100
200
500
1000
2 5 10 20
#1-2140
B||c
Magnetic Field (T)
Crit
ica
l cu
rre
nt
(A
/12
mm
)The same on log-log scale sample M3-609-1-MS norm to 12mm, thickness 2.15 um
sample M3-594-1-MS norm to 12 mm thickness 1.5 um
For starters c axis vs BWe have a lot of this, here there is Selva’s sample compared to old BZO SP and no BZO Sp
0
500
1000
1500
0 30 60 90
SP 25 1 T3 T5 T10 T14.5 T
FWHM @ 14.5 T approx 17 deg
deg
norm
alize
d to
4 m
m w
idth
very new 100 m Cu w=0.85 mmSP27 (former 25)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
-30 0 30 60 90
SP20 1 TSP20 5 TSP20 10 TSP20 15 TSP20 20 TSP20 25 TSP20 30 T
Ic (A
/4mm
-wid
th)
SP 20 w=1.05
0
500
1000
1500
0 30 60 90
1 T 687-24 T5 T10 T15 T20 T25 T30 T
angle (deg)
Ic (
A/4
mm
-wid
th)
M3-687-2 MS BZO w=1.01 mm
SP20
0
500
1000
1500
-30 0 30 60 90 120
3 T5 T10 T FWHM 22 deg15 T FWHM 19.5 deg20 T FWHM 14 deg25 T
deg
Ic (A
/4 m
m w
idth
)
SP26
0
500
1000
1500
0 30 60 90
T=4.2 K
609-1MS
15/20/25/30 T
10 T5 T
3 T
1 T
(deg)
0
500
1000
1500
0 30 60 90
T = 4.2 K
513-FS
10 T5 T
1 T
15/20/25/30 T
(deg)
I c(A/4
mm
wid
th)
In contrast to 77 K , at T =4.2 K different YBCO CC have similar Jc(, B)No c-axis maximumCusp-like ab maximum
Narrow channel to reduce current below 500 A
ab ab
For the above angular, maybe:
1 show that these with BZO wider
That exp fits for high fields
That GL fits for low fields-we have 1 T sometimesIf what Alex said is true, anizotropy for 1 T for NO BZO should be lower than for BZOI did not checked yet…
And maybe something about scaling, like starting from 1 T and vs B calculate how it departs from GLFor higher fields
50
100
200
500
1000
0 30 60 90
909 Y #2 FWHM= 16 deg892 Y #1 FWHM=20 deg921-2c #8 Y FWHM= 15 deg915 Zr #5 FWHM =23 deg923-2c-4 Zr #10 FWHM=23 deg923-1c #9 Zr FWHM=25 deg
open Zr doped
full Y-doped
B = 12 T T=4.2 K
deg
Ic (
A/c
m)
Same data, vertical scale logIt seems that Zr samples have wider maxima than Y dopedFWHM shown in the legend are larger for Zr doped, indeed
I very like this, but this is MetOx
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 50 100 150
SP 07687-2-MS674 FSSP20SP19SP-01 (STDA) 515-FSBZO 594-BSSP-02 STDB 513-FSSP-04 STD D 549-BSasc3 515-FSSP-18 (STD12) 522 FS#2 asc 513-MSasc1 501-MS (501 FS=SP17)
SP07
SP19 SP20
687 MS
674 FS
slope 1.8
slope 1.2
#1 501-MS
SP01 (unwound from coil)
#2 5
13 M
S
SP 18
#3 515 FS
SP06
BZO BS
SP02
SP04
Ic 77 K SF
I c 4.2
K 1
4 T
Is it good for paper?Would SP be happy?
(there is a better version
Magneto-optical visualization reveals defects RESULTS
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 50 100 150
SP 25SP 07687-2-MS674 FSSP20SP19SP-01 (STDA) 515-FSBZO 594-BSSP-02 STDB 513-FSSP-04 STD D 549-BSasc3 515-FSSP-18 (STD12) 522 FS#2 asc 513-MSasc1 501-MS (501 FS=SP17)
SP 25
522-MS
646-2FS 612-19BS
687 MS
674 FSslope 1.8
slope 1.2
501-MS
515-FS (unwound from coil)
513 M
S
522-FS
515 FS
609-1MS
594-BS
513-FS
549-BS
Ic 77 K SF
I c 4.2 K
14 T
How macroscopic defects in substrate, coating copper etc etc influence growth, performance? Is there any correlation?
All perfect
defects
bad
perfect
100
200
500
1000
1 2 5 10 2030
M3-687-2-MS t=0.94 mBZO doped
100
200
500
1000
1 2 5 10 2030
M3-612-19-BS (SP 20) 100
200
500
1000
1 2 5 10 2030
M3-609-MS (SP06)
50
100
200
500
1000
1 2 5 10 2030
M3-513-FS (SP 02)
I c(A
/4
mm
wid
t h)
B (T) B(T) B(T) B(T)
0 deg
6070
80
85
90
0 deg
6070
80
85
90
0 deg
6070
80
85
90
0 deg
60
70
80
85
90
•At 20 deg off plane: upto 200 A at 30 T•BZO doped sample: the highest Ic at 5 deg off
Ic vs. field @ 0/60/70/80/85/90 deg: different tapesMicrosoft Office Excel Worksheet
Figure as this??? SP26 should look better here
Top Related