arXiv:cond-mat/0404626v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 26 Apr 2004 ut ag o h re f10 kOe/ 1000 of order the (on large quite ula spin nuclear a ( etpoeo h antccreain i h hyperfine the via correlations magnetic interaction the of probe rect iiyo the of bility material. parent the itinerant-localization of the instability reflects perturbation slight the risof erties n antccreain n oa structure. local and correlations magnetic ing predictions techniques. such experimental various principle, by In tested 7]. be mo- can [4, Pu local retained where are ones ments or either states, predict ground typically non-magnetic models the funda- These are because versus different. extremes two electrons, mentally local these 5f predict for five approaches to the theoretical ability for the behavior is itinerant Pu in calculations rI,wihsbttt o h usts[] nparticular, In [6]. sites Pu the Pu for substitute which In, or h lcrncsrcueo the stabilize of will element structure secondary electronic the the of amount small the 2K stems ehooial motn om and to form, down important stabilized technologically be most can the electron is correlated 720K, the 5]. is of forms [4, complexity these behavior of the six to all testament predict band to for inability state, calculations The solid structure the symmetry. character. in of forms degrees state varying allotropic ground with six exhibits the Pu in fact, changes In give dramatic can spacing to Pu-Pu rise behavior, the on in itinerant are perturbations slight and plutonium that elemental so localized in between electrons boundary 5f the The 3]. 2, behavior experi- electron [1, re- important correlated a unusual several revealed have and experienced ments years, has recent compounds in its naissance and plutonium of S eea hoishv mre otyt xli h sta- the explain to try to emerged have theories Several ula antcrsnne(M)i da o prob- for ideal is (NMR) resonance magnetic Nuclear h netgvino h o eprtr properties temperature low the of investigavtion The pn.Hwvr o fad5 nuclei, 5f and 4f for However, spins. ) 1 − odne atradTemlPyis o lmsNtoa L National Alamos Los Physics, Thermal and Matter Condensed x Ga δ x P o 0 for -Pu ula aeil n ehooyDvso,LsAao Nati Alamos Los Division, Technology and Materials Nuclear osse h c tutr n hsclprop- physical and structure fcc the possesses A δ ihmgei re rlwfeunysi correlations. spin frequency low or order magnetic with htteG sdmnnl ope oteFrisraevacor via surface Fermi the to and coupled shift dominantly Knight w is The (EFGs), Ga symmetry. gradients the cubic field that spectru from electric NMR distortions local Ga The of local distribution nuclei. p a Ga as by well the as by impurities experienced Ga fluctuations the surrounding distortions local hs.Oetcnlgclcalneo band of challenge technological One phase. ewe h ula ( nuclear the between I ula antcRsnnesuiso astabilized Ga of studies Resonance Magnetic Nuclear ula antcRsnneSuisof Studies Resonance Magnetic Nuclear = δ . 020 P,wiheit ewe 7Kand 576K between exists which -Pu, 1 2 oi rnil tcnsrea di- a as serve can it principle in so , Introduction . x T . ydpn ihA,Ga Al, with doping by 0 = 0 . δ 8.I sntovoswhy obvious not is It 085. hs,atog clearly although phase, I n h electronic the and ) µ B ,s htfluc- that so ), A 239 susually is Dtd uy1,2018) 14, July (Dated: uhas Pu .J Curro J. N. .Morales L. lmn oteXF aa uliwt spin with Nuclei com- data. a XAFS as serves the and ideal to distortions, also plement local is these NMR probing theory. puts for any distortions de- on local a constraints these Therefore, important of cap- study calculations. be experimental structure should tailed distortions and band local system, by electronic these tured the Clearly, by locally [8]. caused distorts are sites lattice structure Ga Pu the fine that around absorbtion suggest x-ray studies Recent (XAFS) atoms. of ondary structure electronic the dynamics spin system. the into the insight of of considerable orders nuclei gain three secondary can the to one measuring one by typically el- so are secondary smaller, In) the magnitude or of Ga nuclei (Al, the hand, ement to other the coupling On hyperfine invisible. the rendered is signal their that utoso fteeeto spin electron the of of tuations edptnil a( Ga potential. field rcfil rdet(EFG), gradient field tric xeineeeti uduoa neatosbtenthe moment between quadrupolar interactions quadrupolar electric experience ierlxto ae( rate relaxation tice site. impurity the at EFG h ancesi oyrsa apeo Pu of sample polycrystal a in nucleus Ga the h rtNReprmnson experiments performed NMR Argonne first at coworkers the and Brodsky, Fradin, n oko rdn n efidsmlrbhvo.The behavior. similar find and we shift and Fradin, Knight sta- of Ga work on ing work Our transition moments. magnetic local bilized any of for formation the evidence or no found They [9]. x nooeeul raee yadsrbto fEFGs. is of spectrum distribution Ga a a the for by expected Rather, broadened as vanishes, symmetry. inhomogeneously site cubic find Ga with not the do site we at dependent hand, EFG temperature other the strongly the that On for [18]. or fluctuations moments sites, spin local either Ga for the evidence at no find we and ductor, n ftecalne aigbn hoit calculating theorists band facing challenges the of One nti ae epeetKih hf ( shift Knight present we paper this In 0 = brtr,LsAao,N 87545, NM Alamos, Los aboratory, δ P eeldtie nomto bu the about information detailed reveal -Pu . oie nomto bu h oa spin local the about information rovides 1 ewe Kad10.I h al 1970’s, early the In 100K. and 4K between 017 δ nlLbrtr,LsAao,N 87545 NM Alamos, Los Laboratory, onal ihidctsta h aexperiences Ga the that indicates hich P rvd h nynwdt ic h pioneer- the since data new only the provide -Pu δ pnltierlxto aeindicate rate relaxation lattice spin Saiie Plutonium -Stabilized oaiain n is and polarization, e sihmgnosybroadened inhomogeneously is m T 1 − I 1 T Q = aabhv si yia con- typical a in as behave data 1 − ftence n h oa elec- local the and nuclei the of 1 2 3 ,adlnwdh( linewidth and ), steeoesniiet the to sensitive therefore is ) V δ αα P sterl ftesec- the of role the is -Pu where , S δ inconsistent P tblzdwt Al with stabilized -Pu ea h ulis fast so nuclei the relax [email protected] V LA-UR-03-8735 stecrystal the is K σ ,si lat- spin ), 1 − aaon data ) x Ga > I x for 1 2 uduoa oeto h a and Ga, the of moment quadrupolar field, smaue ytencerpolarization. nuclear problems, the heating by significant any measured no prevent as with the to 2K cool to to fine down us sufficiently sample allows design is sample. This frits with contamination. contact the external thermal of a axis mesh the establish along The enter and to coil gas He the screens) cold of (metallic the allow frits to the secured ends along and the at epoxy coil, NMR the the out to of contact bored axis thermal therefore solid We a sample. establish NMR the well to the crucial as by currents is self-heating surface it both induced pulses, How- to to due sample. subject heating Pu rf is as the en- Pu as the to well since assembly as ever, coil epoxy NMR an the constructed capsulate we probe, NMR oteeetv aitna o h ance in nuclei Ga the for Hamiltonian effective the so simply: ihasmer oe hncbca h aimpurities. Ga the at cubic than lower distortions symmetry lattice a local with are there that suggests result text. This the in described as fit throu line Gaussian solid a the and is metal, data Ga pure the of position the is line The 1: FIG. where oet fteEGtno.Tehprn neato is interaction hyperfine The by tensor. given EFG the of ponents a pn) o iewt ui symmetry, cubic with site a lo- For electrons, spins). (conduction cal contributions spin various the H h aitna fteG ulii ie by: given is nuclei Ga the of Hamiltonian The the of contamination radiological avoid to order In = ν γ γ

c signal ~ I ˆ H 3 = stegrmgei ratio, gyromagnetic the is · hyp H 69 80.9 eQV 0 aNRsetu t4.Tesldvertical solid The 4K. at spectrum NMR Ga = + I H cc hν · 6 / P = c 20, Experimental (3 i γ 81.0 I A ˆ ~ Freq (MHz) z 2 η 1+ (1 i − · ( = S I i 2 K ( V r + ) ,weetesmi over is sum the where ), aa I ˆ 81.1 η z ( H − I ˆ x 2 0 H V , − V bb 0 αα I ) ˆ steexternal the is y /V 2 )+ )) V 81.2 r h com- the are cc αα , H vanishes, Q hyp δ P is -Pu sthe is (2) (1) gh I.2 h ngtsit( shift Knight The 2: FIG. where susceptibili bulk versus shift take Knight are The data INSET: susceptibility [10]. The from temperature. versus Ga the h pcr ewe Kad10 oaGaussian; a to 100K fit and We 4K shift. between Knight spectra different of the a center indicating of The metal, that than Ga frequency pure below. in lower discuss somewhat is we resonance the as dis- a EFG’s, de- by of however, the broadened, tribution lift is not spectrum The does generacy. Hamiltonian quadrupolar the since atc eaainrate, relaxation lattice utaigfilsta r epniua to perpendicular are dependent that time fields by fluctuating Transitions induced are levels levels. nuclear energy the Boltz- between the equilibrium among an acquire distribution to mann system spin nuclear the hnfloigE.() eextract we (3), susceptibility, Eq. magnetic following of then component single a assume we moment, second rms the in and tion, K fFg 2.W find We (2). Fig. of eto h lcrncsusceptibility, electronic the of nent K htti pcrmcnit faltrencertransi- nuclear three all of ( consists tions spectrum this that 0 h pnltierlxto esrstetm cl for scale time the measures relaxation lattice spin The nFg 1 eso h asetu t4.Note 4K. at spectrum Ga the show we (1) Fig. In K (%)

versus satmeaueidpnetobtlsitcontribu- shift orbital independent temperature a is 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 I z T + = χ A 0 1 1 where , T i stehprn opigt the to coupling hyperfine the is 2 3 = K 20 pnLtieRelaxation Lattice Spin ↔ ( γ T 2

+ K (%) 2 k = ) T B K 2 1 40 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 sa mlctprmtr(e inset (see parameter implicit an is I , ω 0 lim T K → z 0 = 1 400 • − 0 σ 0 n ucpiiiy(oi ie of line) (solid susceptibility and ) + = χ 1 T (K) + X r hw nFg.(,) If (2,3). Figs. in shown are , (x10 60 . sgv by: give is q 5 and 65% X 2 1 i A -6 − ↔ ⊥ 2 500 A emu/mol) 80 ( i K q χ ) χ i 0 2 1 χ ( ( A T I , and T ⊥ 100 ) 600 80kOe/ = ”( ). z , ω = q A H ω , − 0 120 yplotting by i h spin The . ) th 2 1 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 − ↔ compo- K µ

B

emu/mol) and (x10

. χ

(4) (3) 3 2 ty. -6 ), n 20 1

15 0.1

10 (G) 0.01 σ 1.0 0.8 0.6 69

Echo Size 0.4 Ga

5 Magnetization (arb units) 0.001 0.2 71Ga

Magnetization 0.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.1 1 10 100 2 2 τ (msec ) time (ms) 0 0.0001 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

T (K) time (ms)

FIG. 3: The rms second moment of the spectral linewidth FIG. 4: The magnetization decay of the Ga line at 4K, and 69 versus temperature of the Ga line in δ-Pu. INSET: The fits to a single exponential decay (solid line) and the decay 2 echo integral versus τ , where τ is the pulse spacing between function for the central transition (dotted line). INSET: The ◦ ◦ the 90 and 180 pulses. magnetization recovery data for both isotopes of Ga. The time scale for the 71Ga has been scaled by (71γ/69γ)2, as expected for magnetic relaxation. where A⊥(q) is the spatial Fourier transform of the hyperfine coupling in the perpendicular direction, 71 69 χ⊥”(q,ω) is the dynamical q-dependent susceptibility, relaxation of the Ga with that of the Ga. The time and the sum is over the Brillouin zone. In this case, we scale for the 71Ga has been scaled by (71γ/69γ)2 (see expect that A is isotropic and q-independent, thus the Eq. (4)); the fact that the data for both sets of isotopes spin lattice relaxation rate is sensitive to fluctuations for fall onto the same line indicates a magnetic relaxation all q, and any magnetic correlations or magnetic order mechanism, rather than a quadrupolar one (as might be −1 should be reflected in T1 . expected for structural fluctuations, for example). 69 −1 We measured the Ga T1 by inversion recovery. In In Fig. (5) we show the temperature dependence −1 Fig. (4) we show data at 4K, which shows a single expo- of T1 . In conductors where the dominant relaxation 3 nential. In principle, the recovery of the I = 2 Ga can be mechanism is by scattering with the conduction elec- more complex. However, since the satellites overlay the trons via a single contact interaction, such as in the al- −1 central transition (strictly speaking, the H1 pulses have a kali earth metals, the Knight shift and the T1 are re- 2 bandwidth much greater than the EFG distribution) all lated [11]: T1TK = κ, where the Korringa constant is nuclear levels are inverted by the pulses, and the recovery 2 ~ 2 given by: κ = µB/πkB γ . For convenience, we define 2 function simplifies to a single exponential of the form: S ≡ T1TK /κ, so for the simple case, S(T ) is unity. Clearly this quantity approaches a constant value at low −t/T1 M(t)= M0(1 − fe ), (5) temperatures, as seen in the inset of Fig. (5). This result suggests the absence of magnetic correlations or magnetic where M0, f, and T1 are fit parameters. If the EFG were order of the Pu spins, which would likely contribute a actually much greater, and the satellite transitions (Iz = strong temperature dependence to T1T . ± 3 ↔± 1 ) were either too broad to observe, or missing 2 2 The fact that S(T → 0) ∼ 0.05 suggests that hyper- from the spectra for some reason, then the recovery of fine interaction in δ-Pu is more complex than in the alkali the observed central transition (I = + 1 ↔ − 1 ) would z 2 2 earth metals. Electron-electron correlations can give rise be of the form: to an increase in S(T ), however S > 1 is seen only in

9 −6t/T1 1 −t/T1 systems with a single hyperfine coupling [12, 13]. The M(t)= M0 1 − f e + e . (6)  10 10  fact that S(T ) < 1 suggests that there is more than one hyperfine coupling mechanism to the conduction elec- Clearly, as observed in Fig. (4), the data indicate a single trons. In particular, if there were two hyperfine cou- exponential, which supports the conclusion that the Ga plings, A1 and A2, to two different conduction bands, is located at cubic site. In the inset, we compare the then the Knight shift would be given by the sum A1 +A2, 1000 0.4

κ 0.3 /

800 2 iso 0.2 TK 1

T 0.1

) 600 -1 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100

(sec T (K) -1 1

T 400 signal (arb units)

200

80.9 81.0 81.1 81.2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Freq (MHz) T (K) FIG. 6: The hole-burning spectrum of 69Ga at 4K. The solid line is the spectrum after a narrow inversion pulse, and the FIG. 5: The spin lattice relaxation rate versus temperature for 2 dashed line is the spectrum with no preliminary pulse. the Ga (•), and Al (, from [17]) in δ-Pu. INSET: T1T K /κ versus T , where κ is given by the Korringa constant. The 2 2 dotted line is a fit to T1T K /κ = S0(1 +(T/T0) ), where generally: S0 = 0.046, and T0 = 25K. 2 2 2 2 2 2 σ = σmag + σq + (χnH0) + σηη + σηη′ , (7) ηX′6=η whereas the spin lattice relaxation rate would be given by the sum of the squares A2 + A2, so that naively one 2 1 2 where σmag is the contribution from magnetic moments in 2 A1+A2 might expect T1TK ∼ 2 2 . If A1 and A2 have differ- 2 A1+A2 the system, σq is the contribution from non-zero EFG’s ent signs, then the measured ratio can be less than unity, at the nuclear site, χnH0 is the contribution from the as we observe. In fact, the measured S(T → 0) suggests anisotropic susceptibility and demagnetization fields in 2 A2/A1 = −0.9. A second, negative hyperfine coupling via the powder, and σηη′ is the second moment of the nu- core polarization is common in transition metals such as clear dipole interaction. Note that η = η′ corresponds to Platinum [14]. Given the complex electronic structure of like spin coupling (for example 69Ga-69Ga coupling) and δ-Pu, and the result that the f electrons have itinerant η 6= η′ corresponds to unlike spin coupling (69Ga-71Ga behavior, such a result is not surprising [15, 17]. and 69Ga-239Pu) [13]. These quantities can be calcu- As seen in the inset, S(T ) has a quadratic temperature lated for the fcc Pu lattice with randomly located Ga 2 dependence; we fit the data to S(T )= S0(1 + (T/T0) ). atoms, and depend on the orientation of the field with In transition metals, T0 is a measure of the energy scale respect to the crystal parameters [13]. For our polycrys- on which the density of states has structure away from talline sample, the broadening is an average over the unit 2 the Fermi energy. Specifically, Yafet and Jaccarino find sphere; since ση,η′ varies by less than 50% over the unit 2 2 πkB T0 = hρ/3d ρ/dE iEF , where ρ is the density of sphere we have chosen the (100) field direction for con- 2 2 2 2 states [16].p Comparison with photoemission data or band creteness. We find σ69,69 = 0.009G , σ69,71 = 0.004G , 2 2 structure calculations is difficult, however, since kBT0 = and σ69,239 = 2.5G . As seen in Fig. (3), the spectral 2.2meV is less than their typical energy resolution [4, 15]. broadening is much greater than the dipolar coupling. In order to determine the field dependent contribution, we measured the linewidth as a function of applied field, Inhomogeneous Broadening as seen in Fig. (7). Fitting the data to Eq. (7) we find σ(H0 =0)=4.6G, a value still greater than than We now turn to the width of the NMR line. In princi- dipolar second moment, so the NMR spectrum must be ple, the resonance can be broadened by inhomogeneities inhomogeneously broadened by ∼ 4.3G ∼ 4.4kHz. in H0, by magnetic interactions with the other nuclei in To test for inhomogeneous broadening we performed the system, by local magnetic moments on the Pu sites, a hole burning test by saturating a narrow fraction of and by quadrupolar effects. The magnet has a homogene- the line. We applied a low power pulse to the system ity of 10ppm, so field inhomogeneities can be neglected. prior to a broad-band echo sequence; the spectrum is Let us define σ2 as the second moment of the NMR line shown in Fig. (6). Clearly, the full spectrum consists of 1 spectrum. For a nucleus with I > 2 we expect quite the superposition of several narrow intrinsic lines. Note In this case, the 4kHz broadening would correspond to a 16 69 distribution of e QVcc/h ∼ 27kHz in the local EFG at the Ga site. 12 Any perturbation from cubic symmetry at the Ga site will give rise to a finite EFG and consequently contribute to the line breadth. XAFS studies of the Pu-Ga distances 8 in δ-Pu indicate that the lattice contracts slightly around (G) the Ga impurities [8], however it is not clear how the σ EFG will be modified as a result. Further studies are needed to determine what fraction of the quadrupolar 4 line broadening arises from radioactive damage and what arises from lattice contraction around the Ga impurities. 0 0 20 40 60 80 Decay of the Echo Envelope H0 (kOe) The decay of the echo envelope can provide information FIG. 7: The rms second moment of the spectral line versus applied field. The solid line is a fit to Eq. (7), and the dotted about the like-spin coupling and the intrinsic linewidth. line is the estimated homogeneous linewidth. The spin echo is acquired by applying the pulse sequence 90◦ − τ − 180◦, and occurs at a time 2τ after the first pulse. The integral of the spin echo is plotted versus τ 2 2 that the rms second moment for the ”hole” is 6.7G, a in the inset of Fig. (3). In the limit where σηη is highly value on the order of the field independent broadening, anisotropic, so that the like-spin nuclear coupling is much but still greater than the calculated value. However, the larger in a particular direction, the form of the echo decay 2 excitation pulse in this case was still greater than the hole can be solved exactly in terms of σηη [19, 20, 21]. In this linewidth (but narrower than tha full spectral linewidth) , case, the echo decay is Gaussian: so it is doubtful that the measured hole linewidth reflects the intrinsic linewidth. (2τ)2 M(τ)= M0 exp − 2 , (8) The inhomogeneous broadening arises either from  2T2G  magnetic moments in the system, or from a distribution −2 2 2 of EFGs. In the latter case, we utilize the measured hy- where T2G = γ σηη. However, for the dipolar couplings perfine coupling to estimate the size of the putative mag- discussed here, we are not in such a limit, and one cannot −5 netic moment as 5 × 10 µB . Such moments would not write down an exact form for the echo decay [22]. Nev- be detected in bulk susceptibility measurements. How- ertheless, we find that the echo decay is indeed Gaussian ever, neither σ nor K show any significant temperature with a time constant T2G ∼ 480µs. This value corre- dependence, as one might expect if these local moments sponds to a second moment of 0.105G2, a factor 10 times were present in the system. larger than calculated. Even though we do not have an In fact, the most likely source of inhomogeneous broad- exact form for the echo decay for dipolar couplings, one ening is from a distribution of EFGs which contribute would expect a priori that the measured echo decay con- the the quadrupolar linewidth. One way to test for this stant would be within an a factor of 2-3 of the like-spin is to compare the linewidth of the 71Ga to that of the second moment. Therefore, the fact that we find such a 69Ga. However, we find the surprising result that the disparity is surprising. If the like-spin coupling is in fact 71Ga width is 76% larger than that of the 69Ga, whereas larger than we estimated, then this result suggests one of the quadrupolar moment of the 71Ga is 40% smaller! three causes: (i) there exist indirect couplings between (Note, however, that the measured χn’s (see Eq. 7) of the Ga (unlikely due to their large spatial distances), or the two isotopes do follow the ratio of the gyromagnetic (ii) the effective Ga-Ga distance is smaller, as might be ratios, as expected.) The reason for this discrepancy may expected for Ga clustering, or (iii) the unlike Pu spins are be related to the fact that the sample had been held at fluctuating quickly, so that there is a fluctuating field at temperatures T < 100K for several days prior to the the Ga site that contributes to the dephasing of the Ga measurements of the 71Ga. At these temperatures, the spins [23]. XAFS studies of the Ga distribution suggest damage to the lattice inflicted by the radioactive decay that the Ga is distributed uniformly, so the most likely of the Pu atoms is not annealed out, and is reflected in explanation for the enhanced echo decay rate is (iii) [8]. resistivity measurements [18]. One expects that the EFG In fact, we do expect that the Pu nuclear spins have a will reflect lattice damage, thus it is reasonable that the very fast spin lattice relaxation rate, since they must have inhomogeneous broadening is due to lattice distortions. a large hyperfine coupling. Conclusions [4] J. M. Wills et al., cond-mat/0307767 and references therein. [5] S. Y. Savrasov, G. Kotliar and E. Abrahams, Nature 410 Ga NMR in δ-Pu provides information both about the 793 (2001) local structure and distribution of the Ga atoms, as well [6] S. S. Hecker, Los Alamos Science 26 90 (2000) as the electronic spin fluctuations. We find that for 1.7 [7] J. Bouchet, B. Siberchicot, F. Jollet and A. Pasturel, J. atomic percent doping, δ-Pu shows little evidence for Phys.: Condens. Matter 12 1723 (2000) local magnetic moments at the Pu sites, but that the [8] S. D. Conradson, Appl. Spec. 52 252 1999) hyperfine coupling between the Ga and the conduction [9] F. Y. Fradin and M. B. Brodsky, Intern. J. Magnetism 1 electrons probably contains a contact as well as a core 89 (1970) polarization term. Furthermore, the NMR spectrum is [10] S. Meot-Reymond, and J. M. Fournier, Jour. Alloys and Compounds; 232 119 (1996) inhomogeneously broadened by a distribution of EFG’s [11] J. Korringa, Physica 16 601 (1950) at the cubic symmetric Ga site. More detailed studies of [12] D. Pines, Solid State Physics 1, ed. by F. Seitz and D. the linewidth as a function of doping should yield impor- Turnbull (Academic, New York, 1955) tant information about the Ga distribution. It is worth [13] C. P. Slichter, Principles of Magnetic Resonance, 3rd. noting that these experiments were conducted at tem- Ed. (Springer Verlag, New York, 1990) peratures lower than the proposed Kondo temperature [14] A. M. Clogston, V. Jaccarino, and Y. Yafet, Phys. Rev. 134 of 200-300K [10]. Therefore, further studies at higher 650 (1964) [15] A. J. Arko, J. J. Joyce, L. Morales, J. Wills, J. Lashley,F. temperatures may shed light on the presence of spin fluc- Wastin and J. Rebizant, Phys. Rev. B. 62 1773 (2000) tuations. [16] Y. Yafet and V. Jaccarino, Phys. Rev. 133 1630 (1964) This work was performed at Los Alamos National Lab- [17] F. Y. Fradin in Plutonium and Other Actinides, edited by oratory under the auspices of the US Department of En- H. Blank and R. Lindner, (North-Holland, Amsterdam, ergy. We thank J. Sarrao, J. Thompson, J. Wills, M. 1976) Fluss, and C. P. Slichter for enlightening discussions. [18] B. D. Wirth, A. J. Schwartz, M. J. Fluss, M.J. Caturla, M. A. Wall, W. G. Wolfer, MRS Bulletin 26 679 (2001); M. J. Fluss, et al., in press J. Alloys Comp. [19] C. H. Pennington and C. P. Slichter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 381 (1991) [20] R. E. Walstedt and S- W. Cheong, Phys. Rev. B 51, 3163 [1] J. L. Sarrao, L. A. Morales, J. D. Thompson, B. L. Scott, (1995); C. H. Recchia, K. Gorny and C. H. Pennington, G. R. Stewart, F. Wastin, J. Rebizant, P. Boulet, E. Coll- Phys. Rev. B 54, 4207 (1996) neau, and G. H. Lander, Nature 420, 297 (2002) [21] N. J. Curro and C. P. Slichter, J. Mag. Res. 130, 186 [2] A. M. Boring and J. L. Smith, Los Alamos Science 26 90 (1998) (2000) [22] B. V. Fine, cond-mat/9707249 [3] J.C. Lashley, J. Singleton, A. Migliori, J.B. Betts, R. A. [23] N. J. Curro, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 63 2181 (2002) Fisher, J. L. Smith, and R.J. McQueeney, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 205901 (2003)