Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 113 references

Universal temperature-dependent electrical resistivity in actinides

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A single two-channel model—Bloch–Grüneisen plus Arrhenius hopping—fits temperature-dependent resistivity across nine actinide phases and selected plutonium alloys.

desk verdict A clean phenomenological unification of actinide ρ(T) that works across the archival set and returns sensible ΘD, but the NNH interpretation is still a fit choice rather than a demonstrated mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23484 v2 pith:6GS2TCFG submitted 2026-07-26 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el

E.F. Talantsev This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords actinideselectricalresistivityBloch-GrüneisenArrheniusnearest-neighborhoppingparallelresistormodelDebyetemperatureplutoniumalloys
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

Actinide metals have long resisted a unified description of how their electrical resistivity changes with temperature: curves look radically different from element to element, polynomial and power-law fits are unstable, and first-principles calculations often fail even qualitatively. This paper argues that the usual series addition of scattering mechanisms (Matthiessen’s rule) is the wrong starting point for single-phase metals. Instead, two conduction channels run in parallel—one classical electron–phonon channel given by the Bloch–Grüneisen formula, the other a nearest-neighbor hopping channel given by an Arrhenius term—and the measured resistivity is the reciprocal of the sum of their conductances. Applied to public data for thorium through curium (nine phases) and to δ-phase Pu–Ce and Pu–Ce–Ga alloys, the model returns high-quality fits and Debye temperatures that match independent heat-capacity values. The largest fitted hopping activation energy among the pure elements is 15.9 meV in neptunium. If correct, the same simple parallel construction supplies a practical, physically motivated way to analyze resistivity across the actinide series.

What carries the argument

The NNH-parallel resistance model (Eq. 10): ρ(T) equals the reciprocal of the sum of the reciprocals of an Arrhenius resistivity and a Bloch–Grüneisen resistivity. It generalizes the classical parallel-resistor (saturation) model by allowing the saturated channel to carry a nonzero activation energy, and it replaces Matthiessen series addition with parallel conduction channels for single-phase metals.

What would settle it

A high-quality ρ(T) data set for a pure elemental actinide phase that cannot be fit by Eq. 10 (or that returns a Debye temperature grossly inconsistent with heat-capacity values), or a demonstration that an alternative second-channel form (for example variable-range hopping or a pure saturation term without activation) systematically outperforms Arrhenius across the same actinide series.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The temperature-dependent resistivity of elemental actinides (Th to Cm, nine phases) and of selected δ-Pu alloys is accurately described by a nearest-neighbor-hopping parallel-resistance model: one Bloch–Grüneisen channel in parallel with one Arrhenius channel. The model yields Debye temperatures in agreement with heat-capacity data and a maximum Arrhenius activation energy of 15.9 meV for neptunium.

Load-bearing premise

In single-phase elemental metals, different dissipation mechanisms must be combined as parallel conduction channels rather than added in series, and the second channel is physically nearest-neighbor hopping with an Arrhenius form.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Debye temperatures can be extracted from actinide resistivity curves with the same model that fits the full temperature dependence, and they should track heat-capacity Θ_D.
  • Neptunium hosts the largest nearest-neighbor hopping barrier among the pure actinides examined (Ea ≈ 15.9 meV).
  • δ-phase Pu–Ce and Pu–Ce–Ga alloys are described by the same two-channel form, with roughly constant Θ_D ≈ 175 K and Ea ≈ 16–18 meV at low dopant levels.
  • Matthiessen-style series fits and many first-principles resistivity curves for actinides are expected to remain qualitatively inadequate until parallel hopping is included.
  • The same parallel construction is offered as a candidate for other single-phase conductors whose resistivity has resisted unified fitting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the parallel-channel premise is general, many historical power-law and polynomial resistivity analyses of actinides (and possibly other correlated metals) may need re-reduction with reciprocal rather than additive combination.
  • The element-to-element variation of fitted Ea (zero for Th, Pa, Am; finite and largest for Np) could be used as a comparative probe of 5f localization or hopping barriers once more complete data sets exist.
  • A natural next test is whether pressure- or self-irradiation-dependent ρ(T) in the same actinides still collapses onto Eq. 10 with smoothly varying Ea and Θ_D.
  • Extending the second channel to Mott or Efros–Shklovskii forms (Eq. 14) remains unneeded for present data but is a ready diagnostic if low-T curvature appears in cleaner samples.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a single phenomenological model (Eq. 10) for the temperature-dependent resistivity of elemental actinides: two parallel conduction channels, one Bloch–Grüneisen (electron–phonon) and one Arrhenius (identified with nearest-neighbor hopping), combined by reciprocal addition (Eq. 8) rather than Matthiessen's rule. The model is fit to publicly available ρ(T) data for nine elemental actinide phases (Th–Cm) and three δ-Pu alloys, with reported R² typically ≥ 0.999. Fitted Debye temperatures are compared to heat-capacity values; for Np an activation energy Ea = 15.9 meV is reported as the largest among elemental actinides. Global fits across samples (Th, α-Pu, Am) and a cooling/warming stability check (Cm) are presented as internal consistency tests. The author further claims (§2, §4) that Matthiessen's rule is fundamentally inapplicable to single-phase metals because transport "always occurs in parallel."

Significance. Actinide ρ(T) curves are notoriously anomalous and resist first-principles description, so a compact, unified fitting form would be genuinely useful to the community. The paper ships several checkable, falsifiable outputs rather than a single illustrative fit: (i) cross-sample consistency of ρ_sat ≈ 136 µΩcm and Ea ≈ 5 meV for three independent α-Pu datasets (Fig. 8–9), (ii) parameter stability under cooling/warming cycling for Cm (Fig. 13–14), (iii) a concrete prediction for Cm (Θ_D ≈ 180 K) that departs from the one published heat-capacity value and can be tested, and (iv) per-sample Θ_D values benchmarked against independent calorimetry. These reproducible, parameter-explicit fits and the external Θ_D anchor are real strengths. However, the model is descriptive rather than derived, with up to five free parameters per curve, so its value currently rests on demonstrating that the fitted parameters are robust and that the functional form is discriminated from alternatives — which the manuscript does not yet do.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, Eq. 8 and §4] The load-bearing conceptual claim — that Matthiessen's rule (Eq. 1) is 'fundamentally flawed' for single-phase metals and that 'electrical transport always occurs in parallel' (Eq. 8) — is asserted without derivation, citation, or test. Standard Boltzmann transport adds scattering rates for mechanisms acting on the same carrier population; parallel (reciprocal) addition applies to distinct carrier channels (multiband, shunting phases). The empirical success of the parallel form does not by itself establish channel physics, since the parallel-resistor form is a well-known phenomenological saturation descriptor (Refs. 79–80) with no hopping content required. The interpretation of Ea as a physical NNH activation energy (the paper's headline result, e.g., Np Ea=15.9 meV) depends entirely on this assertion. The author must either provide a microscopic justification for a coexisting activated
  2. [§3, Figs. 6–15] No robustness or model-selection analysis supports the central fitting claim. With up to five free parameters (ρ0, ρD, ΘD, ρsat, Ea) fit to smooth, monotonic curves, R² ≥ 0.999 carries little discriminatory weight, and several fitted parameters betray ill-conditioning: ρD = (386±98) µΩcm for α′-U (Fig. 6a, ~25% relative error) and ρD = (2.4±1.2) mΩcm for Cm (Fig. 13a, ~50%). The paper criticizes polynomial fits (Eq. 3) precisely for parameter instability, but does not demonstrate its own parameters are better behaved. Needed: residual plots (not just confidence bands), parameter-correlation/covariance reporting, and a statistical comparison (F-test/AIC/BIC) of Eq. 10 against nested alternatives — the Ea=0 parallel-resistor limit (Eq. 11) and a series BG+saturation form — for the cases where Ea>0 is claimed (Np, α-Pu, β-Pu, Cm, δ-Pu alloys).
  3. [§3.5, §3.8; Fig. 16] The Θ_D validation is presented more strongly than the numbers support. For α-Pu the fitted Θ_D spans 137–196 K across three samples (Figs. 8–9), and 'agreement' is claimed against literature values themselves spanning 116–207 K; with ranges this wide the benchmark is nearly non-falsifiable. For Cm the fitted Θ_D = (180±11) K disagrees with the only published heat-capacity value (121 K, Ref. 101) by ~50%, which is noted but not analyzed. For uranium, both Θ_D = 185 K (α′) and 238 K (α) are claimed to be 'in good agreement' with different literature values. The manuscript should state a quantitative criterion for agreement and present a compact table of fitted vs. calorimetric Θ_D per phase so the reader can judge the validation rather than relying on narrative comparison.
  4. [§3.9, Fig. 15c] Fig. 15c reports ρ0 = (155±2) µΩcm and ρsat = (155±2) µΩcm — identical values and uncertainties, which is implausible for independent fit parameters and suggests a fit degeneracy or a transcription error. Given that the δ-Pu alloys are offered as independent confirmation of the model (with Ea ≈ 16–18 meV, exceeding the elemental maximum), this panel needs to be checked and the fit reported correctly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: 'a maximum Arrhenius activation energy (among all actinides) of Ea = 15.9 meV' is contradicted within the paper by the δ-Pu alloy values Ea = 16.1–18.0 meV (Fig. 15). Clarify that the maximum refers to elemental actinides only.
  2. [§2, Eqs. 9, 16] Eq. 9 text: 'ρ_∞ and E_a are free-fitting parameters' — ρ_∞ is undefined; the parameter is ρ_sat. Also in the third line of Eq. 16 the subscript 'global' is missing on E_a.
  3. [Figs. 2, 4, 6; §1, §3.8] Figure captions inconsistently report fit quality as 'R' (Figs. 2b, 2c, 6b) vs 'R-square (COD)'; presumably all are R². Typographical issues: 'protoactinium' (Fig. 4 caption), 'fundings' (§3.8), 'particularly successful' should read 'partially successful' (§1, first-principles paragraph).
  4. [§3; Data availability statement] Data provenance: several datasets are digitized from published figures (e.g., King and Lee data 'digitized from Figure 17 in Reference [12]', Fig. 8a), and some are sparse (β-Pu, Fig. 10) or non-uniformly sampled (Hall Pa data, Fig. 4a). The digitized datasets and fit scripts should be deposited (e.g., Zenodo) rather than offered 'upon reasonable request'; this would materially strengthen reproducibility.
  5. [References] Ref. [47] (NiBi3 superconductivity) appears out of place as a citation for Matthiessen-rule-based resistivity models of actinides (Eq. 1 context); please check. Several 2026-dated references (e.g., [56], [57], [67], [81]) should be verified for accuracy at proof stage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Phenomenological two-channel fit with external ΘD check; no load-bearing circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper proposes a phenomenological NNH-parallel-resistance model (Eq. 10: reciprocal sum of Bloch–Grüneisen and Arrhenius channels) and fits its free parameters (ρ0, ρD, ΘD, ρsat, Ea) to published ρ(T) curves for actinide phases and a few δ-Pu alloys. Reporting those fit parameters and high R² is ordinary curve-fitting, not a derivation that reduces a claimed prediction to its inputs by construction. The sole external anchor—ΘD from the resistivity fits compared to independently published heat-capacity Debye temperatures—is a genuine cross-check against a different observable, not a fitted-input-called-prediction loop. Ea and ρsat are not independently predicted; they are simply extracted and interpreted as NNH activation and saturation resistivity. The parallel-channel premise (Eq. 8 vs Matthiessen Eq. 1) is an asserted modeling choice, not a self-definitional identity or a uniqueness theorem imported from the author’s prior work. Self-citations (author’s other resistivity/superconductivity papers) are peripheral and not load-bearing for the actinide claim. No step equates a ‘prediction’ to a fitted quantity by algebra or forces the central result via self-citation. Score 1 only for the mild, normal fact that the model’s descriptive success on the same ρ(T) it is fitted to is partly by construction of free parameters—standard for phenomenological fits and not circularity under the stated criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a phenomenological parallel two-channel ansatz, standard BG and Arrhenius formulas, and a stack of per-sample fit parameters. Independent support is limited mainly to post-fit ΘD agreement with heat capacity; the NNH channel and the mandatory parallel (vs series) combination are domain/modeling choices, not derived results.

free parameters (5)
  • ρ0 (residual resistivity, per sample/phase) = sample-dependent (e.g. ~0.86–67 μΩcm range across figures)
    Standard residual term inside the Bloch–Grüneisen channel; fitted independently for each dataset and allowed to differ under cooling/warming for Cm.
  • ρD (electron–phonon resistivity prefactor) = sample-dependent (wide range, mΩcm to μΩcm scale in figures)
    Scale of the BG integral term; free per sample (or local in global fits).
  • ΘD (Debye temperature) = element/phase-dependent, roughly 88–238 K in reported fits
    Fitted from ρ(T); afterward compared to heat-capacity literature. Still a free fit parameter in the resistivity model.
  • ρsat (Arrhenius/saturation resistivity scale) = sample-dependent; often ~100–200 μΩcm when finite
    Prefactor of the parallel activated channel; ∞ when channel is dropped; globalized in some multi-sample fits (e.g. α-Pu ~136 μΩcm).
  • Ea (Arrhenius activation energy) = 0 to 15.9 meV (elemental); ~16–18 meV in δ-Pu alloys
    Extra free parameter relative to classical parallel-resistor model; set to 0 when fit prefers pure saturation or pure BG. Core claimed material parameter (max 15.9 meV for Np).
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper In single-phase elemental metals, contributions from distinct dissipation mechanisms combine as parallel channels: ρ = 1/Σ(1/ρi) (Eq. 8), not Matthiessen sum.
    Stated in §2 as the reason prior actinide fits failed; not derived from Boltzmann transport here, and contrary to the usual Matthiessen starting point for pure metals.
  • domain assumption One channel is Bloch–Grüneisen electron–phonon resistivity with fixed power 5 (Eq. 6).
    Standard metal-physics form; paper notes the exponent could be freed (Eq. 15) but does not need to for these data.
  • domain assumption The second channel is nearest-neighbor hopping with Arrhenius form ρsat exp(Ea/kT).
    Identified with NNH in §2 and Conclusions; hopping in actinides was discussed historically (Long 1977), but equality of the parallel term with NNH is an interpretive assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Two channels suffice; VRH or variable BG exponent (Eqs. 14–15) are unnecessary for available actinide data.
    Empirical claim from the author’s experimentation with forms (§2); no systematic model-comparison metrics beyond visual/R² success of Eq. 10.
  • domain assumption Historical published ρ(T) curves (often digitized) are adequate to extract physically meaningful Ea and ΘD.
    Throughout §3; purity, phase purity, and digitization error are discussed only lightly (e.g. Pa sample differences).
invented entities (1)
  • NNH-parallel resistance model (activated parallel channel coexisting with BG in elemental actinide metals)
    purpose: Provide a single functional form that fits diverse actinide ρ(T) shapes and interprets non-BG curvature as hopping.
    Names and generalizes the classical parallel-resistor model by giving the saturation branch Arrhenius T dependence and attributing it to NNH in metals.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal temperature-dependent electrical resistivity in actinides." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6GS2TCFG

@misc{pith2026260723484,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal temperature-dependent electrical resistivity in actinides},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6GS2TCFG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23484}
}
abstract

Temperature-dependent electrical resistivity $\rho(T)$ is one of the most common types of experimental data analyzed in condensed matter physics. For one group of pure metals, the actinides, experimental $\rho(T)$ curves differ radically from one another to the point that there is no unified theoretical approach to understanding and fitting $\rho(T)$ data in these elements. First-principles calculations result in $\rho(T)$ curves that differ from experimental data, even qualitatively. In an attempt to unravel this long-standing problem, here I propose a simple model that accurately fits the $\rho(T)$ data for nine phases of elemental actinides (from thorium (Th) to curium (Cm)) for which experimental data are publicly available to date. The model is based on the concept of two parallel conduction channels: one is described by the Bloch-Gr\"uneisen equation, which is associated with the classical electron-phonon dissipation mechanism, and the other by the Arrhenius equation, which is associated with the nearest-neighbor hopping (NNH) conductivity. Debye temperatures $\Theta_D$ obtained by applying the model to the $\rho(T)$ data for nine elemental actinide phases are in good agreement with published values deduced from heat capacity measurements. For neptunium (Np) a maximum Arrhenius activation energy (among all actinides) of $E_a=15.9$ $meV$ was derived. The model was also successfully applied to $\rho(T)$ data measured on $\delta$-phase plutonium-based alloys Pu-Ce and Pu-Ce-Ga.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23484 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The plot in Figure 1,a is from a study by Bett et al [7] (it had been published in 1984), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references

  1. [1]

    A. I. Dahl and M. S. Van Dusen, Resistance-temperature relation and thermoelectric properties of uranium, J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. (1934). 39, 53 (1947)

    1934

  2. [2]

    B. S. Chandrasekhar and J. K. Hulm, The electrical resistivity and super-conductivity of some uranium alloys and compounds, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 7, 259 (1958)

    1958

  3. [3]

    T. A. Sandenaw and R. B. Gibney, The electrical resistivity and thermal conducitvity of plutonium metal, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 6, 81 (1958)

    1958

  4. [4]

    T. A. Sandenaw, Heat capacity, thermal expansion and electrical resistivity of an 8 a/o aluminum- plutonium (delta-phase stabilized) alloy below 300°K, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 16, 329 (1960)

    1960

  5. [5]

    G. T. Meaden, Low Temperature Properties of Transuranic and Other Heavy Metals. Study of the Electrical Resistivity and Thermoelectric Power of Thorium, Uranium, Neptunium and Plutonium., Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Oxford, 1961

    1961

  6. [6]

    M. B. Brodsky, Magnetic properties of the actinide elements and their metallic compounds, Reports on Progress in Physics 41, 1547 (1978)

    1978

  7. [7]

    R. Bett, J. C. Spirlet, and W. Müller, The electrical resistivity of protactinium, Journal of the Less Common Metals 102, 41 (1984)

    1984

  8. [8]

    Sundqvist, Resistivity saturation in crystalline metals: Semi-classical theory versus experiment, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 165, 110686 (2022)

    B. Sundqvist, Resistivity saturation in crystalline metals: Semi-classical theory versus experiment, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 165, 110686 (2022)

    2022

Show all 113 references
  1. [9]

    K. T. Moore and G. van der Laan, Nature of the <math display="inline"> <mrow> <mn>5</mn> <mi>f</mi> </mrow> </math> states in actinide metals, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 235 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    T. A. Sandenaw and C. E. Olsen, Electrical Resistivity of Plutonium Metal Between 1.73 K and 298 K, in Conférence Internationale Sur Les Utilisations Pacifiques de l’Énergie Atomique (Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Plutonium Metallurgy), edited by E. Grison...

    1961

  3. [11]

    G. T. Meaden, Electronic properties of the actinide metals at low temperatures, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Sci. 276, 553 (1963)

    1963

  4. [12]

    G. T. Meaden, Electrical Resistance of Metals (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1965)

    1965

  5. [13]

    Y. A. Rocher and J. Friedel, Aspect phenomenologique de quelques proprietes physiques du plutonium et des solutions solides plutonium-aluminium δ, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 18, 196 (1961)

    1961

  6. [14]

    C. E. Olsen and R. O. Elliott, Effects of impurities and self-irradiation on the electrical resistivity of alpha-phase plutonium below 300°K, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 23, 1225 (1962)

    1962

  7. [15]

    R. O. Elliott, C. E. Olsen, and G. H. Vineyard, Self-irradiation and annealing of plutonium and plutonium-aluminum alloys, Acta Metallurgica 11, 1129 (1963). 30

    1963

  8. [16]

    C. E. Olsen and R. O. Elliott, Electrical Behavior of Plutonium-Neptunium Alloys, Physical Review 139, A437 (1965)

    1965

  9. [17]

    R. O. Elliott, C. E. Olsen, and J. Louie, Electrical behavior below 300°K of plutonium-rich, delta- phase solid solution alloys containing cerium, aluminum and zinc, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 23, 1029 (1962)

    1962

  10. [18]

    M. B. Brodsky, Hall Effect in Plutonium, Physical Review 137, A1423 (1965)

    1965

  11. [19]

    A. J. Arko, M. B. Brodsky, and W. J. Nellis, Spin Fluctuations in Plutonium and Other Actinide Metals and Compounds, Phys. Rev. B 5, 4564 (1972)

    1972

  12. [20]

    W. J. Nellis, A. R. Harvey, M. B. Brodsky, H. C. Wolfe, C. D. Graham, and J. J. Rhyne, Stabilization of the 5f Energy Band in Actinide-Rh[Sub 3] Intermetallic Compounds, in AIP Conference Proceedings (AIP, 1973), pp. 1076–1080

    1973

  13. [21]

    M. B. Brodsky, Spin fluctuations in actinide intermetallic compounds, Phys. Rev. B 9, 1381 (1974)

    1974

  14. [22]

    Müller, R

    W. Müller, R. Schenkel, H. E. Schmidt, J. C. Spirlet, D. L. McElroy, R. O. A. Hall, and M. J. Mortimer, The electrical resistivity and specific heat of americium metal, J. Low Temp. Phys. 30, 561 (1978)

    1978

  15. [23]

    Arajs and R

    S. Arajs and R. V. Colvin, Electrical resistivity of α-uranium from 2° to 300°K, Journal of the Less Common Metals 7, 54 (1964)

    1964

  16. [24]

    Arajs, R

    S. Arajs, R. H. Flora, and E. E. Anderson, Electrical resistivity and thermoelectric power of polycrystalline uranium at elevated temperatures, Journal of Nuclear Materials 37, 89 (1970)

    1970

  17. [25]

    H. G. Schettler, J. J. Martin, F. A. Schmidt, and G. C. Danielson, Thermal Conductivity of High- Purity Thorium, Physical Review 187, 801 (1969)

    1969

  18. [26]

    Schenkel, The electrical resistivity of 244Cm metal, Solid State Commun

    R. Schenkel, The electrical resistivity of 244Cm metal, Solid State Commun. 23, 389 (1977)

    1977

  19. [27]

    Schenkel and W

    R. Schenkel and W. Müller, The electrical resistivity of 241Am metal, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 38, 1301 (1977)

    1977

  20. [28]

    R. O. A. Hall, J. A. Lee, and M. J. Mortimer, The electrical resistivity of protactinium metal, J. Low Temp. Phys. 27, 305 (1977)

    1977

  21. [29]

    A. V. Kolomiets, J.-C. Griveau, V. Klosek, P. Faure, C. Genestier, N. Baclet, and F. Wastin, Resistivity of Pu 0.76 Am 0.24 under pressure, High Press. Res. 26, 523 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    A. V. Kolomiets, J.-C. Griveau, S. Heathman, A. B. Shick, F. Wastin, P. Faure, V. Klosek, C. Genestier, N. Baclet, and L. Havela, Pressure-induced americium valence fluctuations revealed by electrical resistivity, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 82, 57007 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    Suzuki, V

    Y. Suzuki, V. R. Fanelli, J. B. Betts, F. J. Freibert, C. H. Mielke, J. N. Mitchell, M. Ramos, T. A. Saleh, and A. Migliori, Temperature dependence of elastic moduli of polycrystalline β plutonium, Phys. Rev. B 84, 064105 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Havela, S

    L. Havela, S. Mašková, J. Kolorenč, E. Colineau, J.-C. Griveau, and R. Eloirdi, Electronic properties of Pu 19 Os simulating β-Pu: the strongly correlated Pu phase, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 30, 085601 (2018). 31

    2018

  25. [33]

    Y. Liu, X. Ji, Q. Pan, Y. Zhang, X. Wang, and X. Lai, Quantitatively determining the degree of spin fluctuations in actinide metals and compounds, J. Phys. Commun. 4, 101002 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    R. D. dos Reis, L. S. I. Veiga, C. A. Escanhoela, J. C. Lang, Y. Joly, F. G. Gandra, D. Haskel, and N. M. Souza-Neto, Unraveling 5f-6d hybridization in uranium compounds via spin-resolved L- edge spectroscopy, Nat. Commun. 8, 1203 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    C. A. Mizzi, W. A. Phelan, M. S. Cook, G. L. Chappell, P. H. Tobash, D. C. Arellano, D. V. Prada, B. Maiorov, and N. Harrison, Adaptation of Wallace’s approach to the specific heat of elemental solids with significant intrinsic anharmonicity, particularly the light actinide me...

    2025

  28. [36]

    inline"> <mi>α</mi> </math> - and <math display=

    J. C. Lashley, J. Singleton, A. Migliori, J. B. Betts, R. A. Fisher, J. L. Smith, and R. J. McQueeney, Experimental Electronic Heat Capacities of <math display="inline"> <mi>α</mi> </math> - and <math display="inline"> <mi>δ</mi> </math> -Plutonium: Heavy-Fermion Physics in an...

    2003

  29. [37]

    Y. S. Kim, T. W. Cho, and D.-S. Sohn, Thermal conductivities of actinides (U, Pu, Np, Cm, Am) and uranium-alloys (U–Zr, U–Pu–Zr and U–Pu–TRU–Zr), Journal of Nuclear Materials 445, 272 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    C. Xing, C. Jensen, C. Folsom, H. Ban, and J. R. Kennedy, A thermal conductivity and electromotive force measurement system for nuclear fuels and materials, Measurement 94, 333 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    G. H. Lander et al., Measurements related to the magnetism of curium metal, Phys. Rev. B 99, 224419 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Harrison, J

    N. Harrison, J. B. Betts, M. R. Wartenbe, F. F. Balakirev, S. Richmond, M. Jaime, and P. H. Tobash, Phase stabilization by electronic entropy in plutonium, Nat. Commun. 10, 3159 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Wartenbe, P

    M. Wartenbe, P. H. Tobash, J. Singleton, L. E. Winter, S. Richmond, and N. Harrison, Pseudogap in elemental plutonium, Phys. Rev. B 105, L041107 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    S. S. Hecker, D. R. Harbur, and T. G. Zocco, Phase stability and phase transformations in Pu–Ga alloys, Prog. Mater. Sci. 49, 429 (2004)

    2004

  35. [43]

    Dormeval, N

    M. Dormeval, N. Baclet, C. Valot, P. Rofidal, and J. M. Fournier, Crystalline and electronic structure of Pu–Ce and Pu–Ce–Ga alloys stabilized in the δ phase, J. Alloys Compd. 350, 86 (2003)

    2003

  36. [44]

    J. L. Smith, G. R. Stewart, C. Y. Huang, and R. G. Haire, Superconducting critical field and low temperature heat capacity of americium, Le Journal de Physique Colloques 40, C4 (1979)

    1979

  37. [45]

    P. Ch. Sahu, M. Yousuf, and K. G. Rajan, Electrical resistivity and phase-transition behaviour of uranium under pressure and temperature, Physica B Condens. Matter 183, 145 (1993)

    1993

  38. [46]

    J. M. Fournier, Bulk properties of the actinides, Journal of the Less Common Metals 121, 101 (1986)

    1986

  39. [47]

    Gangwar, K

    A. Gangwar, K. Yadav, S. Patnaik, and S. Chatterjee, Evidence for fully-gapped superconductivity in BCS superconductor NiBi3, ArXiv (2026). 32

    2026

  40. [48]

    W. B. H. Lord, SOME PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF PLUTONIUM, Metallurgical Reviews 8, 277 (1963)

    1963

  41. [49]

    A. C. Lawson, Electrical resistivity of delta phase plutonium alloys, Philosophical Magazine 102, 1069 (2022)

    2022

  42. [51]

    Yu. Yu. Tsiovkin, A. A. Povzner, L. Yu. Tsiovkina, V. V. Dremov, L. R. Kabirova, A. A. Dyachenko, V. B. Bystrushkin, M. V. Ryabukhina, A. V. Lukoyanov, and A. O. Shorikov, Temperature and concentration dependences of the electrical resistivity for alloys of plutonium with amer...

    2010

  43. [52]

    Yu. Yu. Tsiovkin, A. V. Lukoyanov, A. A. Povzner, E. S. Koneva, M. A. Korotin, A. O. Shorikov, V. I. Anisimov, A. N. Voloshinskii, and V. V. Dremov, Theoretical investigation of the residual electrical resistivity concentration dependence of transuranium metal alloys, Phys. Re...

    2009

  44. [53]

    Yu. Yu. Tsiovkin, M. A. Korotin, A. O. Shorikov, V. I. Anisimov, A. N. Voloshinskii, A. V. Lukoyanov, E. S. Koneva, A. A. Povzner, and M. A. Surin, Calculation of temperature dependence of electrical resistivity in the transuranium metals and their alloys, Phys. Rev. B 76, 075...

    2007

  45. [54]

    inline"> <mi>δ</mi> </math> and <math display=

    A. O. Shorikov, A. V. Lukoyanov, M. A. Korotin, and V. I. Anisimov, Magnetic state and electronic structure of the <math display="inline"> <mi>δ</mi> </math> and <math display="inline"> <mi>α</mi> </math> phases of metallic Pu and its compounds, Phys. Rev. B 72, 024458 (2005)

    2005

  46. [55]

    Yu. Yu. Tsiovkin, A. V. Lukoyanov, A. O. Shorikov, L. Yu. Tsiovkina, A. A. Dyachenko, V. B. Bystrushkin, M. A. Korotin, V. I. Anisimov, and V. V. Dremov, Electrical resistivity of pure transuranium metals under pressure, Journal of Nuclear Materials 413, 41 (2011)

    2011

  47. [56]

    E. F. Talantsev, Einstein and Debye Temperatures, Electron‐Phonon Coupling Constant, and a Probable Mechanism for Ambient‐Pressure Room‐Temperature Superconductivity in Intercalated Graphite, Ann. Phys. 538, (2026)

    2026

  48. [57]

    Shan et al., Discovery of record-breaking high- T c superconductivity among 5 d transition- metal-oxides up to 17.8 K in ReO3, Natl

    P. Shan et al., Discovery of record-breaking high- T c superconductivity among 5 d transition- metal-oxides up to 17.8 K in ReO3, Natl. Sci. Rev. (2026)

    2026

  49. [58]

    P. B. Allen and W. W. Schulz, Bloch-Boltzmann analysis of electrical transport in intermetallic compounds: ReO3, BaPbO3, CoSi2, and Pd2Si, Phys. Rev. B 47, 14434 (1993)

    1993

  50. [59]

    inline"> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant=

    D. Mandrus, B. C. Sales, and R. Jin, Localized vibrational mode analysis of the resistivity and specific heat of <math display="inline"> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">LaB</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>6</mn> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </math>, Phys. Rev. B 64, 012302 (2001). 33

    2001

  51. [60]

    Tanaka, T

    T. Tanaka, T. Akahane, E. Bannai, S. Kawai, N. Tsuda, and Y. Ishizawa, Role of polar optical phonon scattering in electrical resistivities of LaB 6 and ReO 3 (metallic conduction), Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 9, 1235 (1976)

    1976

  52. [61]

    A. I. Golovashkin, A. V. Gudenko, A. M. Tskhovrebov, L. N. Zherikhina, and M. L. Norton, Explanation of the temperature dependence of resistivity in high-Tc superconducting Ba0.6K0.4BiO3 by electron-phonon scattering, Physica C Supercond. 231, 319 (1994)

    1994

  53. [62]

    Bloch, Zum elektrischen Widerstandsgesetz bei tiefen Temperaturen, Zeitschrift Für Physik 59, 208 (1930)

    F. Bloch, Zum elektrischen Widerstandsgesetz bei tiefen Temperaturen, Zeitschrift Für Physik 59, 208 (1930)

    1930

  54. [63]

    Grüneisen, Die Abhängigkeit des elektrischen Widerstandes reiner Metalle von der Temperatur, Ann

    E. Grüneisen, Die Abhängigkeit des elektrischen Widerstandes reiner Metalle von der Temperatur, Ann. Phys. 408, 530 (1933)

    1933

  55. [64]

    J. R. Cooper, Electrical resistivity of an Einstein solid, Phys. Rev. B 9, 2778 (1974)

    1974

  56. [65]

    Y. Kato, T. Shimada, Y. Shiraki, and K. F. Komatsubara, Electrical conductivity of disordered layers in GaAs crystal produced by ion implantation, J. Appl. Phys. 45, 1044 (1974)

    1974

  57. [66]

    Sundqvist, Correlation between weak localization effects and resistivity saturation in dilute Ti- Al alloys, Phys

    B. Sundqvist, Correlation between weak localization effects and resistivity saturation in dilute Ti- Al alloys, Phys. Lett. A 400, 127291 (2021)

    2021

  58. [67]

    Martin, H

    N. Martin, H. Gerami, A. J. Santos, F. M. Morales, F. Amiot, J.-M. Cote, J. Gavoille, J.-B. Sanchez, and A. Besnard, Deposition angle tunes low-temperature electronic transport in early transition metal thin films, Mater. Des. 266, 116075 (2026)

    2026

  59. [68]

    Ciuchi, D

    S. Ciuchi, D. Di Sante, V. Dobrosavljević, and S. Fratini, The origin of Mooij correlations in disordered metals, NPJ Quantum Mater. 3, 44 (2018)

    2018

  60. [69]

    Jullien, M

    R. Jullien, M. T. Béal-Monod, and B. Coqblin, Resistivity of nearly magnetic metals at high temperatures: Application to neptunium and plutonium, Phys. Rev. B 9, 1441 (1974)

    1974

  61. [70]

    T. L. Alford, K. S. Gadre, H. C. Kim, and S. C. Deevi, Abnormal electrical resistivity in γ-TiAl thin films deposited by magnetron sputtering, Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 455 (2003)

    2003

  62. [71]

    si0010.gif

    M. Batkova, I. Batko, S. Gabáni, E. Gažo, E. Konovalova, and V. Filippov, Low temperature resistivity studies of <math altimg="si0010.gif" overflow="scroll"> <msub> <mrow> <mi>SmB</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>6</mn> </mrow> </msub> </math> : Observation of two-dimensional variable-...

    2018

  63. [72]

    Noginova, G

    N. Noginova, G. B. Loutts, E. S. Gillman, V. A. Atsarkin, and A. A. Verevkin, Conductivity and switching phenomena in Mn-doped perovskite single crystals and manganite thin films, Phys. Rev. B 63, 174414 (2001)

    2001

  64. [73]

    N. F. Mott, Electrons in transition metals, Adv. Phys. 13, 325 (1964)

    1964

  65. [74]

    B. I. Shklovskii, Half-century of Efros–Shklovskii Coulomb gap: Romance with Coulomb interaction and disorder, Low Temperature Physics 50, 1101 (2024)

    2024

  66. [75]

    A. L. Efros and B. I. Shklovskii, Coulomb gap and low temperature conductivity of disordered systems, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 8, L49 (1975). 34

    1975

  67. [76]

    Michel, S

    C. Michel, S. D. Baranovskii, P. J. Klar, P. Thomas, and B. Goldlücke, Strong non-Arrhenius temperature dependence of the resistivity in the regime of traditional band transport, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, (2006)

    2006

  68. [77]

    Narsale, Y

    A. Narsale, Y. P. Ali, U. Bhambhani, V. P. Salvi, B. M. Arora, D. Kanjilal, and G. K. Mehta, Electrical properties of high energy 120Sn implantation in GaAs, J. Appl. Phys. 82, 4228 (1997)

    1997

  69. [78]

    Gunnarsson, M

    O. Gunnarsson, M. Calandra, and J. E. Han, Colloquium : Saturation of electrical resistivity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 1085 (2003)

    2003

  70. [79]

    Wiesmann, M

    H. Wiesmann, M. Gurvitch, H. Lutz, A. Ghosh, B. Schwarz, M. Strongin, P. B. Allen, and J. W. Halley, Simple Model for Characterizing the Electrical Resistivity in <math display="inline"> <mi>A</mi> <mo>−</mo> <mn>15</mn> <mn/> </math> Superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 782 (1977)

    1977

  71. [80]

    Gurvitch, RESISTIVITY OF A15 COMPOUNDS, in Superconductivity in D- and F-Band Metals (Elsevier, 1980), pp

    M. Gurvitch, RESISTIVITY OF A15 COMPOUNDS, in Superconductivity in D- and F-Band Metals (Elsevier, 1980), pp. 317–334

    1980

  72. [81]

    Shrestha, M

    M. Shrestha, M. Cook, L. McGowen, B. Singh, K. Kauchha, S. Barczy, and C. A. Burns, Superconductivity in non-centrosymmetric AuPb3, Physica B Condens. Matter 728, 418384 (2026)

    2026

  73. [82]

    Banerjee, D

    S. Banerjee, D. Singh, D. Ram, G. S. K. Reddy, S. Sau, V. Kanchana, G. Vaitheeswaran, and A. Sundaresan, Phonon softening and strong-coupling superconductivity in metastable <math> <mrow> <msub> <mi>Sb</mi> <mrow> <mn>0.83</mn> </mrow> </msub> <msub> <mi>Au</mi> <mrow> <mn>0.1...

    2026

  74. [83]

    Liu et al., Superconductivity and normal-state transport in compressively strained La2PrNi2O7 thin films, Nat

    Y. Liu et al., Superconductivity and normal-state transport in compressively strained La2PrNi2O7 thin films, Nat. Mater. 24, 1221 (2025)

    2025

  75. [84]

    Mandal, A

    M. Mandal, A. Kataria, P. K. Meena, R. K. Kushwaha, D. Singh, P. K. Biswas, R. Stewart, A. D. Hillier, and R. P. Singh, Time-reversal symmetry breaking in a Re-based kagome lattice superconductor, Phys. Rev. B 111, 054511 (2025)

    2025

  76. [85]

    E. F. Talantsev and V. V Chistyakov, The A-15-type superconducting hydride La4H23: a nanograined structure with low strain, strong electron-phonon interaction, and a moderate level of nonadiabaticity, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 37, 095016 (2024)

    2024

  77. [86]

    E. F. Talantsev, Superconducting Parameters of Covalently Bounded Superhydride BiH2, Physics of Metals and Metallography 126, 1175 (2025)

    2025

  78. [87]

    E. F. Talantsev, Highly Compressed Miassite Rh17S15: A Bose–Einstein Condensate Superconductor?, Physics of Metals and Metallography 126, 1287 (2025)

    2025

  79. [88]

    Sobczak, M

    Z. Sobczak, M. J. Winiarski, W. Xie, R. J. Cava, and T. Klimczuk, Superconductivity in the intermetallic compound Zr 5 Al 4, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 127, 37005 (2019)

    2019

  80. [89]

    E. F. Talantsev and V. V. Chistyakov, Debye temperature, electron-phonon coupling constant, and three-dome shape of crystalline strain as a function of pressure in highly compressed La3Ni2O7-δ, Letters on Materials 14, 262 (2024). 35

    2024

  81. [90]

    A. F. Ioffe and A. R. Regel, Non-Crystalline, Amorphous and Liquid Electronic Semiconductors (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1960)

    1960

  82. [91]

    Gurvitch, Ioffe-Regel criterion and resistivity of metals, Phys

    M. Gurvitch, Ioffe-Regel criterion and resistivity of metals, Phys. Rev. B 24, 7404 (1981)

    1981

  83. [92]

    J. H. Mooij, Electrical conduction in concentrated disordered transition metal alloys, Physica Status Solidi (a) 17, 521 (1973)

    1973

  84. [93]

    C. C. Tsuei, Nonuniversality of the Mooij Correlation—the Temperature Coefficient of Electrical Resistivity of Disordered Metals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1943 (1986)

    1943

  85. [94]

    M. Park, K. Savran, and Y. Kim, Weak localization and the Mooij rule in disordered metals, Physica Status Solidi (b) 237, 500 (2003)

    2003

  86. [95]

    Wang et al., Mooij Law Violation from Nanoscale Disorder, Nano Lett

    A. Wang et al., Mooij Law Violation from Nanoscale Disorder, Nano Lett. 22, 6900 (2022)

    2022

  87. [96]

    P. J. Cote and L. V. Meisel, Origin of Saturation Effects in Electron Transport, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 1586 (1978)

    1978

  88. [97]

    A. Ron, B. Shapjro, and M. Weger, Resistivity saturation in simple models for metals, Philosophical Magazine B 54, 553 (1986)

    1986

  89. [98]

    Fisk and G

    Z. Fisk and G. W. Webb, Saturation of the High-Temperature Normal-State Electrical Resistivity of Superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1084 (1976)

    1976

  90. [99]

    SATURATION,

    P. B. Allen, THEORY OF RESISTIVITY “SATURATION,” in Superconductivity in D- and F-Band Metals (Elsevier, 1980), pp. 291–304

    1980

  91. [100]

    E. F. Talantsev, The dominance of non-electron–phonon charge carrier interaction in highly- compressed superhydrides, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 34, 115001 (2021)

    2021

  92. [101]

    G. R. Stewart, Measurement of low-temperature specific heat, Review of Scientific Instruments 54, 1 (1983)

    1983

  93. [102]

    C. A. Luengo, J. M. Cotignola, J. G. Sereni, A. R. Sweedler, M. B. Maple, and J. G. Huber, Low temperature specific heat of ThU, Solid State Commun. 10, 459 (1972)

    1972

  94. [103]

    G. R. Stewart, J. L. Smith, J. C. Spirlet, and W. Müller, LOW TEMPERATURE SPECIFIC HEAT OF PROTACTINIUM, in Superconductivity in D- and F-Band Metals (Elsevier, 1980), pp. 65–70

    1980

  95. [104]

    M. J. Mortimer, Specific heats of actinide metals, Le Journal de Physique Colloques 40, C4 (1979)

    1979

  96. [105]

    G. H. Lander, H. G. Smith, and N. Wakabayashi, The low-temperature phase transition in alpha- uranium: An old problem revisited, Journal of Nuclear Materials 95, 307 (1980)

    1980

  97. [106]

    Schachinger and I

    L. Schachinger and I. Lamprecht, Heat capacity of uranium metal at low temperatures. A reminiscence, Thermochim. Acta 151, 203 (1989)

    1989

  98. [107]

    W. M. Jones, J. Gordon, and E. A. Long, The Heat Capacities of Uranium, Uranium Trioxide, and Uranium Dioxide from 15°K to 300°K, J. Chem. Phys. 20, 695 (1952)

    1952

  99. [108]

    Griveau and É

    J.-C. Griveau and É. Colineau, Superconductivity in transuranium elements and compounds, C. R. Phys. 15, 599 (2014). 36

    2014

  100. [109]

    C. Y. Ho, R. W. Powell, and P. E. Liley, Thermal Conductivity of the Elements, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 1, 279 (1972)

    1972

  101. [110]

    King and J

    E. King and J. A. Lee, The low temperature resistivity of β-phase plutonium, Cryogenics (Guildf). 3, 177 (1963)

    1963

  102. [111]

    D. C. Wallace, Electronic and phonon properties of six crystalline phases of Pu metal, Phys. Rev. B 58, 15433 (1998)

    1998

  103. [112]

    K. A. Long, A Theoretical investigation of the specific heats and transport properties of the actinides, Physica Status Solidi (b) 79, 155 (1977)

    1977

  104. [113]

    D. V. Efremov, N. Hasselmann, E. Runge, P. Fulde, and G. Zwicknagl, Dual nature of <math display="inline"> <mn>5</mn> <mi>f</mi> </math> electrons: Effect of intra-atomic correlations on hopping anisotropies, Phys. Rev. B 69, 115114 (2004)

    2004

  105. [114]

    Takaoka and T

    Y. Takaoka and T. Moriya, Theoretical Study of Electrical Resistivity in Actinide Metals, J. Physical Soc. Japan 52, 605 (1983)

    1983

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.