Rotation patterns
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:43 pm
Hi All,
I succeeded to simulate the rotation patterns of a spin ladder system imbedded in triclinic single crystal using the simplest Hamiltonian constituting of Zeeman term with anisotropic g-tensor and ZFS D and E. The rotations were around 3 perpendicular axes in the respect of the ladder which is aligned along the [011] crystal axis ‘or the ladder legs direction’. But in the simulation, I used [100] and [010] and [210] as rotN which are almost perpendicular regarding to the crystal symmetry parameters.
The point is that for each rotation the main g-tensor and D-tensor are the same but the g-frame and D-frame were different. The difference between the g and D Frame in each rotation pattern experiment can be seen in term of non-collinearity of the principal axes which is a common effect in such system. But the frames of both tensors are not the same from rotation experiment to another. In first glance, I can say that is the effect of non-perpendicular axes that I chose to make simulation, but as you can see below the difference if g frame from rotation to another was so great and I could not make a connection between the frame changing in respect of the rotation.
Below you may find the tables of the Hamiltonian parameters and the cod used to simulate those rotation pattern experiments.
My question is how it could be possible physically to explain this disparity of g and D frames as function of rotation axes and the difference between g frame from rotation to another where the fit was almost perfect?
Thank you in advance for your help.
Best regards.
Khalif.
Orientation of g- and D-tensors within the crystal frame
Rotation axis [100] [010] [210]
Euler angle α β γ α β γ α β γ
g-Frame (°) 0 46 60 0 40 32 95 70 85
D-Frame (°) 0 0 0 37 42 12 71 83 24
cod:
Sys1 = struct ('S',1, 'g',[2.041 0 0;0 2.105 0;0 0 2.001], 'D', mt2mhz([12 0 0;0 26 0;0 0 -38]));
Sys1.gFrame=[0 42 60]*pi/180;
Sys1.DFrame=[0 0 0]*pi/180;
Exp.mwFreq = 9.8;
Exp.Range = [250 450];
Exp.CrystalSymmetry = 'P1';
rotN = [1 0 0]; N = 31;
[phi,theta] = rotplane(rotN,[0 pi],N);
chi = zeros(N,1);
Exp.CrystalOrientation = [phi(:) theta(:) chi];
Opt.Output = 'separate';
Opt.Method='perturb2';
Bres1 = resfields(Sys1,Exp,Opt);
plot(Bres1,(theta*180/pi))
I succeeded to simulate the rotation patterns of a spin ladder system imbedded in triclinic single crystal using the simplest Hamiltonian constituting of Zeeman term with anisotropic g-tensor and ZFS D and E. The rotations were around 3 perpendicular axes in the respect of the ladder which is aligned along the [011] crystal axis ‘or the ladder legs direction’. But in the simulation, I used [100] and [010] and [210] as rotN which are almost perpendicular regarding to the crystal symmetry parameters.
The point is that for each rotation the main g-tensor and D-tensor are the same but the g-frame and D-frame were different. The difference between the g and D Frame in each rotation pattern experiment can be seen in term of non-collinearity of the principal axes which is a common effect in such system. But the frames of both tensors are not the same from rotation experiment to another. In first glance, I can say that is the effect of non-perpendicular axes that I chose to make simulation, but as you can see below the difference if g frame from rotation to another was so great and I could not make a connection between the frame changing in respect of the rotation.
Below you may find the tables of the Hamiltonian parameters and the cod used to simulate those rotation pattern experiments.
My question is how it could be possible physically to explain this disparity of g and D frames as function of rotation axes and the difference between g frame from rotation to another where the fit was almost perfect?
Thank you in advance for your help.
Best regards.
Khalif.
Orientation of g- and D-tensors within the crystal frame
Rotation axis [100] [010] [210]
Euler angle α β γ α β γ α β γ
g-Frame (°) 0 46 60 0 40 32 95 70 85
D-Frame (°) 0 0 0 37 42 12 71 83 24
cod:
Sys1 = struct ('S',1, 'g',[2.041 0 0;0 2.105 0;0 0 2.001], 'D', mt2mhz([12 0 0;0 26 0;0 0 -38]));
Sys1.gFrame=[0 42 60]*pi/180;
Sys1.DFrame=[0 0 0]*pi/180;
Exp.mwFreq = 9.8;
Exp.Range = [250 450];
Exp.CrystalSymmetry = 'P1';
rotN = [1 0 0]; N = 31;
[phi,theta] = rotplane(rotN,[0 pi],N);
chi = zeros(N,1);
Exp.CrystalOrientation = [phi(:) theta(:) chi];
Opt.Output = 'separate';
Opt.Method='perturb2';
Bres1 = resfields(Sys1,Exp,Opt);
plot(Bres1,(theta*180/pi))