Advertisement

Low-Temperature Thermopower and Other Transport Properties of Aluminium Containing Dilute Point Defects

  • K. Böning

Abstract

We compare new experimental results of the low-temperature thermopower and of the low-field Hall effect (and magnetoresistance) of aluminium containing dilute point defects. The defects were either nonmagnetic impurities (Ge, Mg, Zn, Ga, or Cu) or Frenkel defects (FD, i.e. self-interstitials and vacancies) introduced by reactor irradiation at 4.6 K. Some of the results can be compared with 4 OPW calculations, which were performed using the realistic Al Fermi surface (FS) and tabulated pseudo-potentials and without adjusting any parameter.

The low-field Hall coefficient Ro at 4.6 K was always found to be consistent, even quantitatively, with the generalized Tsuji-formula, see below. The low-temperature thermopower S was shown to agree with the law S = AT+BT3 below about 6–8 K (measurement at 1.3 K<T<13 K, superconducting reference).

The diffusion thermopower coefficient A was essentially independent of the concentration of isolated FD or impurities, but changed drastically during FD agglomeration. This behaviour of A parallels that of Ro and demonstrates that the Al bandstructure always remained sufficiently unchanged by the defects. The different values of A or Ro as observed for different defect types are determined only by the different anisotropy (i.e. k→-dependence) of the relaxation time τk. This is all consistent with the Mott-formula for A. Both Ro and -A depended in about the same way on the defect type, but the “wrong” sign of A shows that A is determined by the energy dependence of vkτk (velocity vk) which overcompensates that of the FS area elements dS. Our 4 OPW calculations gave virtually quantitative agreement for Ro but not for A (many body effects?).

The phonon drag thermopower coefficient B behaved totally different for impurities and for FD. For impurities B was again independent of the defect concentration and determined only by the anisotropy of τk, and both Ro and B depended in about the same way on the defect type. This behaviour of B is in qualitative and even semi-quantitative agreement with the Bailyn-formula, and there is no evidence of “phony phonon drag”. In the FD case, however, B was approaching zero as a function of defect concentration and was independent of the anisotropy of τk. This anomalous behaviour obviously has to do with the exceptionally strong phonon scattering on the FD (resonance vibration modes).

Keywords

Point Defect Fermi Surface Defect Type Defect Concentration Reactor Irradiation 
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.
    Int. EPS Study Conf. on “Transport properties of normal metals and alloys below OD” in Cavtat near Dubrovnik, May 9–12, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P.E. Nielsen and P.L. Taylor, Phys. Rev. B10, 4061 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    C.R. Leavens and N.J. Laubitz, J. Phys. F6, 1851 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Boning, K. Pfandner, P. Rosner, and M. Schlüter, J. Phys. F5, 1176 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. Kesternich, H. Ullmaier, and W. Schilling, J. Phys. F6, 1867 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Böning, W. Mauer, K. Pfandner, and P. Rosner, Rad. Effects 29, 177 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Böning, paper presented at the Conf., see Ref. 1; to be published.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N.W. Ashcroft, Phil. Mag. 8, 2055 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.R. Anderson and S.S. Lane, Phys. Rev. B2, 298 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M.T. Robinson, USERDA report CONF - 751006 (1975), p. 1.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H.G. Haubold, in Ref. 10, p. 268.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Seeger, E. Mann, and R.v.Jan, J. Phys. Chem. Sol. 23, 639 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    B.v. Guérard and J. Peisl, in Ref. 10, p. 287 and to be published.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. Mansel, H. Meyer, and G. Vogl, to appear in Rad. Effects.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Schilling, P. Ehrhardt, and K. Sonnenberg, in Ref. 10, p. 470.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Seeger, in Ref. 10, p. 493.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C.M. Hurd, The Hall Effect in Metals and Alloys, Plenum Press, New York, London (1972).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. Böning, Phys. kondens, Materie 11, 177 (1970).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    K. Böning, H.J. Fenzl, E. Olympios, J.M. Welter, and H. Wenzl, phys. stat. sol. 34, 395 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    K. Böning, H.J. Fenzl, J.M. Welter, and H. Wenzl, phys. stat. sol. 40, 609 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    K. Pfandner, K. Böning, and W. Brenig, solid state comm. 23, 31 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Pfandner, Ph.D. thesis in preparation at the Techn. Universität Munchen; K. Pfandner, K. Böning, and W. Brenig, to be published.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R.S. Sorbello, J. Phys. F4, 503 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J.P.G. Shepherd and W.L. Gordon, Phys. Rev. 169, 541 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    R.S. Sorbello, J. Phys. F4, 1665 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Sieber, Ph.D. thesis, Techn. Universität München (1976).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    G. Sieber, G. Wehr, and K. Böning, J. Phys. 23. G. Schmitt, Diplomarbeit (master’s thesis ), Universität Munchen (1976).Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    G. Sieber, G. Schmitt, K. Böning, S.Y. Wang to be published.Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    R.D. Barnard, Thermoelectricity in Metals and Alloys, Taylor and Francis LTD, London (1972).Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    P.L. Taylor, A Quantum Approach to the Solid State, Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey (1970).Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    J.P. Jan, Can. J. Phys. 46, 1371 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 33.
    R.W. Shaw, Phys. Rev. 174, 769 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 34.
    M. Bailyn, Phys. Rev. 157, 480 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 35.
    A.M. Guénault, J. Phys. F1, 373 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 36.
    A.R. DeVroomen, C. van Barle, and A.J. Cuelenaere, Physica 26, 19 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 37.
    H.R. Schober, V.K. Tewary, and P.H. Dederichs, Z. Physik B21, 255 (1975).Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    K. Böning, G.S. Bauer, H.J. Fenzl, R. Scherm, and W. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 852 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 39.
    R.S. Averback, C.H. Stephan, and J. Bass, J. Low Temp. Phys. 12, 319 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 40.
    R.P. Huebener, Phys. Rev. 171, 634 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 41.
    T. Rybka and R.R. Bourassa, Phys. Rev. B8, 4449 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 42.
    S.Y. Wang, Master’s Thesis, University of Oklahoma (1976).Google Scholar
  42. 43.
    A.W. Dudenhoeffer and R.R. Bourassa, Phys. Rev. B5, 1651 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Böning
    • 1
  1. 1.Physik-DepartmentTechn. Universität MünchenGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations