1 / 29

Reaction of Fe with C 60 at HPHT conditions: formation of Fe 3 C and implications for

Reaction of Fe with C 60 at HPHT conditions: formation of Fe 3 C and implications for “magnetic carbon”. Alexandr Talyzin, (Department of Physics, Umea University, Sweden) A.Dzwilewski (Umea University, Sweden) L.Dubrovinsky (Bayreuth University, Germany)

meris
Download Presentation

Reaction of Fe with C 60 at HPHT conditions: formation of Fe 3 C and implications for

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reaction of Fe with C60 at HPHT conditions: formation of Fe3C and implications for “magnetic carbon” Alexandr Talyzin, (Department of Physics, Umea University, Sweden) A.Dzwilewski (Umea University, Sweden) L.Dubrovinsky (Bayreuth University, Germany) A. Setzer and P. Esquinazi (University of Leipzig, Germany)

  2. 1. Introduction: history of “magnetic carbon” 1996-2000- Metallic conductivity in Rh polymer of C60 (Makarova et al. Synth. Met. 121, (2001).) 2001- Pressure polymerized C60 (rhombohedral structure, pure carbon) is ferromagnetic at room temperature (as occasionally discovered) ! Report by Makarova et al.,Nature 413, 716-718, (2001) 2002-2004 – five experimental papers confirming ferromagnetism of high pressure polymers of C60 (from two groups) 2002-2006- about 15 theoretical papers aimed to explain high temperature ferromagnetism of C60 polymers. Poster at this conference (Y.Kitagawa). August 2005 – Corrigendum to original paper on “magnetic carbon” is published in “Nature” 30 March 2006 – The Nature paper is retracted by 7 authors out of 9. Two authors (T.Makarova and P.Scharff have not joined retraction) A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  3. Polymeric C60- “magnetic carbon”? • Summary of discovery (Makarova et al, Nature,2001), five main arguments: • 1. Synthesis temperatures close to the point of C60 collapse. • P=6 GPa, T=1025-1050K • Ferromagnetic with Curie T ~500K • 3. Ferromagnetism disappears after thermal depolymerisation of samples (700K) • 4. Reproducible: 3 sets of samples, one of them “specially synthesized” were reported in original Nature paper. • 5. 22 ppm level for all ferromagnetic impurities (30 fold less compared to measured magnetisation) Figure from presentation of T.Makarova, 2005.

  4. Magnetic force microscopy on “Nature”sample 30% of ”impurity-free areas” covered with domains. Magnetic force gradient image taken in impurity-freeparts of samples. (Han et al, Carbon, 2003). Images were interpreted as magnetic domains and considered as an explicit evidence of ferromagnetism in Rh polymer of C60. A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  5. More questions and more evidence? • Re-analysis of “Nature samples” • by R.Hohne and P.Esquinazi • (Adv.Mat., 2002) • Iron contamination measured by PIXE (30 mm depth): 200- 400 mg/g, • up to about 20 times higher than previously reported • (enough to explain ferromagnetism) • Ferromagnetism do not disappear • after prolonged heating at 800 K • (on the same sample as shown in • Nature ) All three samples studied for “Nature” publication (one split on two pieces) (figure from Adv.Mat., 2002) A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  6. Ferromagnetism due to polymeric structure? Nature: magnetisation reversible after heating at 640K for 2 hours Adv.Mat, 2002: Magnetisation is reversible After heating at 800K for 16 hours The same sample (E17) depolymerized at 2000C (473K) in 2001 (Makarova et all, Carbon). In Nature (2001) depolymerization was reported below 700K DSC traces of the R-phase, scanning rate 10 K/min. (A) R-phase; (B) Magnetic carbon. (Korobov et al, Chem.Phys.Lett, 2003) Depolymerisation of C60 polymers occurs at 500-560K. (including photopolymers) Ferromagnetism can not be assigned to polymeric structure.

  7. New studies (Han et al, Phys.Rev.B, 2005) Over 20 samples synthesized at 3.5 GPa and various temperatures (Bayreuth University, Germany) with all possible precautions against contaminations. Structure and samples and synthesis conditions are very close to those from “Nature” samples. X-ray diffraction from one set of samples synthesized in 2004 and studied by SQUID in Germany (Prof.Esquinazi group) and by MFM at Umea (Dr.Han). Below 1085K-polymeric C60 (Rh and T phases). Point of collapse is between 1073-1085K. Perfect agreement with “Nature” data (1075K). A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  8. MFM data on new samples. All samples diamagnetic (also polymers) Bulk magnetisation measured by SQUID: maximal magnetisation is only 0.0003 emu/g –three orders of magnitude less! (~0.1 emu/g in Nature) 0.0001 emu/g for sample with “domains”. Less than 1 mg/g of Fe. Real contamination: up to 80 mg/g of Fe All magnetisation come from Fe impurities. Samples with “domains” are not polymeric and show absence of bulk ferromagnetism. (a) (b) Conclusion from the paper: No ferromagnetism at THAT synthesis conditions. Topographic (left) and magnetic force gradient (right) images for samples of graphite like carbon (“collapsed fullerite”) A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  9. What were conditions of synthesis for ferromagnetic samples? • -Nature (2001)- 6 GPa , T=1025K-1050K (just below collapse point 1075K) • -Recent review (Makarova, Semiconductors, 2004) -“about one hundred degrees below point of C60 collapse..” That will be 975K. Out of range. • -Review by Makarova, (2003)- “….with maximum at 1075K”, exactly the point of collapse. • MFM paper (Han et al, Carbon, 2003) only one sample studied, the same as in “Nature”: • synthesized at ….P=6 GPa and 1125KAbove point of C60 collapse! • The same study published earlier (Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 210 (2003) 531–536) : • P=2.5 GPa and 1125K, this sample could not be Rhombohedral at this pressure. • Hohne and Esquinazi, Adv.Materials, 2002: Three samples: one of them referred as “Nature” sample, • second as “different from sample 1”, last sample prepared at “different conditions”. Synthesis conditions not clearly specified for all studied samples. A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  10. Verified synthesis conditions for “Nature” samples (Corrigendum, 2005). • Stated in the paper: 6 GPa and 1025-1050K, ferromagnetism only in this “narrow interval of temperatures”, 5 samples ferromagnetic from 3 different sets. • Only three samples were studied by SQUID • (Prof. Esquinazi, Germany) prior to paper submission. Only two of them were ferromagnetic: • “Nature sample” 6 GPa and 975Klowest temperature from all set. • “MFM sample”- 2.5 GPa and 1125K • both P and T out of reported range. • - 6 GPa and 1025K Not ferromagnetic. Corrigendum published in Nature, 2005. Reports minor mistakes in synthesis conditions. Celsius to Kelvin calculation error, mistake with sample labels. A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  11. Implications of “new” synthesis conditions • Only one ferromagnetic sample was true Rhombohedral polymer, synthesis temperature 975K was lowest from all samples. • “Narrow interval” of temperatures do not exist. • Second sample (2.5 GPa and 1125K) was not polymeric and not fullerene: • C60 collapses at these temperatures. • Magnetic properties of these two samples were identical: ferromagnetism could not be connected to fullerenes! • -over 20 polymeric samples were studied in 2002-2004 in Prof. Esquinazi group: none of them was confirmed ferromagnetic on the level where impurities could not explain it. • Curie T of 500K was EVER observed only for these two samples, only one of them true Rh polymer. • Next set of samples showed Curie T above 800K (Narozhnyj, 2003). A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  12. Reproducibility and history of samples. • -Both ferromagnetic samples synthesized in 1998: THREE years prior to “occasional discovery” of ferromagnetism in 2001. • Samples were split in 1998 by metallic tools and repeatedly touched by unprotected magnet in 2001-2004. • -No precautions against contamination was taken during synthesis, three years of storage and handling of samples. • Would anyone care about metallic dust or tools in high pressure experiments NOT INTENDED for studies of ferromagnetism? A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  13. Impurity analysis. • Citation from Nature paper: “We havepaid great attention to chemical analysis of the pristine material aswell as of the polymerized phase. The total amount of magnetic (Fe,Ni, Co) impurities is 22 p.p.m. in the pristine phase”. • Sample cited in Nature was 3 mg (impurity analysis never done on this particlar piece) • Impurity analysis mentioned in the paper (atomic absorption spectrometry) required 20 mg. • Contamination introduced during synthesis was not taken into account. Claim of “ferromagntism in pure carbon” was made without • adequate impurity analysis of samples. A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  14. Which impurity could explain Curie T of 500K? Fe, Nb, W, V are known to induce collapse of C60 with formation of carbides in thin films already at 400K. Fe3C is ferromagnet with Curie Temperature 480-500K Model experiments: Fe+C60 at HPHT conditions Two samples synthesized: one with 10% (mass) of Fe and 3% of Fe. Samples subjected to the same P-T treatment as C60 used for preparation of “magnetic carbon. Uniform size of Fe particles: 2-3 mm A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  15. Reaction of Fe with C60 at 2.5 GPa and 1040K Iron peaks disappear after high pressure high temperature treatment. Excess of C60 transforms into polymeric phase. More deteail XRD: iron transformed into Cementite, Fe3C. Curie T (Fe3C)= 480-500K Fe2O3+C Fe3O4+C Fe+C Fe3C (“Magnetism of cigarette ashes”, Jordanova, 2006) A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  16. Ferromagnetism in C60 polymer/Fe3C mixture (Prof. P.Esquinazi group, University of Leipzig) Pristine C60/10 % Fe mixture HPHT treated with 10% Fe HPHT treated with 3% Fe Saturation magnetization of Fe3C at (RT) Ms=128 emu/g. Expected magnetic moments at saturation due to Fe3C were calculated from known Fe concentrations and masses of samples. Values calculated for both samples are in agreement with the measured data within experimental error. Iron do not induce ferromagnetism in in carbon Rh polymer, “Nature” A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  17. Comparing C60/Fe3C to ”magnetic carbon”. Pristine C60/10% Fe mixture Right axis: two samples of ”magnetic carbon”: E17 (Nature, 2001) and E16 (Adv.Mat., 2002) Left axis: C60/Fe3C samples obtained at HPHT. 800 mg/g of Fe in form of Fe3C calculated for ”Nature” curves. Conclusion: ”magnetic carbon” and C60/Fe3C show nearly identical magnetic properties. Submitted to Phys.Rev.B Available on line at: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0602306 A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  18. Amounts and source of iron in ”magnetic carbon” 22 ppm of Fe?? Particles of tens micrometer size. ImageJ software shows 2-3% of surface are covered by subsurface particles (counting only sharp ones). (~30 mm depth of method). These particles were likely Fe3C (if iron was introduced before or during synthesis) Averaging from PIXE: 2-3 mm spots, 5 points. 1.370, 100, 200, 16.000 and 100 (average 482 mg/g) Hundreds of points required! Figure from Spemann et al, (2003), conference proceedings Figure from Han et al, Carbon 2003 A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  19. Independent confirmations. 1) 2.5 GPa- Makarova et al (Synth.metals, 2003). No impurity analysis was done, no magnetic data shown, Ms= 0.01 emu/g (~50 mg/g Fe) 2) 6 GPa- Narozhnyj et al (2003), proceedings, 22 ppm in pristine C60 (with reference to Nature paper). Curie T above 800K, not determined. 3) 9 GPa- Wood et al, (2002). Impurity analysis not presented at all. Only one sample shown to be ferromagnetic. 4) 9 GPa- Chan et al,2005 (the same group as 3) Hydrogen amount determined but not Fe, Ni,Co. Confirmations are not convincing.

  20. Summary and Retraction (29 March 2006, Nature) All existing data on ferromagnetism of high pressure polymers of C60 can be explained by impurities without suggesting “magnetic carbon”. Theoretical papers about ferromagnetism in Rh polymer are not supported by experimental evidence… Retraction submitted by: B. Sundqvist, R. Hohne, P. Esquinazi, Y. Kopelevich, V. Davydov, L. S. Kashevarova & A. V. Rakhmanina “..T.L.Makarova and P.Scharff decline to sign this retraction because they do not believe that the earlier results, supported in subsequent studies, are totally invalidated by these findings…”. A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  21. 1025 K 1048K 975K 1050 K 1073K 1025K 1123K 1075K 1075K Makarova, (2002) Makarova, (Mol.Mat) 2000 Makarova (JMMM), 2004 Metallic conductivity in high pressure polymers of C60:result of mistakes in Celsius to Kelvin calculations Makarova, T. L. et al. Anisotropicmetallic properties of highly-oriented C60 polymer. Synth. Met. 121, (2001). Makarova, T. L. et al. Electrical properties of two-dimensional fullerene matrices. Carbon 39, (2001). Okotrub et al, J.Chem.Phys. (2001) –model proposed to explain metallic Rh C60. Point of C60 collapse: 1075K (Nature)

  22. Magnetic carbon in meteorite? (Coey et al, Nature, 2002) Magnetisation measured from graphite nodule reported to be 30% higher compared to magnetisation calculated from mineral composition. Amount of magnetic minerals estimated by XRD, Mossbauer spectroscopy, chemical analysis, (EDAX). Curie Temperature of “magnetic graphite” : ~500K Interpretation: iron induces ferromagnetism in graphite. Fe3C is actually named as mineral composing the meteorite. Cohenite (typical mineral of metheorites): Fe (Ni,Co)3C- antiferromagnetic or ferromagnetic, not counted in the calculations. Cementite: (also known in meteorites)Fe3C- ferromagnetic stronger than magnetite. A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  23. Cigarette ashes and magnetic meteorites Fe3C Fe3O4 Thermal demagnetisation of ”Magnetic meteorite”, J.M.D. Coey et al., Nature (2002) Fe must have reacted with carbon at temperatures of meteorite falling and impuct. Thermal demagnetisation of ashes from Bulgarian cigarettes ”Shipka” (N.Jordanova, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 2006). “Camel” and “Marlboro” also studied… Fe2O3 - Fe3O4 - Fe3C reactions occur at temperatures higher than 1020K in process of cigarette burning A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  24. More carbon magnets? • Talapatra et al, Phys.Rev.Lett., 2005: ferromagnetism in nitrogen irradiated Nanodiamonds. Commercial detonation nanodiamonds are always contaminated with metallic alloy catalyst. Impurity analysis not presented • Proton irradiated graphite (Prof. Esquinazi group). Impurity analysis presented. Something to study… • Carbon nanofoam (A.V.Rode, Phys.Rev.B, 2004 ). Impurity analysis presented. Ferromagnetism below 90K • Chemically etched graphite (A.V.Mombru, PRB, 2005). Impurity analysis presented. Results not confirmed (J.M.D.Coey group), large Fe particles found in their samples in Umea (K. Han) A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  25. Questions ? ”Magnetic rubber” by A.Talyzin and A.Dzwilewski “Ferrocarbon”: EU project started in 2005 to study “magnetic carbons”. Not to be confused with: “Ferrocarbon”- a form of steel with a very high concentration of carbon (Wiktionary).

  26. Increased stability of magnetic carbon to depolymerization? Depolymerisation of ALL C60 polymers occurs below 600K (including photopolymers). Heated at 800K (2.5 GPa, 1125K) Makarova (Semiconductors, 2004): “One of the sampleslost only 2% of magnetization, and the X-ray diffractionpatterns remained unchanged after annealing andcorresponded as before to the rhombohedral phase ofpolymerized C60.” This sample (E17) was destroyed during heating due to oxygen leak (Prof. Esquinazi) The same sample (E17) depolymerized at 2000C in 2001 (Makarova et all, Carbon). In Nature (2001) depolymerization was reported below 700K Pristine polymer (2.5 GPa, 1050K) T.Makarova, Semiconductors, 2004 XRD shown in figure were taken from two different samples, both are not from Rh polymer! A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  27. Source of iron? Synthesis details... Material of capsule Nb,Ta also carbide forming metals! Toroid apparatus (Prof. Davydov group,Troitsk, Russia) Unpublished impurity analysis ( Prof. Esquinazi, mg/g)): E16-N (0.4%), Nb (329), Ca (571) H7 (6 GPa, 1100K): Ta-3.24%, Ca (1%) Sample was reported once as ”intrinsically superconductive” Parts of high pressure assemblage: Nb, Ta capsule, graphitic heater, BN cage, pressure medium-Catlenite (mostly CaCO3). Capsules most likely to break at point of C60 collapse (10% volume decrease) A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  28. Extra-care against impurities? Samples were split in 1998 by metallic tools and handled by metallic Instruments and even by unprotected magnet. “The main impurities were two elements:calcium that was transferred from the hands of theexperimentalist and iron that was introduced from theforceps and tools used in splitting the samples.” citation from T.Makarova (Semiconductors, 2004) Supplementary materials on Nature web page show how samples were operated (until 2004!). The same works with rubber pieces (see www.magneticcarbon.com) A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

  29. A.Talyzin, Umea University, Sweden

More Related