Advertisement

Transition to the Mixed State in Lead Films at 4.2°K

  • G. J. Dolan
  • J. Silcox

Abstract

Type I and type II superconductors are distinguished by their qualitatively different behaviors in the presence of an applied magnetic field. For a flat plate geometry and perpendicularly applied magnetic fields, magnetic flux must penetrate a superconducting specimen at fields much lower than the critical field in perpendicular fields H T . For a type II superconductor the distribution of flux consists of singly quantized vortices in the “mixed state,” while for a type I superconductor the distribution is a much coarser arrangement of normal and superconducting domains referred to as the “intermediate state”. However, as pointed out by Tinkham,1 for sufficiently thin specimens even materials which are type I in the bulk should exhibit mixed-state rather than intermediate-state behavior. Theoretical and experimental work on thin superconducting films has been extensive and includes the detailed calculation of Lasher2 and the critical field measurements of Cody and Miller,3 whose publications include extensive references to many other papers relevant to the subject. Theory and experiment confirm the essential validity of Tinkham’s results but disagree in several details. No direct microscopic observation of the mixed-state structure in very thin films has been reported, although the intermediate-state structure in thicker films has been studied in some detail.4, 7

Keywords

Intermediate State Critical Field Critical Thickness Thin Superconducting Film Direct Microscopic Observation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. Tinkham, Phys. Rev. 129, 2413 (1962).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Lasher, Phys. Rev. 154, 345 (1967).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. D. Cody and R. E. Miller, Phys. Rev. 173, 481 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. P. Huebener, R. T. Kampwirth, and V. A. Rowe, Cryogenics 12, 100 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Träuble and U. Essmann, Phys. Stat. Sol. 18, 813 (1966).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. D. Landau, Phys. Z. Sowjet 11, 129 (1937).MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Barbee, Appl. Phys. Lett. 14, 156 (1969).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. J. Dolan
    • 1
  • J. Silcox
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Applied and Engineering Physics and Laboratory for Atomic and Solid State PhysicsCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations