1971
DOI: 10.1103/physrevb.4.2202
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tunneling in the Normal-Metal-Insulator-Superconductor Geometry Using the Bogoliubov Equations of Motion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

1977
1977
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar results were obtained in an early work by Griffin and Demers (1971) who solved the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations with barrier (a square or a δ-function) of a varying strength at an N/S interface. They obtained a result which interpolates between the clean and the tunneling limit.…”
Section: G1 Conventional Andreev Reflectionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Similar results were obtained in an early work by Griffin and Demers (1971) who solved the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations with barrier (a square or a δ-function) of a varying strength at an N/S interface. They obtained a result which interpolates between the clean and the tunneling limit.…”
Section: G1 Conventional Andreev Reflectionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…91 For its limitations and extensions see comprehensive reviews by and . 92 A formally analogous problem was considered by Griffin and Demers (1971) in an N/I/S system where the twocomponent wave functions represented electronlike and holelike quasiparticles rather then the two-spin projections; see Sec. IV.A.3.…”
Section: F/i/f Tunnelingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…⌬ is the pair potential (de Gennes, 1989), E the excitation energy, and u , v ¯are the electronlike quasiparticle and holelike quasiparticle amplitudes, respectively. 97 Griffin and Demers (1971) have solved the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations with square or ␦-function barriers of varying strength at an N/S interface. They obtained a result that interpolates between the clean and the tunneling limits.…”
Section: Andreev Reflectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The current will therefore be ev F /W for each open transverse channel. In practice, the probability of Andreev reflection is less than unity [8,9] and the motion in the metal may be diffusive, but ev F /W per channel remains an upper bound on the critical current.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%