2003
DOI: 10.1023/a:1023246431624
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Untitled

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is noted this value is an overestimate of the interface resistivity of the experimental system as all of the variability between the model and the experimental system is accounted for in this parameter, where other factors will also contribute. The effect of the interface resistance on the system resistance of a linear EMR device has previously been reported 19,97,98 . The low field resistance of these devices was shown to increase with increased interface resistance, resulting from the current flow being directed through the semiconducting region, suppressing the appearance of an EMR effect.…”
Section: Influence Of Interface Resistancementioning
confidence: 95%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…It is noted this value is an overestimate of the interface resistivity of the experimental system as all of the variability between the model and the experimental system is accounted for in this parameter, where other factors will also contribute. The effect of the interface resistance on the system resistance of a linear EMR device has previously been reported 19,97,98 . The low field resistance of these devices was shown to increase with increased interface resistance, resulting from the current flow being directed through the semiconducting region, suppressing the appearance of an EMR effect.…”
Section: Influence Of Interface Resistancementioning
confidence: 95%
“…This section reviews previous research based upon the variation of material parameters in EMR devices. Furthermore, the effect of three specific parameters on the magnetoresistance are investigated: the conductivity ratio; the mobility of the semiconducting region; and the introduction of an interface resistance 16,17,[19][20][21]86,97,98 .…”
Section: Influence Of Materials Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The contact resistance is assumed to be Ohmic and varied between 10 −8 and 10 Ωcm 2 , with experimental EMR devices featuring, e.g. a contact resistance of 7 • 10 −8 Ωcm 2 for the InAs/Au device [47] and 3.7 • 10 −6 Ωcm 2 for a graphene/Au EMR device [27]. When normalized with the interface area between the metal and semiconductor, the Sharvin resistance has been used to theoretically predict a lower limit for the contact resistance on the order of 1 • 10 −8 Ωcm 2 [47,48].…”
Section: Contact Resistancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…a contact resistance of 7 • 10 −8 Ωcm 2 for the InAs/Au device [47] and 3.7 • 10 −6 Ωcm 2 for a graphene/Au EMR device [27]. When normalized with the interface area between the metal and semiconductor, the Sharvin resistance has been used to theoretically predict a lower limit for the contact resistance on the order of 1 • 10 −8 Ωcm 2 [47,48]. We note that EMR devices with nonlinear contacts may result in different current deflections and EMR behavior compared to the one calculated here as both the direction and magnitude of the local current density varies greatly along the metal/semiconductor boundary in an EMR device.…”
Section: Contact Resistancementioning
confidence: 99%