“…The computer package CST [28,29] facilitates (unit and notation) conversions [21,22], standardization [16,17], and transformations [21], thus providing useful tools for comparison of apparently different but physically equivalent non-standard ZFSP [30][31][32] and CFP [33] data sets expressed in various notations and axis systems. The survey and reanalysis of the experimental non-standard data sets [30][31][32][33] removes their incompatibility and indicates that many authors are still unaware of the standardization idea [16,17] and its usefulness. The recent reviews on the spin Hamiltonian formalisms [34] and the (often confused) interrelations between the CF and ZFS quantities [35] as well as the note on the incorrect orthorhombic ZFSPs relations [36] may also be useful to consult.…”
Section: Notations and Basic Properties Of Low Symmetry Cf Hamiltoniansmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Meaningful comparison of such correlated CFP data sets may be achieved due to the orthorhombic standardization [16,17,28,29] discussed in Section 2. The usefulness of standardization has been amply illustrated for CFP data sets [16,28,33] and ZFSP ones [16,[30][31][32].…”
Section: Selection Of the Axis Systems For Various Symmetry Casesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the standardization transformations the non-standard fitted CFP data sets, obtained by various authors often using different experimental techniques, expressed originally in various nominal axis systems (as defined in Section 3), can be transformed into a 'common' nominal axis system. Researchers [50][51][52][53][54][55][56] who did applied standardization transformation, including CZR [16,17,[30][31][32][33]57], have seemingly not realized that all such transformations have only relative nominal and not definite meaning if applied to the fitted CFP data sets. Only for the theoretical CFP data sets, given in the axis systems well defined w.r.t.…”
Section: Physically Equivalent Cfp Data Sets and Their Correlationsmentioning
“…The computer package CST [28,29] facilitates (unit and notation) conversions [21,22], standardization [16,17], and transformations [21], thus providing useful tools for comparison of apparently different but physically equivalent non-standard ZFSP [30][31][32] and CFP [33] data sets expressed in various notations and axis systems. The survey and reanalysis of the experimental non-standard data sets [30][31][32][33] removes their incompatibility and indicates that many authors are still unaware of the standardization idea [16,17] and its usefulness. The recent reviews on the spin Hamiltonian formalisms [34] and the (often confused) interrelations between the CF and ZFS quantities [35] as well as the note on the incorrect orthorhombic ZFSPs relations [36] may also be useful to consult.…”
Section: Notations and Basic Properties Of Low Symmetry Cf Hamiltoniansmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Meaningful comparison of such correlated CFP data sets may be achieved due to the orthorhombic standardization [16,17,28,29] discussed in Section 2. The usefulness of standardization has been amply illustrated for CFP data sets [16,28,33] and ZFSP ones [16,[30][31][32].…”
Section: Selection Of the Axis Systems For Various Symmetry Casesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the standardization transformations the non-standard fitted CFP data sets, obtained by various authors often using different experimental techniques, expressed originally in various nominal axis systems (as defined in Section 3), can be transformed into a 'common' nominal axis system. Researchers [50][51][52][53][54][55][56] who did applied standardization transformation, including CZR [16,17,[30][31][32][33]57], have seemingly not realized that all such transformations have only relative nominal and not definite meaning if applied to the fitted CFP data sets. Only for the theoretical CFP data sets, given in the axis systems well defined w.r.t.…”
Section: Physically Equivalent Cfp Data Sets and Their Correlationsmentioning
“…The ZFS and the spectrum anisotropy are mainly determined by the relatively large values of the rank-2 ZFS parameters for both centers, which are of the same order of magnitude as for Fe 3 § ions at the mirror symmetry sites in forsterite [2] and chrysoberyl [4]. In the principal axis system of the rank-2 ZFS tensor chosen to satisfy the orthorhombic standardization [15,16] (2) M=I Oxygen-coordinated Fe 3 § ions at the octahedral sites exhibit distinctly larger values of S 4 [17]. The value of S 4 for Fe3+(I) in Table 1 is about three times larger than that for Fe3+(II) and implies the validity of the assignment of Fe3+(I) and Fe3+(II) in LiScGeO4:Cr to the octahedral and tetrahedral sites, respectively.…”
An electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) study of a synthetic single crystal of LiScGeO• doped with Cr ions earried out earlier at the X-and Q-bands at 300 K has indicated additional weak lines. A detailed analysis of these EPR lines, which were tentatively attributed to the Fe 3+ ions at two different mirror symmetry sites, is presented in this paper. The angular dependences in the three crystallographic planes were resolved by fitting the two distinct spectra denoted Fe3+(l) and Fe3+(II) with a spin Hamiltonian (S = 5/2) of monoclinic symmetry. The rank-4 crystal field tensors at tetrahedral and octahedral sites were calculated with the point-charge model to determine the principal axis ofientations of their cubic, letragonal and trigonal components. A comparative analysis of the zero-field splitting tensors and the crystal field ones indicates that Fe3+(I) ions substitute for Sc 3 § at octahedral sites and Fe3+(II) ions substitute for Ge 4~ at tetrahedral sites with no significant distortion of the coordination polyhedra in the structure of LiScGeO 4.
IntroduetionThe structure of LiScGeO 4 belongs to the orthorhombic space group D~ 6 Pnma with a = 1.0673 nm, b = 0.59926 nm, c = 0.49667 nm [1]. Fe 3+ ions in low concentrations ate usual traces in the natural and synthetic crystals with olivine type structure thus determining their spectroscopic properties. In forsterite Mg2SiO a, Fe 3+ ions were established as substituting at all the three structurally nonequivalent cationic sites [2, 3]: the octahedral MI (4a) and M2 (4c) sites, and the tetrahedral (4c) sites. In chrysoberyl A12BeO 4, Fe 3+ ions were established as substituting for Al 3+ at the octahedral M2 site [4]. Previously we have reported [5] that in the Cr-doped crystal of LiScGeO 4, along with electron paramagnetic reso-
“…The problems discussed above reduce even further the reliability of the CFP dataset [1]. Nevertheless, to satisfy the general criteria [30][31][32][33] for a meaningful comparison of low symmetry CFP datasets we bring the datasets [1,2] to a comparable form presented in Table 1.…”
Section: Peculiarities Of the Original Cfp Datasetsmentioning
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.