changes are marked in the attached file. Do you agree with them?

 

Daniel

 

From: eladc <eladc@iaec.gov.il>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 2:28 PM
To: Daniel Potashnikov <sdannyp@campus.technion.ac.il>; keren@physics.technion.ac.il
Cc: OLEG RIVIN <drorivin@gmail.com>; Asaf Pesach <asafp@nrcn.gov.il>
Subject: Re: Muon paper final draft

 

Daniel,

Attached, please find my comments to the last version. I have only 3 comments, 2 of which are essentially the same.

  1. You mention that J is a "super-exchange". How do you know that? You don't elaborate nor give a reference. Then, later in the discussion, you claim that the exchange is not RKKY, but has "additional contributions". Additional to what? And what about the super-exchange you mentioned earlier in the manuscript? And why do you discuss RKKY at all? In short, when you discuss the exchange interaction you should a) be consistent, and b) give either evidence or reference that support the claim.
  2. I did not understand the causality in this:
    "Equation , as formulated above, describes a layered tetragonal AFM. Its success in modelling the temperature evolution of the RE = Gd magnetic moment despite its monoclinic structure implies that the dominant in-plane interactions are between nearest neighbors, as the nearest neighbor structure of both the base centered monoclinic and tetragonal lattices is similar (coordination number is 4 in both cases)"

All comments are added to the anuscript.

I liked the beginning of the discussion.

Good luck.

El'ad

 


From: sdannyp@campus.technion.ac.il <sdannyp@campus.technion.ac.il>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 2:10 PM
To: keren@physics.technion.ac.il; eladc
Subject: Muon paper final draft

 

Hi,

 

I attached the latest version of the manuscript. The .pdf is a clean version without any changes marked.

Use the word version if you want to see the changes made.

 

If this is acceptable, then I will proceed to submission.

 

Happy holidays,

Daniel

External e-mail, be judicious when opening attachments or links