Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Thermally Modulated SINIS Trasconductance Amplifier

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A superconducting amplifier built by thermal gating: simulations show a three-terminal SINIS device with transconductance above 4 mS, current gain above 45 dB, and a 10 MHz cutoff at sub-250 mK temperatures.

desk verdict A clean, honestly labeled simulation of a thermally gated SINIS amplifier; the numbers are plausible but hinge on ideal thermalization assumptions that the paper itself does not test. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21341 v1 pith:DRAWUDSB submitted 2025-05-27 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

Giacomo Trupiano , Giorgio De Simoni , Francesco Giazotto This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall
keywords SINIStransconductanceamplifierthermalgatingquasiparticleinjectionNIStunneljunctioncryogenicsuperconductingelectronicsnumericalsimulation
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

This paper argues that a three-terminal superconducting amplifier can be realized by thermally gating a SINIS structure with a third NIS junction. Quasiparticles injected through the input junction heat a copper island, and the resulting rise in electronic temperature increases the current through the voltage-biased SINIS output. Numerical simulations predict a transconductance above 4 mS and a current gain above 45 dB at bath temperatures below 250 mK, with a $-3$ dB cutoff near 10 MHz and an average power dissipation of about 5 nW. If these predictions hold, the architecture provides a fully voltage-controlled, flux-free cryogenic amplifier that avoids the dynamic power costs of conventional field-effect devices.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is heat-balance thermal gating: an input NIS junction injects quasiparticle power into the normal metal island, and the steady-state island temperature is determined by Eq. (8), which balances injection against SINIS cooling and electron-phonon relaxation. That same temperature sets the SINIS output current through the nonlinear NIS tunneling conductance, so the input voltage $V_T$ is transduced into an output current change without magnetic flux. The cooling time of the island is the main bandwidth bottleneck. The named object is a symmetric SINIS structure with an auxiliary NIS input junction tunnel-coupled to the normal metal island.

What would settle it

Fabricate the Al/AlOx/Cu SINIS structure with the stated junction areas and resistances, apply an input voltage above the gap, and measure the island electron temperature with an independent thermometer while recording $I_\mathrm{SINIS}(V_T)$ at $T_B < 250$ mK. If the measured transconductance falls below the predicted 4 mS, or if the island temperature does not rise as Eq. (8) predicts, the thermalization assumption is falsified; a second check is to compare the measured thermal response time with the simulated 10 MHz cutoff.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that thermal modulation by quasiparticle injection can serve as a transconductance gain mechanism. The equilibrium island temperature $T_\mathrm{eq}$ is set by balancing input heating $P_T^\mathrm{NIS}$, SINIS cooling $2P^\mathrm{NIS}$, and electron-phonon coupling $P_{e\text{-}ph}$, and this temperature controls $I_\mathrm{SINIS}$ because the tunneling conductance of each NIS junction is strongly temperature dependent. The paper reports that for $T_B < 250$ mK the simulated device exceeds 4 mS transconductance and 45 dB current gain, remains flat up to about 1 MHz, has a $-3$ dB cutoff near 10 MHz, a slew rate around 130 A/µs, and an average dissipation near 5 nW. The linearity was estimated at 50–60 dB, with the paper noting that these values are upper limits because the finite sampling rate may underestimate higher-order harmonics.

Load-bearing premise

The heat-balance model assumes the copper island is always internally thermalized to a single electronic temperature and that the aluminum banks stay at the bath temperature; if quasiparticle injection creates a nonthermal distribution or heats the leads, the predicted island temperature, output current, and cutoff frequency will change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cryogenic readout chains could use a flux-free, voltage-controlled amplifier with transconductance comparable to commercial CMOS devices.
  • The device can drive low-impedance superconducting loads, and the paper specifically lists flux lines, transition-edge sensor bias circuits, superconducting nanowire single-photon detector readout, and nanocryotron inputs.
  • Average power dissipation near 5 nW at sub-250 mK bath temperatures is orders of magnitude below the dynamic power of conventional cryo-CMOS amplifiers, so many such devices could operate inside one dilution refrigerator.
  • A bandwidth to roughly 10 MHz makes the amplifier suitable for fast detector readout, although not for gigahertz-frequency quantum control signals.
  • The thermal-gating principle is not tied to the specific Al/Cu materials and could be adapted to other normal-metal/superconductor combinations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the quoted figures should be treated as ideal-model predictions: if quasiparticle injection creates a nonthermal distribution in the island, effective heating and gain would likely be lower than the single-temperature model gives.
  • A testable extension would be to use the same third NIS junction as an on-chip thermometer: sweeping $V_T$ and reading the island temperature would directly check the heat-balance equation that all performance claims rest on.
  • The paper's own caveat that the 50–60 dB linearity values are upper limits due to finite sampling suggests that real-device dynamic range may be somewhat smaller than the static figures imply.
  • Because the input junction has a high subgap resistance, the amplifier should be easy to cascade with high-impedance sources; the paper notes this design goal but does not analyze a full cascaded circuit.
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 proposes a three-terminal superconducting transconductance amplifier based on thermal gating of a SINIS structure. A normal-metal copper island is connected to two superconducting aluminum leads through tunnel barriers (the SINIS output) and to a third superconducting lead through an additional high-resistance NIS junction (the input). When the input voltage VT exceeds the superconducting gap, quasiparticles are injected into the island, raising its electronic temperature and modulating the SINIS current. The authors model the system with a lumped heat-balance equation (Eq. 8) using standard NIS heat-current expressions (Eqs. 1–3), electron–phonon coupling (Eq. 4), and a Sommerfeld heat capacity (Eq. 9). From numerical simulations they report transconductance exceeding 4 mS, current gain exceeding 45 dB, a −3 dB cutoff around 10 MHz, and average power dissipation around 5 nW for bath temperatures below 250 mK. The paper is purely computational; no device was fabricated or measured.

Significance. If realized, the device would provide a voltage-controlled, flux-free, three-terminal cryogenic amplifier with remarkably low power dissipation, which could be attractive for quantum-circuit readout and low-temperature electronics. The modeling uses standard, well-documented NIS heat-balance equations and the authors state all parameter values explicitly. They also honestly report that the linearity figures are upper limits because of finite sampling rate. The main value is a concrete design proposal with transparent simulations, but the central claims rest on idealizations that are not experimentally tested, and no sensitivity analysis is provided. As a simulation study, the paper is clearly of interest to the superconducting electronics community, though its strength is limited to a design prospect rather than a demonstrated device.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (8)] The heat-balance equation treats the Cu island as a single electronic temperature T with instantaneous rethermalization. At T_B = 100 mK the injected quasiparticles carry energies of order e V_T ≈ 200 µeV, far above k_B T_B ≈ 8.6 µeV, so the initial distribution is nonthermal. The paper provides no estimate of the electron–electron scattering time τ_ee in the 0.2-µm-thick Cu island; if τ_ee is comparable to the signal period at the claimed −3 dB cutoff (≈100 ns at 10 MHz), the frequency response will be overestimated. Please add a quantitative estimate of τ_ee, or a two-temperature/nonequilibrium model, or explicit justification for why the single-temperature assumption holds at these frequencies. This is load-bearing for the cutoff and bandwidth claims.
  2. [Section II, Eqs. (1) and (3) and text after Eq. (4)] The superconducting leads are assumed to remain at the bath temperature T_B, i.e., to act as infinite reservoirs. At low T_B the equilibrium quasiparticle density in Al is exponentially small, so the nW-scale heat current through the SINIS junctions can drive the leads out of equilibrium, reducing the cooling power in Eq. (3). This would directly change both the static transconductance and the dynamic cutoff. The authors should estimate the quasiparticle relaxation power in the Al leads for their geometry and show that the reservoir approximation is valid, or model the leads self-consistently.
  3. [Section III, Figs. 2 and 3] All quantitative claims are obtained for a single parameter set (R_T = 50 kΩ, R_NIS = 0.5 Ω, Σ = 2×10^9 W m^-3 K^-5, A = 0.5 mV). Since no device has been fabricated, the paper should include a sensitivity analysis over realistic parameter spreads. In particular, the current gain in Eq. (6) is closely related to the transconductance of Eq. (5) through the input differential resistance, so the 45 dB figure is strongly tied to the chosen large R_T; this relation should be stated explicitly, and the robustness of the 4 mS and 10 MHz figures should be demonstrated.
  4. [Section III, after Eq. (11)] The linearity values of 50–60 dB are explicitly stated to be upper limits because of the finite sampling rate of the simulation. As written, this means the actual linearity is not determined. The authors should either increase the sampling rate to resolve the harmonics, or remove the linearity claim from the summary, or report it with the caveat that only an upper bound is established.
  5. [Section III, Eq. (10)] The definition of the average power dissipation as Pdiss = PNIS_T + PSINIS + Pe-ph is problematic because in steady state Eq. (8) gives PNIS_T = PSINIS + Pe-ph. Thus Eq. (10) yields Pdiss = 2(PSINIS + Pe-ph), i.e., twice the input heat current. The authors should clarify whether this is the intended heat load and how it relates to the electrical power drawn from the V_T and V_bias sources. If the 5 nW figure is meant to be the total electrical power, a correct derivation should be provided.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The word 'Trasconductance' in the title is a typo and should be 'Transconductance'.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (1)] The notation is confusing because the density of states uses the argument ε − e V_T while the distribution functions use both ε − e V_T and ε̃; please define the two energy arguments clearly.
  3. [Section II, text near 'Vbias(RNIS/R)'] The phrase 'Vbias(RNIS/R)' is ambiguous: specify that V_bias is the total bias across the SINIS structure and that, in the limit RNIS >> RN, each junction sees approximately V_bias/2.
  4. [Section III, Fig. 3 caption] The operation point V_DC^T is described as the peak of each gain and transconductance curve; please state whether this peak is taken over V_T for each T_B and whether exactly the same point is used for the frequency-response and slew-rate simulations.
  5. [Section II, Eqs. (4) and (9)] Please clarify whether the island volume used in the heat capacity (Eq. 9) is the same as that used in the electron–phonon term (Eq. 4), and whether the copper regions underneath the tunnel barriers are included in both.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the reported gain and transconductance are computed outputs of a standard NIS heat-balance model with stated material parameters, not fitted or self-referential inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. The island temperature is obtained by integrating the heat-balance equation (8), with the three heat currents given by independent BCS-tunneling expressions (Eqs. (1), (3), (4)) and standard copper parameters (heat capacity Eq. (9), Sigma, volume). The output current ISINIS is then computed from the same tunneling expression underlying Eq. (3), and the reported transconductance g = dISINIS/dVT (Eq. (5)) and current gain (Eq. (6)) are genuinely derived derivatives of that model, not fitted quantities. The resistance values, volumes, Tc, Delta0, Sigma, and D(EF) are stated inputs chosen from fabrication and material data; no parameter is adjusted to reproduce a target gain or cutoff. The claim that quasiparticle injection raises Teq and thereby modulates ISINIS is the consequence of integrating these equations, not assumed as an input. The only self-citation with substantive content is Ref. [24] (Giazotto et al., RMP, which includes the present last author) for the standard NIS heat-current formulas and Cu/Al material parameters; these formulas are also supported by external references and are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The single-temperature and ideal-reservoir assumptions in Eqs. (1), (3), and (8) are physical idealizations and correctness risks, but they are not circular: nothing in the input data or equations presupposes the claimed 4 mS, 45 dB, or 10 MHz figures. Therefore no step reduces by construction to its own output.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard NIS thermal theory plus several chosen design parameters and assumptions listed above. There are no fitted data or invented physical entities; the simulated performance is a forward calculation from the chosen inputs.

free parameters (6)
  • Input junction tunnel resistance R_T = 50 kΩ (chosen design value)
    This high resistance relative to R_NIS produces the large current gain; the paper states that the RT/R ratio is a key design lever.
  • SINIS junction tunnel resistance R_NIS = 0.5 Ω (chosen design value)
    Sets the output current scale and cooling power, and is derived from assumed junction areas and oxidation processes.
  • Bias voltage V_bias = ≈1.9 Δ(TB)/e
    Chosen to maximize SINIS cooling power and operational speed; all heat-balance results use this operating point.
  • Electron-phonon coupling constant Σ = 2×10^9 W/m^3K^5 (literature value)
    Controls electron-phonon cooling and thus the bandwidth; the value for copper is taken from Ref. [24], but performance depends strongly on it.
  • AC input amplitude A = 0.5 mV
    Used in the dynamic simulation of Eq. (8); frequency response and linearity results depend on this amplitude.
  • Dynes parameter Γ = 10^-4 Δ
    Smearing of the BCS density of states; a standard choice, but it affects the subgap current and the sharpness of the thermal response.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Single electronic temperature for the normal metal island (lumped thermal model).
    Eq. (8) solves for one T(t); no spatial gradients or nonthermal quasiparticle distributions are modeled.
  • domain assumption Superconducting banks are infinite thermal reservoirs at TB.
    Stated in Section II; input heating does not change the lead temperature, which may fail at high injected power.
  • domain assumption The voltage divider is dominated by tunnel junctions so Vbias(RNIS/R) ≈ Vbias/2.
    Section II assumes RNIS/RN ≫ 1; if the island resistance is not negligible, cooling power and gain change.
  • domain assumption Electron-phonon coupling follows the T^5 law with substrate phonons at TB.
    Eq. (4) uses ΣV(T^5 - TB^5); this underlying law and the Kapitza-resistance picture are taken from prior literature.
  • standard math BCS density of states with Dynes smearing and the approximate gap equation.
    Eqs. (1)-(3) use the standard BCS NIS tunnel theory; this is well-established background.
  • domain assumption No parasitic capacitance, Josephson coupling, or quasiparticle trapping in the island.
    These effects are not discussed; any of them could alter the frequency response and linearity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Thermally Modulated SINIS Trasconductance Amplifier." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DRAWUDSB

@misc{pith2026250521341,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Thermally Modulated SINIS Trasconductance Amplifier},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DRAWUDSB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21341}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a superconducting transconductance amplifier based on the thermal modulation of a SINIS (Superconductor-Insulator-Normal metal-Insulator-Superconductor) configuration. The device is composed of a normal metal island interfaced with two superconducting leads through tunnel barriers, establishing a voltage-biased symmetric SINIS setup. An additional NIS junction connects the island to a third superconducting lead, which serves as input. When the input voltage surpasses the superconducting gap, the resultant injection of quasiparticles increases the electronic temperature of the island, thereby modulating the SINIS current. We perform numerical analyzes of the device performance, influenced by input voltage, frequency, and bath temperature. At bath temperatures below 250 mK, the device shows a transconductance exceeding 4 mS and a current gain exceeding 45 dB. Both gain and transconductance maintain their levels up to 1 MHz, but decrease at higher frequencies, with a -3 dB cutoff around 10 MHz, and an average power dissipation of approximately 5 nW. Our simulations reveal a fully voltage-controlled, three-terminal superconducting amplifier characterized by high transconductance and gain, achieved through thermally mediated signal transduction. This architectural design presents a promising avenue for cryogenic amplification with reduced power dissipation and compatibility with current superconducting electronic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21341 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Device scheme and working principle. (a) Device sc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figures of merit: Transconductance and current ga [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figures of merit: Transconductance and current ga [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Highly-Linear Proximity-Based Bi-SQUID Operating above 4 K

    cond-mat.supr-con 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A single Nb/Au S-N-S Bi-SQUID shows a sharply linear flux-to-voltage transfer and a numerically estimated SFDR of 40-60 dB at 4-5 K, with the abstract claiming >60 dB.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [22]

    Trupiano, G

    G. Trupiano, G. De Simoni, and F. Giazotto, Quasiparticle- injection superconducting microwave relaxation oscillat or, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 014046 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [24]

    Giazotto, T

    F. Giazotto, T. T. Heikkilä, A. Luukanen, A. M. Savin, and J. P . Pekola, Opportunities for mesoscopics in ther- mometry and refrigeration: Physics and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 217 (2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [1]

    M. H. Devoret and R. J. Schoelkopf, Superconduct- ing circuits for quantum information: An outlook, Science 339, 1169 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [2]

    Golubev and L

    D. Golubev and L. Kuzmin, Nonequilibrium theory of a hot- electron bolometer with normal metal-insulator-superconductor tunnel junction, J. Appl. Phys. 89, 6464 (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [3]

    Gol’tsman, O

    G. Gol’tsman, O. Okunev, G. Chulkova, A. Lipatov, A. Se- menov, K. Smirnov, B. V oronov, A. Dzardanov, G. Williams, and R. Sobolewski, Picosecond superconducting single phot on optical detector, Appl. Phys. Lett. 78, 705 (2001)

    work page 2001

  6. [4]

    Giazotto, T

    F. Giazotto, T. T. Heikkilä, G. P . Pepe, P . Helistö, A. Luukanen, and J. P . Pekola, Ultrasensitive proximity josephson sensor with kinetic inductance readout, Appl. Phys. Lett. 92 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [5]

    Korzh, Q.-Y

    B. Korzh, Q.-Y . Zhao, J. P . Allmaras, S. Frasca, T. M. Autry, E. A. Bersin, A. D. Beyer, R. M. Briggs, B. Bumble, M. Colan- gelo, G. M. Crouch, A. E. Dane, T. Gerrits, A. E. Lita, F. Mar- sili, G. Moody, C. Peña, E. Ramirez, J. D. Rezac, N. Sinclair, M. J. Stevens, A. E. V elasco, V . B. V erma, E. E. Wollman, S. Xie, D. Zhu, P . D. Hale, M. Spiropulu, ...

    work page 2020

  8. [6]

    Paquelet Wuetz, P

    B. Paquelet Wuetz, P . L. Bavdaz, L. A. Yeoh, R. Schouten, H. van der Does, M. Tiggelman, D. Sabbagh, A. Sammak, C. G. Almudever, F. Sebastiano, J. S. Clarke, M. V eld- horst, and G. Scappucci, Multiplexed quantum transport usi ng commercial off-the-shelf CMOS at sub-kelvin temperatures , Npj Quantum Inf. 6, 43 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 36 references
  1. [7]

    Clarke and A

    J. Clarke and A. I. Braginski, The SQUID Handbook Fundamentals and Technology of SQUIDs an d SQUID Systems, V ol. 1 (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2006)

    2006

  2. [8]

    Macklin, K

    C. Macklin, K. O’Brien, D. Hover, M. E. Schwartz, V . Bolkhovsky, X. Zhang, W. D. Oliver, and I. Siddiqi, A near–quantum-limited josephson traveling-wave paramet ric amplifier, Science 350, 307 (2015)

    2015

  3. [9]

    Butseraen, A

    G. Butseraen, A. Ranadive, N. Aparicio, K. Rafsanjani Amin, A. Juyal, M. Esposito, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, N. Roch, F. Lefloch, and J. Renard, A gate-tunable graphene Josephson parametric amplifier, Nat. Nanotechnol. 17, 1153 (2022)

    2022

  4. [10]

    O. V . Astafiev, L. B. Ioffe, S. Kafanov, Y . A. Pashkin, K. Y . Aru- tyunov, D. Shahar, O. Cohen, and J. S. Tsai, Coherent quantum phase slip, Nature 484, 355 (2012) , number: 7394

    2012

  5. [11]

    Morpurgo, T

    A. Morpurgo, T. Klapwijk, and B. V an Wees, Hot electron tun- able supercurrent, Appl. Phys. Lett. 72, 966 (1998)

    1998

  6. [12]

    Roddaro, A

    S. Roddaro, A. Pescaglini, D. Ercolani, L. Sorba, F. Giazott o, and F. Beltram, Hot-electron effects in inas nanowire josephson junctions, Nano Res. 4, 259 (2011)

    2011

  7. [13]

    Faris, S

    S. Faris, S. Raider, W. Gallagher, and R. Drake, Quiteron, IEEE Trans. Magn. 19, 1293 (1983)

    1983

  8. [14]

    N. E. Booth, P . A. Fisher, M. Nahum, and J. N. Ullom, The qua- tratran, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 444, 33 (2000)

    2000

  9. [15]

    S.-B. Lee, D. Hasko, and H. Ahmed, Fabrication of a self- aligned superconducting nanotransistor based NOR logic ga te, Microelectron. Eng. 57-58, 981 (2001)

    2001

  10. [16]

    14, 188 (2003)

    Seung-Beck Lee, Gregory D Hutchinson, David A Williams, David G Hasko, and Haroon Ahmed, Su- perconducting nanotransistor based digital logic gates, Nanotechnol. 14, 188 (2003)

    2003

  11. [17]

    Tirelli, A

    S. Tirelli, A. Savin, C. P . Garcia, J. P . Pekola, F. Beltram, a nd F. Giazotto, Manipulation and generation of supercurrent in out- of-equilibrium josephson tunnel nanojunctions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 077004 (2008)

    2008

  12. [18]

    Quaranta, P

    O. Quaranta, P . Spathis, F. Beltram, and F. Giazotto, Coolin g electrons from 1 to 0.4 k with v-based nanorefrigerators, Ap pl. Phys. Lett. 98, 032501 (2011)

    2011

  13. [19]

    A. N. McCaughan and K. K. Berggren, A Superconducting- Nanowire Three-Terminal Electrothermal Device, Nano Lett. 14, 5748 (2014)

    2014

  14. [20]

    Baghdadi, J

    R. Baghdadi, J. P . Allmaras, B. A. Butters, A. E. Dane, S. Iqbal, A. N. McCaughan, E. A. Toomey, Q.-Y . Zhao, A. G. Ko- zorezov, and K. K. Berggren, Multilayered Heater Nanocry- otron: A Superconducting-Nanowire-Based Thermal Switch, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 054011 (2020)

    2020

  15. [21]

    Buzzi, M

    A. Buzzi, M. Castellani, R. A. Foster, O. Medeiros, M. Colan- gelo, and K. K. Berggren, A nanocryotron memory and logic family, Appl. Phys. Lett. 122, 142601 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    S. A. Lemziakov, B. Karimi, S. Nakamura, D. S. Lvov, R. Upadhyay, C. D. Satrya, Z.-Y . Chen, D. Subero, Y .-C. Chang, L. B. Wang, and J. P . Pekola, Appli- cations of Superconductor–Normal Metal Interfaces, J. Low Temp. Phys. 217, 54 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    J. P . Pekola, T. Heikkilä, A. Savin, J. Flyktman, F. Giazotto , and F. Hekking, Limitations in cooling electrons using norm al- metal-superconductor tunnel junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 056804 (2004)

    2004

  18. [26]

    Gross, B

    F. Gross, B. S. Chandrasekhar, D. Einzel, K. Andres, P . J. Hirschfeld, H. R. Ott, J. Beuers, Z. Fisk, and J. L. Smith, Anomalous temperature dependence of the mag- netic field penetration depth in superconducting UBe13, Z. Phys. B 64, 175 (1986)

    1986

  19. [27]

    Romijn, T

    J. Romijn, T. M. Klapwijk, M. J. Renne, and J. E. Mooij, Crit- ical pair-breaking current in superconducting aluminum st rips 7 far below Tc, Phys. Rev. B 26, 3648 (1982)

    1982

  20. [28]

    Giazotto and J

    F. Giazotto and J. P . Pekola, Josephson tunnel junction controlled by quasiparticle injection, J. Appl. Phys. 97, 10.1063/1.1833576 (2005)

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    A. M. Savin, J. P . Pekola, J. T. Flyktman, A. An- thore, and F. Giazotto, Cold electron Josephson transistor , Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, 4179 (2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    Hätinen, A

    J. Hätinen, A. Ronzani, R. Loreto, E. Mykkänen, A. Kemp- pinen, K. Viisanen, T. Rantanen, J. Geisor, J. Lehtinen, M. Ribeiro, J.-P . Kaikkonen, O. Prakash, V . V esterinen, C. För- bom, E. Mannila, M. Kervinen, J. Govenius, and M. Prunnila, Efficient electronic cooling by niobi...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Schmiedl, P

    E. Schmiedl, P . Wissmann, and H.-U. Finzel, The Electrical Resistivity of Ultra-Thin Copper Films, Z. Naturforsch. A 63, 739 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    V entura and M

    G. V entura and M. Perfetti, Elec- trical and thermal conductivity, in Thermal properties of solids at room and cryogenic temperat ures (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2014) pp. 131–168

    2014

  25. [33]

    Meschke, J

    M. Meschke, J. P . Pekola, F. Gay, R. E. Rapp, and H. Godfrin, Electron Thermalization in Metallic Is- lands Probed by Coulomb Blockade Thermometry, J. Low Temp. Phys. 134, 1119 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    S. V . Lotkhov, E. M. Tolkacheva, D. V . Balashov, M. I. Khabipov, F.-I. Buchholz, and A. B. Zorin, Low hysteretic behavior of Al/AlOx/Al Josephson junctions, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, 132115 (2006)

    2006

  27. [35]

    K. D. Irwin, An application of electrothermal feed- back for high resolution cryogenic particle detection, Appl. Phys. Lett. 66, 1998 (1995)

    1995

  28. [36]

    Paolucci, V

    F. Paolucci, V . Buccheri, G. Germanese, N. Ligato, R. Pao- letti, G. Signorelli, M. Bitossi, P . Spagnolo, P . Falferi, M . Raj- teri, C. Gatti, and F. Giazotto, Development of highly sensi tive nanoscale transition edge sensors for gigahertz astronomy and dark matter search,...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.