2003
DOI: 10.1023/a:1022986816430
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Untitled

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2c. This is in agreement with measurements performed earlier on thick films in decreasing fields [15,20] and confirms the assumption that Meissner currents are weak in that case, but may be not negligible in view of the smaller slope obtained here.…”
supporting
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…2c. This is in agreement with measurements performed earlier on thick films in decreasing fields [15,20] and confirms the assumption that Meissner currents are weak in that case, but may be not negligible in view of the smaller slope obtained here.…”
supporting
confidence: 94%
“…This highly hysteretic behavior has been ascribed to strong screening currents in increasing fields and much weaker ones in decreasing fields as discussed above. [15,20]. The negligible hysteresis observed in our thin samples implies that the screening currents are very low even in increasing fields and that the two finite bias peaks cannot be due to a Doppler shift of the zero energy bound states.…”
mentioning
confidence: 66%
“…Later results, obtained on films that did have the (110) orientation, show a more complex behavior. In particular there is a strong splitting in decreasing fields, and it persists even at small thickness (Beck et al, 2003;Dagan and Deutscher, 2001b). This behavior raises questions that will be discussed in the last section of this review.…”
Section: High Z (110) Contacts Under Magnetic Fieldsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In this model, the competing order parameter dominates over the superconducting one only in the anti-node regions. Specifically the origin of the pseudogap lies in the vicinity of a Charge Density Wave (CDW) (Benfatto et al, 2000) line T * (p) , as mentioned above, but from a phenomenological standpoint their main results are given in terms of a gap ∆(φ) which is dominated by the pseudogap ∆ p near the anti-nodal points and by the superconducting order parameter near the nodes. They argue in favor of the weak coupling limit ∆ < t, where t is the nearest neighbor interaction term in the tight binding approximation, so that T c is equal within a numerical factor to the energy scale that governs the behavior of ∆ near the nodes.…”
Section: Two Gap Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation