2008
DOI: 10.1063/1.2951895
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reverse-magnetic-field reciprocity in conductive samples with extended contacts

Abstract: This paper reports on the extension of the reverse-magnetic-field reciprocity (RMFR) principle to electrically linear devices with arbitrary shape and extended contacts. The RMFR principle is a consequence of Onsager’s relation for the conductivity tensor depending on the magnetic field. It states the identity of resistance measurements on linearly conductive four-contact samples in a magnetic field B upon contact switching and magnetic field reversal. The previously available proof was restricted to samples w… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Applied Mathematics and Physics current partitioning between left and right, which depends solely on the spacing of contacts (see Appendix A).With the principle of RMFR[23] [24][25] we can swap supply and sense contacts. Then the Hall potential on the outer boundary is constant if both current contacts are located on the inner boundary.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Applied Mathematics and Physics current partitioning between left and right, which depends solely on the spacing of contacts (see Appendix A).With the principle of RMFR[23] [24][25] we can swap supply and sense contacts. Then the Hall potential on the outer boundary is constant if both current contacts are located on the inner boundary.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To avoid the large changing offsets in transverse voltage measurements 31 , we apply the frequently used ‘Onsager reciprocity method’ 40 41 , which is not common in studies of MIT materials. Here, for each field the Hall voltage is measured in two complementary configuration, exemplified in Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At zero magnetic field (B15b) differs slightly from (21) in [1] (in the second indices). There are two reasons for this discrepancy: 1) the contacts of the complementary device are shifted in the direction of lower indices in [1] (whereas they are shifted in the direction of larger indices in this paper), and 2) in Here is another argument which proves that [26]. With (B14a) this gives In Appendix C we check our formulae against finite element simulations to guarantee their correctness.…”
Section: Appendix Bmentioning
confidence: 93%