Fig. 7
Magnetization Isotherms of \({\text {Res}}_{8\mu \text {m}}^{\text {Eq.3}}\)(H, Case): (a) \({\text{M}}_1\)(H,T = 300, 2.5 K) of \({\text {Res}}_{8\mu \text {m}}^{\text {Eq.3}}\)(0kOe, I-case). (b) \({\text{M}}_2\)(H,T = 300, 2.5 K) of \({\text {Res}}_{8\mu \text {m}}^{\text {Eq.3}}\)(8kOe, I-case). (c) \({\text{M}}_3\)(H,T = 300, 2.5 K) of \({\text {Res}}_{8\mu \text {m}}^{\text {Eq.3}}\)(0kOe, M-case). (d) \({\text{M}}_4\)(H,T) of \({\text {Res}}_{8\mu \text {m}}^{\text {Eq.3}}\)(8kOe, M-case) wherein T = 300, 250, 200, 150, 100, 50, 15, 2.5K. The red curved arrow illustrates the trend in the evolution of magnetization isotherms as the temperature decreases. (e) Expansion of \({\text{M}}_4\)(H,T) of \({\text {Res}}_{8\mu \text {m}}^{\text {Eq.3}}\)(8kOe, M-case) of panel d indicating a weak magnetic hysteresis. As evident, there are differences in the remnant magnetization, \({\text{M}}_{\text{rem}}\), and coercive field, \({\text{H}}_{\text{coer}}\). (f) First quadrant of \({\text{M}}_\text{1}\)(\({\text{H}} \le\)100 kOe,T = 2.5 K,\(\blacksquare\)) of panel (a), \({\text{M}}_2\)(\({\text{H}} \le\)100 kOe,T = 2.5 K, 
) of panel (b), and \({\text{M}}_2^{\mathrm{2-run}}\)(\({\text{H}} \le\)140kOe,T = 2.5 K, 
), manifesting the linear decrease in magnetization as field increases above saturation. (g) The same \({\text{M}}_4\)(H,T) curves of panel d but plotted against \({{\text{H}}}/{{\text{T}}}\) wherein T = 300, 250, 200, 150, 100, 50, 15, 2.5K.
