Gold-iron alloy susceptibility experiment 2026-10-18
V. Cannella and J. A. Mydosh measured low-field magnetic susceptibility of gold-iron alloys using a mutual inductance bridge. Moving samples into and out of the pickup arrangement separated their signal from the background. Cooling revealed sharp susceptibility cusps; changing concentration, sample shape and applied magnetic field tested their interpretation. Larger fields rounded the peaks. Their 1972 paper interpreted low-concentration ordering in antiferromagnetic terms: the cusp alone did not demonstrate Parisi's later theory.[ref]
Magnetic Ordering in Gold-Iron Alloys by Vincent Cannella and John A. Mydosh. §III, p. 4224, mutual-inductance method; §V, pp. 4228–4230, figures 9–12 and field/shape comparisons; abstract for the authors' contemporary interpretation
This experiment measures a response to a small applied perturbation, rather than directly photographing frozen spins. Comparing field strengths is essential because the probing magnetic field itself changes the response.[ref]
Magnetic Ordering in Gold-Iron Alloys by Vincent Cannella and John A. Mydosh. §V.A, pp. 4229–4230, weak-field cusp rounding
Guillaume thermal expansion experiment 2026-10-18
Charles-Édouard Guillaume sought affordable, stable length standards. His 1920 lecture describes two micrometer microscopes on stone supports sighting marks on a rod immersed in water. Their separation was not fixed: one method alternated the sample with a reference in a second trough at nearly constant temperature. His relative method compared sample and platinum–iridium reference in the same bath, adding the reference's known expansion to the measured difference. Composition and treatment affected the nickel–iron alloys; low expansion held over a limited temperature range.[ref]
Invar and Elinvar by Charles-Édouard Guillaume. Nobel Lectures, Physics 1901–1921; Invar and elinvar, lecture 11 December 1920, pp. 444–448: motivation and comparator; pp. 451–453: composition, treatment and temperature limits
Functional reconstruction of the water-bath comparison described by Charles-Édouard Guillaume, with movable rods and an instrument baseline that can drift
. Details. The differential length comparator calculation explains why a calibrated reference is needed even when its expansion is larger than the sample's. Keeping both rods in the same bath targets one source of systematic error; allowing for changes in the instrument baseline targets another. Discovering a low-expansion alloy and demonstrating its dimensional stability are connected experimental tasks.
Invar 2026-10-18
A nickel–iron alloy with unusually small thermal expansion over a limited temperature range. Composition and treatment matter; its name does not mean every specimen has zero expansion. The Guillaume thermal expansion experiment explains how the effect was measured.[ref]
Invar and Elinvar by Charles-Édouard Guillaume. Nobel Lectures, Physics 1901–1921; Invar and elinvar, lecture 11 December 1920, pp. 451–453: expansion minimum and dependence on composition and treatment
Nobel Prize in Physics in 1920 2026-10-18
Awarded to Charles-Édouard Guillaume for precision measurement through anomalous properties of nickel–steel alloys. The Guillaume thermal expansion experiment explains how a reference comparison reveals low thermal expansion.[ref]
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1920 by Nobel Prize Outreach. Official award record: Guillaume and precision measurement with nickel–steel alloys
