Technical Physics

, Volume 60, Issue 2, pp 196–205 | Cite as

Long periodically modulated Josephson contact in a magnetic field and correctness of the bean model

Theoretical and Mathematical Physics


The distribution of vortices and the profile of a magnetic field penetrating into a long contact are calculated on the basis of analysis of a continuous modification of the configuration in the direction of a decrease in its Gibbs potential. The computer calculations based on the proposed method have shown that critical value I C exists in the interval 0.95–1.00, which separates two possible regimes of penetration of the external magnetic field into the contact. For I > I C , the calculation for any value of external field H e leads to a finite-length near-boundary current configuration, which completely compensates the external field in the bulk of the contact. If, however, I < I C , such a situation takes place only up to certain value H max of the external magnetic field. For high values of the field, it penetrates into the contact to an infinite depth. If the magnetic field is zero in the bulk of the contact, near the boundary it decreases with increasing depth almost linearly. The values of the slope are rational fractions and remain constant in finite intervals of I. If the value of I exceeds the upper boundary of such interval, the slope increases jumpwise and assumes the value of another rational fraction. These results lead to the conclusion that the Bean assumptions are violated and that the Bean model is inapplicable for the analysis of the processes considered here.


Magnetic Field Vortex External Magnetic Field External Field Contact Boundary 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C. P. Bean, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 250 (1962).CrossRefADSMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y. B. Kim and P. W. Anderson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 36, 39 (1964).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    K.-H. Muller, J. C. Macfarlane, and R. Driver, Rev. Mod. Phys. 158, 69 (1989).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Q.H. Lam, Y. Kim, and C. D. Jeffries, Phys. Rev. B 42, 4848 (1990).ADSGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. A. Golubov, I. L. Serpuchenko, and A. V. Ustinov, Sov. Phys. JETP 67, 1256 (1988).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. A. Zelikman, Tech. Phys. 52, 1316 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    I. O. Kulik and I. K. Yanson, Josephson Effect in Superconducting Tunnel Structures (Nauka, Moscow, 1970).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. N. Dorogovtzev and A. N. Samuhin, Europhys. Lett. 25, 693 (1994).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. M. Zaslavskii and R. Z. Sagdeev, Introduction to Nonlinear Physics (Nauka, Moscow, 1988).MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. A. Zelikman, Tech. Phys. 54, 197 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. A. Zelikman, Tech. Phys. 54, 1742 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.St. Petersburg State Polytechnical UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations