2010
DOI: 10.1007/s10948-010-1021-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Different Critical Current Density Models for Undoped Monofilamentary Ti-Sheathed MgB2 Tapes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Undoped samples tend to have their maximum value at lower than the theoretical 0.2 [43], as also seen in Fig. 6.…”
Section: Experimental the Monofilamentarysupporting
confidence: 60%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Undoped samples tend to have their maximum value at lower than the theoretical 0.2 [43], as also seen in Fig. 6.…”
Section: Experimental the Monofilamentarysupporting
confidence: 60%
“…Irreversibility used here is the value of where of 100 is reached. In addition, the theoretical maximum point predicted by grain boundary pinning is indicated by a line at [43], [44]. The curves at 22 K can be seen in Fig.…”
Section: Experimental the Monofilamentarymentioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In non-ideal type 1, as well as in type 2 SC, field trapping may occur. During the process of cooldown in the temperature vicinity of the superconducting phase transition, flux lines can get pinned to normal conducting (NC) impurities [14] or grain boundaries [15]. This process of flux pinning [14] occurs normally only in the Shubnikov phase [16] H c1 < H < H c2 , where the critical current flows within a depth necessary to reduce the field inside the SC to H c1 At field strengths H c1 < H < H p below a penetration field H p , fluxlines will not penetrate through the Bean-Livingston barrier, which is caused by the attraction of the Abrikosov vortices to their 'mirror images' near the surface.…”
Section: Field Trappingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Including this dependence in the modelling process further complicates the calculation due to the strong coupling introduced between the magnetostatic and the eddy current problems. The most common way to include this dependence in numerical models is through analytical formulas [1][2][3][4][5]. However, analytical approaches rely on fitting parameters to be preliminarily evaluated and consequently suffer from lack of enough accuracy in complicated problems.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%