English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Evaluating the interaction fields of magnetic nanowires (MNWs) is of utmostimportance for advancing their functionality in diverse applications includingspintronic devices and nanomedicine. In recent years, several quantitativemethods have been proposed and become inevitable tools to quantify theinteraction fields and decouple their effects from the coercivity. However, theuncertainty of the attained results arose countless open questions leading todiscrepancies among the literature. Here, we employ our novel experimentalmethod, named the projection method, to resolve these discrepancies. Using acomparative analysis of the four most commonly used methods (hysteresis loopsmethod, remanence curves method, first-order reversal curve method, andprojection method), we unambiguously explicate the reliability and validitylimits of these methods to elucidate the origin of the discrepancies. We showthat the remanence curves method must solely be used for quantifying theinteraction fields if they are considerably weaker compared to the coercivity.Furthermore, we show that both the remanence curves method and first-orderreversal curve method fail to fully decouple the interaction fields effectsfrom the coercivity, similar to the hysteresis loops method.

Assessing the reliability and validity ranges of magnetic characterization methods