| Literature DB >> 32927868 |
Paola Romano1,2, Francesco Avitabile1, Angela Nigro3,4, Gaia Grimaldi2, Antonio Leo3,4, Lei Shu5,6, Jian Zhang5, Antonio Di Bartolomeo2,3, Filippo Giubileo2.
Abstract
We performed a detailed investigation of the supn>erconductingEntities:
Keywords: Andreev reflection; energy gap; nano-junction; proximity effect; superconducting order parameter; superconductivity; transport properties
Year: 2020 PMID: 32927868 PMCID: PMC7558182 DOI: 10.3390/nano10091810
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1(a) The resistance as a function of the temperature normalized to the normal state resistance value for the three different Ce doping. (b) Evaluated critical temperature values as a function of the doping. The inset shows a schematic diagram of the Pr1−xCexPt4Ge12 crystal structure, showing the Pr,Ce atoms residing in icosahedral cages formed by tilted PtGe6 octahedral. (c) Magnetic field dependence of the resistance versus temperature curve measured for the sample with x = 0.07 doping.
Figure 2(a). The H-T phase diagram as obtained by R(T) measurements at different applied magnetic fields for the sample with the doping x = 0.07. The irreversibility line (0.1 RN curve) and the upper critical field behaviour (0.9 RN curve) are indicated. (b) The upper critical field data are shown as black spheres. The red solid line is a fit of the data by the Ginzburg–Landau Equation (Equation (1) in the text). The blue dashed line is obtained by the single band WHH model (Equation (2) in the text). (c) Scaling plots of the normalized upper critical field Hc2(T)/Hc2(0) plotted as function of the reduced temperature T/Tc for the parent compound PrPt4Ge12 [14,29,30], Nd-doped samples Pr1−xNdxPt4Ge12 [29] and for our Pr1−xCexPt4Ge12 sample with x = 0.07. Hc2(T) curves are obtained by resistivity, R, specific heat, C, and magnetization measurements, M. The inset shows the Hc2 data as a function of the temperature for the same samples in the main panel. (d) The irreversibility field data are shown as open circles. The red solid line is a fit of the data by Equation (5) in the test.
Figure 3(a) The Arrhenius plot of the R(T) curves for the sample with the doping x = 0.07. (b) The pinning activation energy as a function of the applied magnetic field for the same sample. The dotted lines are obtained by a linear fit on the data in the log–log plot.
Figure 4Normalized conductance spectra, dI/dV–V, measured at low temperature (T = 4.2 K) in different sample locations on the Pr1−xCexPt4Ge12 (with x = 0) sample. Experimental data (empty symbols) in (a,b) are compared to numerically calculated curves for the three different symmetries. The I–V curve is shown in the inset. Experimental data (empty symbols) in (c,d) are compared to numerically calculated curves for d-wave symmetry only. Inset in (d) represent the schematic of model in which an inter-grain Josephson junction is formed in series with the point contact junction.
Figure 5(a) Conductance spectra measured in a different location on the same superconducting sample: the lower (green) spectrum was measured soon after the tip approach on the surface. The upper spectrum was measured after increasing the tip pressure on the surface. The upper (black) spectrum was vertically shifted (+0.2) for clarity. Solid lines represent the numerical fits. (b) Evolution of conductance spectra (solid lines) calculated numerically for Δ = 0.55 meV and α = 0.46, and for 0 < Z < 1. The scattered (green) points refer to experimental data of Figure 5a. (c) Evolution of conductance spectra (solid lines) calculated numerically for Δ = 0.55 meV, Z = 0.39, α = 0.29, and 0 < < 0.42 Ω. The scattered (black) points refer to experimental data of Figure 5a.