β Scribed by J.J. Stobo
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
We therefore believe that the observed effect is due, not to any magnetostriction of the specimen as a whole, but to the ma~etostrict~ve strain within domain walls. Because the magnetization changes direction within the wall, there must be a change in strain along any line passing through the wall. When the wall moves, this maximum, or minimum, of strain is oarried with it and can interact with the strain field of any waxy-pined dislocation the wall encounters. This interaction may be such as to relieve the stress which was pinning the dislocation. That dislocation then moves, making an extra contribution to the observed relaxation of applied stress.
Although it seems intuitively evident that dislocations and domain walls must interact, the details of that interaction are far from clear. Vicenac3) ooneluded that there is an interaction and that it is due mainly to a change in the magnetoelastic energy. Scherpereel and Allenf4) considered the elastic, as well
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
If the stresses caused by the particle are such that S, and S, are equal, but different from S,, the third term will drop out, and 8.
In an article by Reid U) dislocation mobilities and energies were evaluated for the b.c.c. refractory metals and iron. The dislocations he considered were edges and screws with various Burgers vectors on the (110) and (100) slip plane. The purpose of this letter is to extend the technique to include