Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Enhancement of superconductivity on thin film of Sn under high pressure

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A thin film of tin under non-hydrostatic pressure becomes superconducting near 6.3 K at 10.5 GPa, about 10% higher than the bulk γ-Sn transition temperature.

desk verdict A plausible, modest new data point on thin-film Sn under pressure; the Tc enhancement is real as a resistance feature, but not fully confirmed as bulk gamma-Sn superconductivity. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.17451 v2 pith:UWM5K5CJ submitted 2025-01-29 cond-mat.supr-con

Misaki Sasaki , Masahiro Ohkuma , Ryo Matsumoto , Toru Shinmei , Tetsuo Irifune , Yoshihiko Takano , Katsuya Shimizu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords tinsuperconductivityhighpressurethinfilmgamma-Snphasediamondanvilcelluppercriticalfieldgrainrefinement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports that a thin film of tin compressed in a diamond anvil cell becomes superconducting below about 6.3 K near 10.5 GPa, roughly 10% higher than the 5.3 K reported for bulk tin in the same γ-Sn high-pressure phase. The authors combine thin-film growth with high pressure, a combination they identify as largely unexplored for elemental superconductors, and use boron-doped diamond electrodes to measure the electrical resistance of the film. Under non-hydrostatic pressure the upper critical field rises to several tesla, far above the ~0.1 T ambient value, and atomic force microscopy shows grain refinement in the film. The authors propose that this grain refinement under non-hydrostatic pressure stabilizes the higher transition temperature, possibly through phonon softening and enhanced electron-phonon coupling.

What carries the argument

The central experimental arrangement is a diamond anvil cell with boron-doped diamond (BDD) electrodes, allowing four-terminal resistance measurements directly on a roughly 100-nm tin film deposited on the anvil, with no separate electrical contacts to fabricate. The pressure phase of interest is γ-Sn, the high-pressure allotropic form of tin that in bulk samples superconducts near 5.3 K. The proposed mechanism carrying the extra transition temperature is grain refinement: under non-hydrostatic pressure the film's grains shrink from about 300 nm to several tens of nanometers, and prior phonon measurements on nanostructured tin indicate that such refinement softens low-energy phonons and raises the electron-phonon coupling. The upper critical field is analyzed with the standard upper-critical-field model, which converts the measured field dependence of the transition into an estimated Hc2 of several tesla.

What would settle it

Measure AC magnetic susceptibility or heat capacity of the tin film inside the diamond anvil cell at 10.5 GPa: absence of a diamagnetic Meissner signal or a specific-heat jump near 6.3 K would show that the resistance drop is not bulk superconductivity. Alternatively, in-situ X-ray diffraction on the film at 10.5 GPa showing no γ-Sn phase would invalidate the phase assignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a tin thin film in the γ-Sn phase, reached by combining film growth with non-hydrostatic high pressure, superconducts below 6.3 K at about 10.5 GPa, with the midpoint of the transition above 6.0 K. This is approximately 10% higher than the 5.3 K measured for bulk γ-Sn in the earlier pressure study [36], and the resistance drop under magnetic field indicates an upper critical field reaching several tesla, an order-of-magnitude enhancement over the ambient-pressure film and bulk values. The authors also report a resistance anomaly around 11 K at 9.5 GPa whose onset shifts to lower temperature in a magnetic field, which they describe as a possible signature of a higher superconducting transition that requires magnetization, heat-capacity, or tunneling measurements to confirm. Atomic force microscopy comparison before and after pressurization shows grain refinement only under non-hydrostatic conditions, and the authors connect this refinement to the higher transition temperature through phonon softening and increased electron-phonon coupling in nanostructured tin.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the resistance drop seen in the film near 6.3 K at 10.5 GPa is the superconducting transition of γ-Sn, since no magnetization or heat-capacity measurement was made on the film and the γ-phase assignment rests on pressure range and resistance behavior rather than in-situ structural data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the assignment is correct, thin-film processing becomes a viable route to raise the transition temperature in high-pressure phases of elemental superconductors, not only at ambient pressure.
  • The γ-Sn film's 6.3 K transition at 10.5 GPa sets a new pressure-phase benchmark for tin superconductivity, about 10% above the bulk value.
  • The enhanced upper critical field of several tesla implies a strongly reduced coherence length and likely a shorter electron mean free path under non-hydrostatic pressure, consistent with the observed increase in normal-state resistivity.
  • Grain refinement under non-hydrostatic pressure is the paper's candidate explanation for the transition-temperature gain; if it holds, controlling grain size under pressure could become a general tool for engineering thin-film superconductors.
  • The 11 K resistance anomaly at 9.5 GPa, if confirmed by magnetization or heat-capacity measurements, would point to a substantially higher transition temperature in part of the film or in a related phase.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct extension the authors leave implicit: the same grain-refinement route could be tried on other elemental superconductors with high-pressure phases, such as bismuth or lead, to search for similar relative gains in transition temperature.
  • The large upper critical field and high normal-state resistivity under non-hydrostatic pressure suggest a dirty-limit superconductor, so measuring the coherence length from the upper-critical-field slope would test whether the transition-temperature gain tracks disorder-induced shortening of the mean free path.
  • Because non-hydrostatic pressure creates spatial pressure gradients, part of the observed 6.3 K signal could come from film regions at pressures somewhat different from the nominal 10.5 GPa, and a spatially resolved measurement would clarify how much of the gain is genuinely phase-specific rather than pressure-distribution related.
  • The 11 K anomaly offers a concrete testable prediction: magnetization or heat-capacity measurements on the film under pressure should show a corresponding feature if the anomaly is a bulk superconducting transition rather than a fluctuation or granular effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports electrical resistance measurements of evaporated Sn thin films in a diamond anvil cell with boron-doped diamond electrodes, under both non-hydrostatic and quasi-hydrostatic pressure conditions. The authors claim that in the gamma-Sn phase under non-hydrostatic pressure, the superconducting transition temperature reaches 6.3 K at 10.5 GPa, roughly 10% higher than the bulk value reported by Wittig, and that the upper critical magnetic field is drastically enhanced. They also report atomic force microscopy evidence of grain refinement under non-hydrostatic pressure, which they propose as the mechanism stabilizing the higher Tc. Bulk Sn magnetization measurements under pressure are included as a reference, but transport is the only probe used on the film under pressure.

Significance. If confirmed, the result would be a clear demonstration that combining thin-film geometry with pressure can raise Tc of an elemental superconductor beyond the bulk high-pressure phase value, with a plausible microstructure-based mechanism. The paper has several strengths: it compares bulk and thin-film behavior, includes a quasi-hydrostatic control experiment, uses an established BDD electrode technique, and provides a data availability statement. The main significance is therefore conditional on whether the 6.3 K feature is truly bulk superconductivity of a uniform gamma-Sn phase; the current evidence does not fully exclude alternative interpretations such as granular percolation, weak links, or a minority phase.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III.C, Fig. 4(b)] The central claim of the paper—that the 6.3 K resistance drop at 10.5 GPa is a superconducting transition of uniform gamma-Sn—rests entirely on four-terminal resistance measurements. No magnetization or heat-capacity data are reported for the film under pressure; the only magnetic data (Fig. 2) are for bulk Sn. The paper itself cites fluctuation-induced resistance decreases in granular or amorphous films (Sec. IV.C, Refs. [59-62]) and attributes a resistance peak to 'granularity or disorder' in Sec. III.C. A percolating path through strained grains, a weak-link network, or a minority high-Tc region could produce the same resistance drop without a bulk transition of gamma-Sn. The ~10% Tc enhancement therefore is not uniquely established by the present data. A bulk-sensitive measurement on the film (e.g., ac susceptibility in the DAC) or a quantitative analysis ruling out fluctuation and weak-link contributions is needed.
  2. [Sec. II and Sec. IV.A] Pressure is not measured at the sample: under non-hydrostatic conditions the pressure is determined from ruby fluorescence and diamond Raman shift at room temperature, which gives a distribution across the culet rather than a single sample pressure. No error bars are given in Fig. 7, which is the basis for the comparison with Wittig's bulk data. The argument that a pressure gradient cannot explain the 6.3 K value assumes the bulk Tc(P) slope and phase stability; under non-hydrostatic loading, local regions of the film could be at different pressures or contain different phase mixtures, and the additional effects of strain and grain refinement are not quantitatively separated. The paper should provide pressure-uncertainty estimates and a more explicit treatment of how the pressure distribution affects the claimed 10% enhancement.
  3. [Sec. III.C and Fig. 7] The gamma-Sn phase is inferred from the pressure range and the resistance behavior, not from in-situ structural data such as X-ray diffraction. Under non-hydrostatic pressure, the film could contain a mixture of beta-Sn, gamma-Sn, or other high-pressure phases, and the resistance drop near 6.3 K could arise from only part of the film. The phase assignment is load-bearing because the claim is specifically about the gamma-Sn phase; without phase identification, the comparison to Wittig's bulk gamma-Sn result is not fully grounded. In-situ XRD on the film under pressure, or at least a more detailed resistance-based phase analysis, would strengthen this point.
  4. [Sec. IV.B, Fig. 8] The AFM grain-refinement evidence is not directly tied to the transport samples. The film shown in Fig. 8 was deposited on a diamond anvil without BDD electrodes, and after pressurization most of the film peeled off and was transferred to the MgO-epoxy mixture; AFM was performed only on a small remaining area. It is therefore not established that the film used for the 6.3 K resistance measurement had the same grain refinement. In addition, the quasi-hydrostatic AFM control (Fig. 9) shows no grain refinement but also was not measured on the exact transport film. The causal statement that grain refinement contributes to stabilizing the higher Tc of gamma-Sn is plausible but currently supported only by indirect correlation.
  5. [Sec. III.C, Fig. 4(c)] The upper critical magnetic field values are derived from resistance onsets fitted with the WHH model. If the zero-field resistance drop is not a bulk superconducting transition of a single phase, these Hc2 values are not reliable as intrinsic properties. Moreover, no comparison is made with Hc2 of bulk gamma-Sn under pressure, so the 'drastic enhancement' lacks a baseline. The authors should either provide a bulk comparison or temper the claim about Hc2 enhancement until a bulk-sensitive confirmation is available.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. I] There is a typo 'comapred' in the Introduction; the abstract also contains awkward phrasing such as 'pressure effects of a superconductivity' that should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. IV.A] In the sentence 'A similar tendency was observed for the thin film in β-Sn phas;' the 'phas;' should be 'phase'.
  3. [Sec. II and Sec. III.D] The phrase 'RRR was with in 2–3' should be 'within 2–3', and the description of pressure-transmitting media ('solid, liquid, and gaseous states') could be clarified to specify which media were actually used in each run.
  4. [Sec. IV.C, Fig. 10] The 11 K anomaly is described in the text as 'suggesting the signature of the superconducting transition,' but the paper also acknowledges fluctuation effects in granular films; the figure caption and text should present this anomaly more cautiously, for example as an unexplained resistance anomaly, unless further evidence is provided.
  5. [Figs. 3 and 7] No error bars or uncertainty estimates are shown for the pressure values; adding estimates based on ruby fluorescence and diamond Raman linewidths or spatial pressure distribution would improve the quantitative claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Tc enhancement claim is an experimental observation benchmarked against Wittig's bulk data, and no fitted parameter or self-citation is disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper reports a resistance-derived Tc of 6.3 K in gamma-Sn thin film at 10.5 GPa, compared with Wittig's 5.3 K bulk value; this is a direct measurement, not a derived quantity. The WHH analysis extracts Hc2 from the measured R(T,H) curves and is standard data analysis rather than a prediction forced by an input. The self-citations [37-39,43,44] concern the BDD electrode DAC technique; they establish the measurement method and are not used to justify the value of Tc or the gamma-phase identification. No equation defines the claim in terms of itself, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper even flags the alternative fluctuation/granularity explanation (Sec. IV.C) and asks for magnetic/calorimetric confirmation, which is the opposite of circular reasoning. Any concern about phase identification or non-hydrostatic pressure gradients is a correctness/interpretation risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. Its central claim rests on standard experimental assumptions: pressure calibration, identification of resistance drops as superconductivity, phase assignment, and applicability of the WHH model. These are domain assumptions rather than ad hoc constructs.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ruby fluorescence and diamond Raman shift provide accurate pressure at the sample location.
    Used for all pressure values; in non-hydrostatic conditions, pressure gradients exist and the film covers about 70% of the culet, so pressure uncertainty is unquantified.
  • domain assumption A resistance drop in the thin film at zero field indicates a superconducting transition of the film.
    No magnetic or heat capacity measurements on the film under pressure; granular films can show resistance decreases from fluctuation or percolation effects.
  • domain assumption The gamma-Sn phase is present in the film at the stated pressures based on the pressure range and transport behavior.
    No in-situ structural characterization; phase assignment follows the bulk phase diagram from Wittig.
  • domain assumption The WHH model is applicable to this thin film superconductor for Hc2 estimates.
    Standard model used to extrapolate upper critical fields; its applicability to granular films with disorder is not justified in detail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancement of superconductivity on thin film of Sn under high pressure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UWM5K5CJ

@misc{pith2026250117451,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancement of superconductivity on thin film of Sn under high pressure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UWM5K5CJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.17451}
}
abstract

We investigated the pressure effects of a superconductivity on thin films of Sn. Elemental superconductor Sn with a body-centered tetragonal structure, $\beta$-Sn, exhibits superconductivity below the superconducting transition temperature ($T_{\rm c}=3.72$ K) at ambient pressure. $T_{\rm c}$ of Sn increases with lowering dimension such as in thin film and nanowire growth, or by high-pressure application. For thin films, $T_{\rm c}$ exhibits a slight increase up to approximately 4 K compared to the bulk value, attributable to the crystalline size and lattice disorder. By applying pressure on a bulk Sn, $T_{\rm c}$ initially decreases from 3.72 K as the pressure increases. Further increasing pressure up to 10 GPa, $T_{\rm c}$ increases to 5.3 K with the structural transformation. However, the combination of these effects on thin films of Sn, namely, thin-film growth and pressure effects, remains underexplored. In this study, we combined film-growth and pressure-application techniques to further increase $T_{\rm c}$ using a diamond anvil cell with boron-doped diamond electrodes. The drop of the electrical resistance suggesting the onset of $T_{\rm c}$ on the thin film reached above 6 K in $\gamma$-Sn phase. Further, the upper critical magnetic field was drastically enhanced. Atomic force microscopy suggests that the refinement of the grain size of the thin film under the non-hydrostatic pressure conditions contributes to stabilizing the higher $T_{\rm c}$ of $\gamma$-Sn.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.17451 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (b) shows the temperature (T) dependence of m′ for the bulk Sn under H, where no background signal from DAC is subtracted. Below 3.7 K, the diamagnetic signal suggesting the superconducting state was observed at H = 0. The Tc onset was decreased by applying H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) (a) Optical image of the thin film of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) (a) and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) Pressure dependence of the supercon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) (a) Optical image of the thin film [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color online) Temperature dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) AFM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mao, X.-J

    H.-K. Mao, X.-J. Chen, Y. Ding, B. Li, and L. Wang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015007 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Yamanaka, Dalton Trans

    S. Yamanaka, Dalton Trans. 39, 1901 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Shimizu, K

    K. Shimizu, K. Suhara, M. Ikumo, M. I. Eremets, and K. Amaya, Nature 393, 767 (1998)

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Shimizu, K

    K. Shimizu, K. Amaya, and N. Suzuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 74, 1345 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    A. P. Drozdov, M. I. Eremets, I. A. Troyan, V. Kseno- fontov, and S. I. Shylin, Nature 525, 73 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    A. P. Drozdov, P. P. Kong, V. S. Minkov, S. P. Besedin, M. A. Kuzovnikov, S. Mozaffari, L. Balicas, F. F. Bal- akirev, D. E. Graf, V. B. Prakapenka, E. Greenberg, D. A. Knyazev, M. Tkacz, and M. I. Eremets, Nature 569, 528 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Somayazulu, M

    M. Somayazulu, M. Ahart, A. K. Mishra, Z. M. Geballe, M. Baldini, Y. Meng, V. V. Struzhkin, and R. J. Hemley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 027001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Matsumoto, M

    R. Matsumoto, M. Einaga, S. Adachi, S. Yamamoto, T. Irifune, K. Terashima, H. Takeya, Y. Nakamoto, K. Shimizu, and Y. Takano, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 33, 124005 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    D. V. Semenok, A. G. Kvashnin, A. G. Ivanova, V. Svit- lyk, V. Y. Fominski, A. V. Sadakov, O. A. Sobolevskiy, V. M. Pudalov, I. A. Troyan, and A. R. Oganov, Mate- rials Today 33, 36 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    W. Chen, D. V. Semenok, X. Huang, H. Shu, X. Li, D. Duan, T. Cui, and A. R. Oganov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 117001 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Tc slightly increased compared to the bulk value and was similar to values from the previous studies on thin films [27, 28]

    At H = 0, an R drop suggesting the onset of the superconducting transition was observed at 3.75 K. Tc slightly increased compared to the bulk value and was similar to values from the previous studies on thin films [27, 28]. By applying H, the onset of Tc decreased with increas...

  4. [12]

    P. Kong, V. S. Minkov, M. A. Kuzovnikov, A. P. Droz- dov, S. P. Besedin, S. Mozaffari, L. Balicas, F. F. Bal- akirev, V. B. Prakapenka, S. Chariton, D. A. Knyazev, E. Greenberg, and M. I. Eremets, Nat Commun 12, 5075 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    I. A. Troyan, D. V. Semenok, A. G. Kvashnin, A. V. Sadakov, O. A. Sobolevskiy, V. M. Pudalov, A. G. Ivanova, V. B. Prakapenka, E. Greenberg, A. G. Gavril- iuk, I. S. Lyubutin, V. V. Struzhkin, A. Bergara, I. Er- rea, R. Bianco, M. Calandra, F. Mauri, L. Monacelli, R. Akashi, a...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Z. Li, X. He, C. Zhang, X. Wang, S. Zhang, Y. Jia, S. Feng, K. Lu, J. Zhao, J. Zhang, B. Min, Y. Long, R. Yu, L. Wang, M. Ye, Z. Zhang, V. Prakapenka, S. Chariton, P. A. Ginsberg, J. Bass, S. Yuan, H. Liu, and C. Jin, Nat Commun 13, 2863 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    L. Ma, K. Wang, Y. Xie, X. Yang, Y. Wang, M. Zhou, H. Liu, X. Yu, Y. Zhao, H. Wang, G. Liu, and Y. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 167001 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Y. Song, J. Bi, Y. Nakamoto, K. Shimizu, H. Liu, B. Zou, G. Liu, H. Wang, and Y. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 266001 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Cross, J

    S. Cross, J. Buhot, A. Brooks, W. Thomas, A. Kleppe, O. Lord, and S. Friedemann, Phys. Rev. B 109, L020503 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Hu, J. Li, Z. Liu, Y. Han, L. Tang, Z. Mao, P. Yang, B. Wang, J. Cheng, D.-X. Yao, G.-M. Zhang, and M. Wang, Nature 621, 493 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Sakakibara, M

    H. Sakakibara, M. Ochi, H. Nagata, Y. Ueki, H. Saku- rai, R. Matsumoto, K. Terashima, K. Hirose, H. Ohta, M. Kato, Y. Takano, and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. B 109, 144511 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    X. Liu, P. Jiang, Y. Wang, M. Li, N. Li, Q. Zhang, Y. Wang, Y.-L. Li, and W. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 105, 224511 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Zhang, X

    C. Zhang, X. He, C. Liu, Z. Li, K. Lu, S. Zhang, S. Feng, X. Wang, Y. Peng, Y. Long, R. Yu, L. Wang, V. Prakapenka, S. Chariton, Q. Li, H. Liu, C. Chen, and C. Jin, Nat Commun 13, 5411 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    J. Ying, S. Liu, Q. Lu, X. Wen, Z. Gui, Y. Zhang, X. Wang, J. Sun, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 256002 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Buckel and R

    W. Buckel and R. Hilsch, Z. Physik 138, 109 (1954)

    1954

  16. [24]

    Abeles, R

    B. Abeles, R. W. Cohen, and G. W. Cullen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 632 (1966)

    1966

  17. [25]

    J. W. Garland, K. H. Bennemann, and F. M. Mueller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 1315 (1968)

    1968

  18. [26]

    Strongin, O

    M. Strongin, O. F. Kammerer, J. E. Crow, R. D. Parks, D. H. Douglass, and M. A. Jensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 1320 (1968)

    1968

  19. [27]

    M. Tian, J. Wang, J. S. Kurtz, Y. Liu, M. H. W. Chan, T. S. Mayer, and T. E. Mallouk, Phys. Rev. B71, 104521 (2005)

    2005

  20. [28]

    M. H. Beutel, N. G. Ebensperger, M. Thiemann, G. Un- tereiner, V. Fritz, M. Javaheri, J. N¨ agele, R. R¨ osslhuber, M. Dressel, and M. Scheffler, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 29, 085011 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    W. Bang, T. D. Morrison, K. D. D. Rathnayaka, I. F. Lyuksyutov, D. G. Naugle, and W. Teizer, Thin Solid Films 676, 138 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    D. P. Lozano, S. Couet, C. Petermann, G. Hamoir, J. K. Jochum, T. Picot, E. Men´ endez, K. Houben, V. Joly, V. A. Antohe, M. Y. Hu, B. M. Leu, A. Alatas, A. H. Said, S. Roelants, B. Partoens, M. V. Miloˇ sevi´ c, F. M. Peeters, L. Piraux, J. Van de Vondel, A. Vantomme, K. Tems...

    2019

  23. [31]

    Knorr and N

    K. Knorr and N. Barth, Solid State Communications 8, 1085 (1970)

    1970

  24. [32]

    Houben, S

    K. Houben, S. Couet, M. Trekels, E. Men´ endez, T. Peissker, J. W. Seo, M. Y. Hu, J. Y. Zhao, E. E. Alp, S. Roelants, B. Partoens, M. V. Miloˇ sevi´ c, F. M. Peeters, D. Bessas, S. A. Brown, A. Vantomme, K. Temst, and M. J. Van Bael, Phys. Rev. B 95, 155413 (2017). 8

    2017

  25. [33]

    Houben, J

    K. Houben, J. K. Jochum, S. Couet, E. Men´ endez, T. Pi- cot, M. Y. Hu, J. Y. Zhao, E. E. Alp, A. Vantomme, K. Temst, and M. J. Van Bael, Sci Rep 10, 5729 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    J. D. Barnett, V. E. Bean, and H. T. Hall, Journal of Applied Physics 37, 875 (2004)

    2004

  27. [35]

    Salamat, R

    A. Salamat, R. Briggs, P. Bouvier, S. Petitgirard, A. De- waele, M. E. Cutler, F. Cor` a, D. Daisenberger, G. Gar- barino, and P. F. McMillan, Phys. Rev. B 88, 104104 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Deffrennes, P

    G. Deffrennes, P. Faure, F. Bottin, J.-M. Joubert, and B. Oudot, Journal of Alloys and Compounds919, 165675 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Wittig, Z

    J. Wittig, Z. Physik 195, 228 (1966)

    1966

  30. [38]

    Matsumoto, Y

    R. Matsumoto, Y. Sasama, M. Fujioka, T. Irifune, M. Tanaka, T. Yamaguchi, H. Takeya, and Y. Takano, Review of Scientific Instruments 87, 076103 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Matsumoto, T

    R. Matsumoto, T. Irifune, M. Tanaka, H. Takeya, and Y. Takano, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 56, 05FC01 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Matsumoto, A

    R. Matsumoto, A. Yamashita, H. Hara, T. Irifune, S. Adachi, H. Takeya, and Y. Takano, Appl. Phys. Ex- press 11, 053101 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    H. K. Mao, P. M. Bell, J. W. Shaner, and D. J. Steinberg, Journal of Applied Physics 49, 3276 (1978)

    1978

  34. [42]

    Akahama and H

    Y. Akahama and H. Kawamura, Journal of Applied Physics 96, 3748 (2004)

    2004

  35. [43]

    Takano, M

    Y. Takano, M. Nagao, I. Sakaguchi, M. Tachiki, T. Hatano, K. Kobayashi, H. Umezawa, and H. Kawarada, Applied Physics Letters 85, 2851 (2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    Adachi, R

    S. Adachi, R. Matsumoto, S. Yamamoto, T. D. Ya- mamoto, K. Terashima, Y. Saito, M. Esparza Echevarria, P. Baptista de Castro, P. Song, S. Iwasaki, H. Takeya, and Y. Takano, Applied Physics Letters 116, 223506 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Matsumoto, S

    R. Matsumoto, S. Nakano, S. Yamamoto, and Y. Takano, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 60, 090902 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    M. Mito, M. Hitaka, T. Kawae, K. Takeda, T. Kitai, and N. Toyoshima, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 40, 6641 (2001)

    2001

  39. [47]

    M. Mito, T. Imakyurei, H. Deguchi, K. Matsumoto, H. Hara, T. Ozaki, H. Takeya, and Y. Takano, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 83, 023705 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    M. Mito, H. Goto, H. Matsui, H. Deguchi, K. Matsumoto, H. Hara, T. Ozaki, H. Takeya, and Y. Takano, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 85, 024711 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    M. Mito, K. Ogata, H. Goto, K. Tsuruta, K. Nakamura, H. Deguchi, T. Horide, K. Matsumoto, T. Tajiri, H. Hara, T. Ozaki, H. Takeya, and Y. Takano, Phys. Rev. B 95, 064503 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Abdel-Hafiez, Y

    M. Abdel-Hafiez, Y. Zhao, Z. Huang, C.-w. Cho, C. H. Wong, A. Hassen, M. Ohkuma, Y.-W. Fang, B.-J. Pan, Z.-A. Ren, A. Sadakov, A. Usoltsev, V. Pudalov, M. Mito, R. Lortz, C. Krellner, and W. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 97, 134508 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    M. Mito, Y. Kitamura, T. Tajiri, K. Nakamura, R. Shiraishi, K. Ogata, H. Deguchi, T. Yamaguchi, N. Takeshita, T. Nishizaki, K. Edalati, and Z. Horita, Journal of Applied Physics 125, 125901 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Irifune, A

    T. Irifune, A. Kurio, S. Sakamoto, T. Inoue, and H. Sumiya, Nature 421, 599 (2003)

    2003

  45. [53]

    G. J. Dolan and J. Silcox, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 603 (1973)

    1973

  46. [54]

    Ohkuma, R

    M. Ohkuma, R. Matsumoto, and Y. Takano, Appl. Phys. Express 16, 043004 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Helfand and N

    E. Helfand and N. R. Werthamer, Phys. Rev. 147, 288 (1966)

    1966

  48. [56]

    N. R. Werthamer, E. Helfand, and P. C. Hohenberg, Phys. Rev. 147, 295 (1966)

    1966

  49. [57]

    Baumgartner, M

    T. Baumgartner, M. Eisterer, H. W. Weber, R. Fl¨ ukiger, C. Scheuerlein, and L. Bottura, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 27, 015005 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    Zhang, C

    Y. Zhang, C. H. Wong, J. Shen, S. T. Sze, B. Zhang, H. Zhang, Y. Dong, H. Xu, Z. Yan, Y. Li, X. Hu, and R. Lortz, Sci Rep 6, 32963 (2016)

    2016

  51. [59]

    Z. Shao, Z. Zhang, H. Yuan, H. Sun, Y. Cao, X. Zhang, S. Li, H. Gedeon, T. Xiang, Q.-K. Xue, and M. Pan, Science Bulletin 63, 1332 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    R. E. Glover, Physics Letters A 25, 542 (1967)

    1967

  53. [61]

    L. G. Aslamasov and A. I. Larkin, Physics Letters A 26, 238 (1968)

    1968

  54. [62]

    W. J. Skocpol and M. Tinkham, Rep. Prog. Phys. 38, 1049 (1975)

    1975

  55. [63]

    S´ o˜ nora, C

    D. S´ o˜ nora, C. Carballeira, J. J. Ponte, F. Vidal, T. Grenet, and J. Mosqueira, Phys. Rev. B 100, 104509 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Hsieh, P

    S. Hsieh, P. Bhattacharyya, C. Zu, T. Mittiga, T. J. Smart, F. Machado, B. Kobrin, T. O. H¨ ohn, N. Z. Rui, M. Kamrani, S. Chatterjee, S. Choi, M. Zaletel, V. V. Struzhkin, J. E. Moore, V. I. Levitas, R. Jeanloz, and N. Y. Yao, Science 366, 1349 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Lesik, T

    M. Lesik, T. Plisson, L. Toraille, J. Renaud, F. Occelli, M. Schmidt, O. Salord, A. Delobbe, T. Debuisschert, L. Rondin, P. Loubeyre, and J.-F. Roch, Science 366, 1359 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    Umeo, Review of Scientific Instruments 87, 063901 (2016)

    K. Umeo, Review of Scientific Instruments 87, 063901 (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    Z.-Y. Cao, H. Jang, S. Choi, J. Kim, S. Kim, J.-B. Zhang, A. S. Sharbirin, J. Kim, and T. Park, NPG Asia Mater 15, 1 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    Sasaki, M

    M. Sasaki, M. Ohkuma, R. Matsumoto, T. Shinmei, T. Irifune, Y. Takano, and K. Shimizu, (2025), https://zenodo.org/records/14759622

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.