Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 34 references

Superconducting properties of ultrapure niobium

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 This paper reports that ultrapure niobium is a type-I superconductor near its critical temperature, with impurity effects pushing it to type-II behavior.

desk verdict A transparent 1974 translation with unique ultrapure niobium data, but the type-I claim rests on a thin extrapolation that the paper itself does not quantify. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01330 v1 pith:6WYDZ2YQ submitted 2025-06-02 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-sci

N. E. Alekseevskiy , V. I. Nizhankovskiy , K.-H. Bertel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 74.25.Ha74.25.Wx74.70.Ad
keywords niobiumtype-IsuperconductorGinzburg-Landauparameterresidualresistivitycriticalmagneticfieldmagnetizationhysteresisforce-freecurrentclean-limitsuperconductivity
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

Niobium has long been treated as the one pure metal that is a type-II superconductor. This paper argues that its real, impurity-free behavior is type-I in a narrow temperature band just below the critical temperature: for single crystals with residual resistance ratios above about 30,000, the upper and lower critical fields coincide within $T_c - T \le 0.2$ K. The argument is carried by measuring the Ginzburg-Landau parameter $\kappa$ on wires of varying purity and extrapolating it to zero residual resistivity; the extrapolated value $\kappa_0 = 0.702$ falls below the type-I/type-II boundary $1/\sqrt{2} \approx 0.707$. If that extrapolation is right, earlier reports of intrinsic type-II niobium were seeing impurity or surface effects, and the cleanest niobium is a superconductor of the first kind near $T_c$, turning type-II only as the temperature drops.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the argument is the Ginzburg-Landau parameter $\kappa$, computed for each wire sample from the thermodynamic critical field via $H_c^2/8\pi = -\int_0^{H_{c2}} M\,dH$ and from the ratios $\kappa_1 = H_{c2}/\sqrt{2}H_c$ and $\kappa_2^2 = \frac{1}{2}[1 + \frac{1}{4\pi \cdot 1.16}(dM/dH)_{H_{c2}}]$. At $t = T/T_c = 1$ the two parameters agree, $\kappa_1(1) = \kappa_2(1) = \kappa$, and $\kappa$ is plotted against the residual resistivity combined with the Sommerfeld constant through $\kappa = \kappa_0 + k \rho \sqrt{\gamma}$. The zero-resistivity intercept $\kappa_0 = 0.702$ is the load-bearing number: it lies below $1/\sqrt{2}$, the boundary separating type-I from type-II superconductors in Ginzburg-Landau theory. The temperature dependence then moves $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ upward as $T$ falls, which is why the material crosses into the type-II regime.

What would settle it

Take a niobium single crystal with residual resistance ratio above 100,000, measure its reversible magnetization at $T_c - T = 0.05$ K, and check whether $H_{c2}$ is strictly larger than $H_{c1}$; alternatively, on a wire with $\alpha$ above 3,000, determine $\kappa_1(1)$ by an independent method that does not rely on the linear extrapolation and compare it with $0.707$. Either observation at or above the boundary would falsify the type-I claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ultrapure niobium is a type-I superconductor near its critical temperature. This is established from magnetization curves of single crystals with residual resistance ratios up to 61,000: as the temperature approaches $T_c$, the measured second critical field $H_{c2}$ drops toward the first critical field $H_{c1}$, and in the range $T_c - T \le 0.2$ K the curves show $H_{c2} = H_{c1}$, which is the signature of a type-I superconductor. Because the massive crystals' magnetization is strongly hysteretic, the precise values of $H_c$, $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ are extracted from polycrystalline wires, whose demagnetizing factor is zero and whose hysteresis from surface currents is reduced. For wires with residual resistance ratios from 91 to 15,000, the value $\kappa = \kappa_1(1) = \kappa_2(1)$ falls with increasing purity and follows the linear dependence $\kappa = \kappa_0 + k \rho \sqrt{\gamma}$ on residual resistivity; extrapolating to $\rho \to 0$ gives $\kappa_0 = 0.702 < 1/\sqrt{2}$. The paper concludes that pure niobium is intrinsically type-I at $T_c$ and becomes type-II at lower temperatures because of the temperature growth of $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole classification depends on a linear extrapolation of the Ginzburg-Landau parameter $\kappa(\rho\sqrt{\gamma})$ measured on four wire samples down to zero residual resistivity, and the extrapolated value $\kappa_0 = 0.702$ sits so close to the type-I boundary $1/\sqrt{2} = 0.707$ that modest systematic errors in $H_c$, $H_{c2}$, or the wire surface contribution could move the material to the type-II side.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In as-grown, high-purity niobium single crystals within 0.2 K of $T_c$, the magnetization transition should have the first-order character of a type-I superconductor rather than the reversible second-order form of a type-II superconductor.
  • The same material is type-II at lower temperatures, so standard mixed-state applications such as high-field magnets operating well below $T_c$ are not called into question; only the near-$T_c$ regime is reclassified.
  • Earlier observations of type-II behavior in nominally pure niobium with residual resistance ratios of a few thousand were seeing the impurity-driven value of $\kappa$, not the intrinsic clean-limit value.
  • The wire critical-current data in longitudinal fields are quantitatively consistent with a force-free spiral current distribution, meaning flux capture is essentially absent in the cleanest wires and force-free states can be realized in niobium.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct check of the paper's extrapolation would be to measure $\kappa_1(1)$ on a single crystal with residual resistance ratio above $10^5$; if the value came out at or above $0.707$, the intrinsic type-I classification would need revision, and the paper itself notes that surface-to-volume effects may raise $\kappa$ in wires, making a crystal measurement the cleaner test.
  • Because the fitted slope $k$ is 49% larger than the spherical-Fermi-surface value, the impurity contribution to $\kappa$ is enhanced by niobium's anisotropic Fermi surface; this suggests that theoretical estimates of $\kappa_0$ for anisotropic clean superconductors should be made with band-structure averages rather than free-electron models.
  • The same protocol — purification to residual resistance ratio above $10^4$, then $\kappa$ extrapolation to zero impurity — could decide the intrinsic type-I/type-II status of other marginal elemental superconductors whose classification has historically been blurred by surface and impurity effects.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports measurements of critical magnetic fields, magnetization curves, and critical currents on high-purity niobium single crystals and wires with residual resistance ratios up to 61,000. The authors claim that ultrapure niobium behaves as a type-I superconductor within about 0.2 K below the critical temperature, based on the near-coincidence of Hc1 and Hc2 in magnetization curves of massive single crystals and on a linear extrapolation of the Ginzburg-Landau parameter κ(t=1) to zero residual resistivity using Goodman's relation, yielding κ0 = 0.702 < 1/√2. The paper also discusses surface-related hysteresis, anisotropy of the upper critical field, and critical currents in longitudinal fields interpreted via force-free current distributions. The manuscript is an English translation of a 1974 Russian publication.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides strong experimental support for the intrinsic type-I character of clean niobium near Tc, a question that has recently attracted renewed attention (e.g., Ref. [6]). The reported data on extremely pure samples (α up to 61,000) are unique and include comparisons with band-structure calculations and de Haas-van Alphen data. The paper also contains useful observations on surface hysteresis and force-free critical currents. However, the quantitative foundation of the type-I claim is the extrapolated value κ0 = 0.702, which lies only 0.7% below the type-I/II threshold, and the paper provides no uncertainty analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (3), Table II] The central quantitative claim that κ0 = 0.702 < 1/√2 rests on a linear fit to only four wire samples (Nb6–Nb9) with no quoted error bars on κ(t=1). The two purest samples have κ(t=1) = 0.705 and 0.703, within 0.5% of the type-I/II boundary 1/√2 ≈ 0.7071. A systematic error of order 1% in the measured or extrapolated κ—from surface effects, from the difficulty of defining Hc1 and Hc2 near the boundary, or from the extrapolation of κ1(1) and κ2(1) to t = 1—would move the intercept above the threshold and overturn Conclusion 1. The authors should provide an uncertainty estimate or a sensitivity analysis demonstrating that κ0 is robustly below 1/√2.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (3)] Goodman's relation κ = κ0 + kρ√γ is a dirty-limit result, but the wire samples are far from the dirty limit: the mean free path is orders of magnitude larger than the coherence length (Table III gives l/ξ0 > 1300 for α > 3×10^4 single crystals, and even the α = 9,000 wire has l ≫ ξ0). Applying a linear-in-√ρ extrapolation outside its domain of validity introduces an unquantified model error. The authors should justify the use of this relation for such pure samples, or show that a clean-limit extrapolation (e.g., of the form κ = κ0 + const/l) gives an intercept below 1/√2.
  3. [Section 3, Figure 3] The observation that Hc1 = Hc2 near Tc does not by itself establish type-I behavior, because a type-II superconductor with κ just above 1/√2 would exhibit a nearly vanishing Hc2 − Hc1 in the same temperature range. The paper acknowledges that κ cannot be determined accurately from the single-crystal magnetization curves; hence the type-I classification for these samples rests entirely on the wire-sample extrapolation. If the extrapolation is uncertain, Conclusion 1 is not independently supported.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Throughout] The notation for the type-I/II boundary is inconsistent (e.g., '1/√2', '1/√ 2', '1/√2'); it should be unified.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The unit 'Qe' should be 'Oe' in '1000 Qe'.
  3. [Conclusion 3] 'Mattheis [17]' should be spelled 'Mattheiss [17]'.
  4. [Reference [16]] The surname is 'Goodman', not 'Goodmann'.
  5. [Title page] The manuscript does not explicitly mark itself as a translation from Fiz. metal. metalloved., 37, 63 (1974); a footnote would inform readers.
  6. [Section 4, text near Figure 6] The sentence 'If ρ → 0, κ → κ0 = 0.702 < 1/√2 (see Figure 6)' appears to refer to a plot that is not shown; Figure 6 displays κ1 and κ2 versus temperature, not the extrapolation to zero residual resistivity.
  7. [Section 6] 'Pulse setup allowed single sawtooth current pulses of up to 500 A with a duration of from 0.3 to 10 msec' should read 'with durations from 0.3 to 10 msec'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: type-I classification follows from measured κ(t=1) values and the direct Hc2≈Hc1 observation, with Goodman's relation and other theory used as external tools, not as self-referential inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The central claim (ultrapure niobium is type-I near Tc) rests on two independent pieces of evidence: direct magnetization curves of massive single crystals showing Hc2=Hc1 for Tc−T≤0.2 K (Fig. 3), and wire-sample determinations of κ1 and κ2 from the standard GL definitions in Eq. (1), with the purest wires already giving κ(t=1)=0.705 and 0.703, below 1/√2. The extrapolation κ0=0.702 via Goodman's relation (Eq. 3) is a fit to these measured κ values, not a prediction renamed from the fit, and Goodman's relation is an external theoretical result. The nonlocal Hc2 expression (Eq. 4), the Werthamer–McMillan relation (Eq. 7), and the comparisons with Mattheiss's band-structure calculations and dHvA data all use independent literature values. The self-citations [5] and [18] are the original Russian report of the same data and a companion paper, respectively; neither is used to justify the type-I conclusion, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The skeptic's concern about the small margin between κ0=0.702 and 1/√2, and about unquantified systematic errors in the dirty-limit extrapolation, is a robustness/correctness issue rather than a circularity, because the paper does not define type-I behavior in terms of its own fitted intercept. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on one fitted quantity (kappa0) obtained through an extrapolation with only four data points and no error bars. Other inputs are standard theory or literature values. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • kappa0 = 0.702
    Intercept of the linear fit of kappa vs sqrt(rho*gamma) using Goodman's relation (Eq. 3) for wire samples Nb6-Nb9, extrapolated to zero residual resistivity. This value is the load-bearing input for the type-I classification.
  • k = 11.2 x 10^3 (approximately)
    Slope of the same Goodman-relation fit; the paper notes it is 49% larger than the spherical Fermi surface value k_sphere = 7.5 x 10^3.
  • eta = 1.6 (average)
    Effective nonlocal/anisotropy parameter in Eq. (4), Hc2(t)=Hc2(0)(1+eta t^2 ln t), obtained by fitting the measured Hc2(T) curves for differently oriented single crystals.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Ginzburg-Landau theory and Abrikosov's relations for kappa1 and kappa2 (Eq. 1) are valid for these samples.
    Used to derive Hc, kappa1, kappa2 from magnetization curves; a standard framework for type-II superconductors.
  • domain assumption Goodman's relation kappa = kappa0 + k*sqrt(rho*gamma) (Eq. 3) holds across the purity range studied.
    Used to extrapolate kappa to zero residual resistivity; if the linearity fails at very high purity, kappa0 is not reliable.
  • domain assumption Surface currents, not bulk flux pinning, cause the hysteresis in the measured magnetization curves.
    The argument rests on the absence of residual moment at H=0 and the suppression of hysteresis by oxidation; if bulk pinning contributes, the extracted Hc values are biased.
  • domain assumption The Werthamer-McMillan relation (Eq. 7) and its strong-coupling correction (Eq. 8) correctly connect dHc2/dt to <vF^2>.
    Used to derive the Fermi-surface average velocity from the measured slope; the factor 1.4(1+lambda)^2 is taken from literature and lambda from dHvA measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superconducting properties of ultrapure niobium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6WYDZ2YQ

@misc{pith2026250601330,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superconducting properties of ultrapure niobium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6WYDZ2YQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01330}
}
read the original abstract

The results of determination of critical magnetic fields, magnetization curves and critical currents of niobium samples of different purity are presented. It is shown that ultrapure niobium near Tc is a superconductor of the first type and becomes a superconductor of the second type with decreasing temperature due to the temperature dependence of the Ginzburg-Landau parameters. The dependence of the hysteresis of the magnetization curves of massive samples on the surface state is investigated. A comparison of the superconducting parameters with the parameters of the electron spectrum of niobium is carried out. The dependence of the critical current of niobium wires on the longitudinal magnetic field agrees with the assumption of a force-free current distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01330 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Magnetization curve of sample Nbl with minor hysteresis loops (copy from trace on a two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Influence of surface treatment on magnetization of Nb1 (copy from two-coordinate recordings), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Temperature dependence of Hc: Nb6(⃝), Nb7(△), Nb8(□), Nb9(+). specially introduced oxygen showed that an oxygen concentration of ∼ 10 ppm is sufficient to produce a residual moment. For these reasons, Hc, κ1 and κ2 were determined only for polycrystalline wire samples, the purity of which was significantly lower than that of massive single crystals. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temperature dependence of Hc1/Hc2: Nb6(⃝), Nb7(△), Nb8(□), Nb9(+) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Temperature dependence of Hc2 near Tc for single-crystalline samples with different orien￾tations: Nb2[100] (⃝), Nb3[110](•), Nb4[111](△). Hc2 for [100] and Hc2 for [111] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Copies of oscillograms of the signal taken from an ballistic coil wound on a sample, obtained during the destruction of the supercon￾ductivity of the sample Nb10 by current in longi￾tudinal magnetic field at T = 4.2 K; duration of current pulses 4.2 msec. Magnetic fie…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Dependences of the reduced critical current on the external magnetic field of the Nb7 (α = 300) sample for current pulses of 1.2 (△, ▲) and 4.2 msec (◦, • ), T—4.29 K. ◦, △ - occurrence of a signal corresponding to the resistance of the flow of current; •, ▲ - transit…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Prozorov, M

    R. Prozorov, M. Zarea, J. A. Sauls, Niobium in clean limit: an intrinsic type-I superconductor, Phys. Rev. B 106, L180505 (2022) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.L180505

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.106.l180505 2022

  2. [1]

    D. K. Finnemore, T. F. Stromberg, C. A. Swenson, Superconducting Properties of High-Purity Niobium, Phys. Rev. 149, 231 (1966). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.149.231

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.149.231 1966

  3. [2]

    R. A. French, Intrinsic type-2 superconductivity in pure niobium, Cryogenics 8, 301, (1968). DOI: 10.1016/S0011-2275(68)80007-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s0011-2275(68)80007-4 1968

  4. [3]

    Ikuschima, T

    A. Ikuschima, T. Mizusaki, Superconductivity in niobium and niobium-tantalum alloys, J. Phys, Chem. Solids 30, 873 (1969). DOI: 10.1016/0022-3697(69)90283-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-3697(69)90283-2 1969

  5. [4]

    C. H. Hinrichs, C. A. Swenson, Superconducting Critical Field of Tantalum as a Function of Temper- ature and Pressure, Phys. Rev, 123, 1106 (1961). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.123.1106

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.123.1106 1961

  6. [5]

    N. E. Alekseyevskiy, V. I. Nizhankovskiy, K. H. Bertel, Superconductivity and Electronic Structure of Pure Niobium. II Superconducting Properties of Pure Niobium, Fiz. metal. metalloved., 37, 63 (1974). {in Russian}

    work page 1974

  7. [7]

    Bartel, K

    1. Bartel, K. H. Bertel, K. Fischer, R. Gebel, G. Guntzler, M. Jurisch, W. Neuman, J. Kunze, P. Miill, H. Opperman, R. Petri, G. Sobe, G. Weise and U. Wisner, Superconductivity and Electronic Structure of Pure Niobium. I. Preparation of Ultra Pure Niobium, Fiz. metal. metalloved., 35, 921 (1973). {in Russian}

    work page 1973

  8. [8]

    Koethe, J

    A. Koethe, J. I. Moench, Preparation of Ultra High Purity Niobium, Materials Transactions, JIM, 41, 7 (2000). DOI: 10.2320/matertrans1989.41.7

    work page doi:10.2320/matertrans1989.41.7 2000

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    K. K. Schulze, Preparation and Characterization of Ultra-High-Purity Niobium, J. Met. 33, 33 (1981). DOI: 10.1007/BF03354422

    1981 doi

  2. [10]

    Berndt, N

    H. Berndt, N. Kartascheff, H. Wenzl, Influence of neutron irradiation at 4.6 K on the superconducting properties of niobium, Z. Angew. Phys. 24, 305 (1968). {in German}

    1968

  3. [11]

    A. E. Jacobs, First-Order Transitions at Hc1 and Hc2 in Type-II Superconductors Phys. Rev. B4, 3022 (1971).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.4.3022

    1971 doi

  4. [12]

    E. H. Brandt, Ginsburg-Landau Theory of the Vortex Lattice in Type-I1 Superconductors for All Values of κ and B, Phys. stat. sol. B 51, 345 (1972). DOI: 10.1002/pssb.2220510135

    1972 doi

  5. [13]

    L. J. Barnes, H. J. Fink, Critical Currents in the Superconducting Surface Sheath, Phys. Rev., 149, 186 (1966). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.149.186

    1966 doi

  6. [14]

    Saint-James, G

    D. Saint-James, G. Sarma, Edward John Thomas, Type II Superconductivity, Elsevier Science & Technology, 1969

    1969

  7. [15]

    A. A. Abrikosov, On the Magnetic properties of superconductors of the second group, Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz. 32, 1442 (1957) [Sov.Phys.JETP 5, 1174 (1957)]. 13

    1957

  8. [16]

    B. B. Goodmann, The Magnetic Behavior of Superconductors of Negative Surface Energy, IBM J. Res. Develop. 6, 63 (1962). DOI: 10.1147/rd.61.0063

    1962 doi

  9. [17]

    L. F. Mattheiss, Electronic Structure of Niobium and Tantalum, Phys. Rev., B1, 373 (1970). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.1.373

    1970 doi

  10. [18]

    N. E. Alekseyevskiy, V. I. Nizhankovskiy, K. H. Bertel, Superconductivity and Electronic Structure of Pure Niobium. III Magnetoresistance and Magnetic Breakdown in High Magnetic Fields, Fiz. metal. metalloved., 42, 931 (1976). {in Russian}

    1976

  11. [19]

    L. P. Gor’kov, Microscopic Derivation of the Ginzburg-Landau Equations in the Theory of Supercon- ductivity, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 37, 833 (1959) [Sov. Phys. JETP 10, 593 (1960)]

    1959

  12. [20]

    S. J. Williamson, L. Valby, Nonlocal Characteristics of the Bulk Upper Critical Field of Niobium, Phys. Rev. Letters 24, 1061 (1970). DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.24.1061

    1970 doi

  13. [21]

    C.Hohenberg, N

    P. C.Hohenberg, N. R. Werthamer, Anisotropy and Temperature Dependence of the Upper Critical Field of Type-II Superconductors, Phys. Rev. 153, 493 (1967). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.153.493

    1967 doi

  14. [22]

    S. J. Williamson, Bulk Upper Critical Field of Clean Type-II Superconductors: V and Nb, Phys. Rev. B2, 3545 (1970). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.2.3545

    1970 doi

  15. [23]

    N. R. Werthamer, W. L. McMillan, Temperature and Purity Dependence of the Superconducting Criti- cal Field Hc2. IV. Strong-Coupling Effects, Phys. Rev. 158, 415 (1967). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.158.415

    1967 doi

  16. [24]

    Eilenberger, V

    G. Eilenberger, V. Ambegaokar, Bulk ( Hc2) and Surface ( Hc3) Nucleation Fields of Strong-Coupling Superconducting Alloys, Phys. Rev., 158, 332 (1967). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.158.332

    1967 doi

  17. [25]

    G. B. Scott, M. Springford, The Fermi surface in niobium, Proc. Roy. Soc. A320, 115 (1970). DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1970.0200

    1970

  18. [26]

    H. A. Leupold, H. A. Boorse, Superconducting and Normal Specific Heats of a Single Crystal of Nio- bium, Phys. Rev., 134, A1322 (1964). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.134.A1322

    1964 doi

  19. [27]

    Shoenberg, Superconductivity (Cambridge Monographs on Physics), Cambridge University Press (1952)

    D. Shoenberg, Superconductivity (Cambridge Monographs on Physics), Cambridge University Press (1952)

    1952

  20. [28]

    F. B. Silsbee, Current Distribution in Superconductors, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA 13, 516 (1927). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.13.7.516

    1927 doi

  21. [29]

    L. N. J. De Jong, B. S. Blaisse, A Simple Model for the Magnetic Behaviour of Superconductors with an Anchored Filament Structure, Physics, 31, 317 (1965). DOI: 10.1016/0031-8914(65)90036-4

    1965 doi

  22. [30]

    Bergeron, Simple model for longitudinal force-free current flow in superconductors of the second kind, J

    C. Bergeron, Simple model for longitudinal force-free current flow in superconductors of the second kind, J. Appl. Phys. Letters, 3, 63 (1963). DOI: 10.1063/1.1753870

    1963 doi

  23. [31]

    D. G. Walmsley, Normalizing current of a type II superconductor, Phys. Letters 36A, 357 (1971). DOI: 10.1016/0375-9601(71)90258-1

    1971 doi

  24. [32]

    Meissner, F

    W. Meissner, F. Schmeissner and H. Meissner, Messungen im ¨Ubergangsgebiet zur Supraleitung. III, Zs. Phys., 132, 529 (1952). DOI: 10.1007/BF01333213

    1952 doi

  25. [33]

    A. F. Andreyev, Second Critical Current of Bulky Superconductors, Pis’ma v zh. eksp. teor. fiz. 10, 453 (1969)

    1969

  26. [34]

    D. G. Walmsley, Force free magnetic fields in a type II superconducting cylinder, J. Phys. F 2, 510 (1972). DOI: 10.1088/0305-4608/2/3/020 14

    1972 doi

Pith tools

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