Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Cryogenic focused-ion-beam microstructuring enabling quantitative $c$-axis transport measurements in Tl$_2$Ba$_2$CuO$_{6+\delta}$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cryogenic focused-ion-beam microstructuring finds that the absolute c-axis resistivity of Tl2201 is roughly three times larger than previously reported, bringing transport anisotropy into agreement with Fermi-surface geometry.

desk verdict Careful cryo-FIB work that likely shows bulk c-axis values were underestimated; the factor-of-three claim, however, rests on a geometric reduction that needs a same-batch bulk control and an uncertainty budget before it is treated as settled. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02344 v1 pith:UKHRNMSV submitted 2026-08-03 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Ayanesh Maiti , Carsten Putzke , Linus Holeschovsky , Roemer D. H. Hinlopen , Chunyu Guo , Dorothee Herrmann , Seunghyun Khim , Berit H. Goodge
show 5 more authors
Andre W. Tyler Michele S. Conroy Andreas W. Rost Andrew P. Mackenzie Philip J. W. Moll
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords Tl2201c-axistransportcryo-FIBcupratesuperconductorsanisotropyFermisurfacequantumoscillationsfocusedionbeam
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

Cryogenic focused-ion-beam microstructuring can produce transport devices from the heat- and oxygen-sensitive cuprate Tl2201 without changing its electronic properties, by suppressing ion-beam-induced oxygen loss. The paper measures absolute c-axis resistivity values about three times larger than earlier bulk-crystal reports, consistently across nine devices and a range of dopings. Since the in-plane resistivity and Hall number match bulk values, the authors argue the c-axis values are the intrinsic ones. The resulting transport anisotropy agrees quantitatively with Boltzmann calculations using the measured Fermi surface and an isotropic relaxation time, resolving a long-standing discrepancy between transport and quantum-oscillation measurements.

What carries the argument

The key object is the cryo-FIB lamella transport device: a micron-scale single-crystal slab with precisely sculpted geometry and metal contacts outside the measured volume, whose resistivity is extracted from the four-terminal relation ρ=(V/I)(wt/l). The cryogenic milling step suppresses the thermally driven oxygen loss that afflicts standard FIB processing, allowing the small device to represent the bulk electronic state. The comparison with theory uses the experimentally determined three-dimensional Fermi-surface warping from quantum oscillations and angle-dependent magnetoresistance, combined with an isotropic relaxation-time Boltzmann calculation, to predict ρc/ρab.

What would settle it

Measure c-axis resistivity on a bulk Tl2201 crystal using independently calibrated contacts and a well-characterised current path (for example, a four-probe measurement on a thicker single crystal with lithographically defined contacts covering the full face, or an optical-conductivity determination of the c-axis conductivity); if that value approaches the lower literature values rather than the microstructure values, the factor-of-three correction would not be intrinsic to the material.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that conventional room-temperature FIB machining of Tl2201 causes thermally driven loss of interstitial oxygen that shifts the local doping and broadens Tc, whereas milling at cryogenic temperature preserves the oxygen stoichiometry and crystal structure down to the atomic scale, as verified by XRD and STEM. Devices fabricated this way reproduce bulk in-plane resistivity and Hall carrier density without rescaling. When the method is applied to c-axis transport, the measured absolute ρc(T) is systematically larger than every previous bulk value by a factor of 2.9±0.3 over the full temperature range, with no change in temperature dependence. The authors conclude that the o

Load-bearing premise

The c-axis resistivity is derived from the sculpted lamella's measured width, thickness, and contact separation; if current within the lamella is not uniform along the c-axis, or if the geometry is misestimated, the absolute values would be off and the anisotropy agreement would be coincidental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Absolute ρc(T) in Tl2201 is approximately 2.9±0.3 times larger than previously reported bulk values, independent of device geometry and doping.
  • The transport anisotropy ρc/ρab computed from these values matches the zero-temperature anisotropy from Boltzmann theory using the dHvA/AMRO Fermi-surface warping under an isotropic relaxation time.
  • The long-standing discrepancy between transport and quantum oscillation measurements in overdoped Tl2201 is resolved without requiring anisotropic scattering.
  • Cryo-FIB microstructuring preserves the oxygen stoichiometry and crystal structure of Tl2201 to the atomic scale, enabling quantitative transport measurements in beam- and heat-sensitive cuprates.
  • Microstructured devices also show narrower superconducting transitions (ΔTc of 1–2 K) than bulk crystals, indicating improved homogeneity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If bulk c-axis measurements in Tl2201 were underestimated because of defect shorting or contact geometry, similar corrections may apply to c-axis transport in other layered cuprates where the anisotropy is debated; testing this on YBCO or LSCO would be a direct extension.
  • The method's demonstrated success on a reactive cuprate suggests cryo-FIB microstructuring could be extended to other fragile quantum materials, including iron-based superconductors and organic conductors, where absolute resistivities remain uncertain.
  • A natural next test is to compare the cryo-FIB c-axis resistivity with an independent probe such as optical conductivity or c-axis penetration depth; agreement would strengthen the intrinsic interpretation, while disagreement would force a reconsideration.
  • The resolution of the anisotropy puzzle without invoking anisotropic scattering suggests that the c-axis scattering rate in overdoped Tl2201 is essentially isotropic, which constrains microscopic models of interlayer transport in the cuprates.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports that cryogenic focused-ion-beam microstructuring preserves the electronic state of the overdoped cuprate Tl2201, as evidenced by quantitative agreement of in-plane resistivity and Hall carrier density with bulk single-crystal values, and by structural characterization (XRD, STEM). The authors then apply the same technique to c-axis transport and find absolute ρc(T) values approximately 2.9 times larger than previous bulk reports across a wide doping range. They argue that the resulting resistivity anisotropy ρc/ρab agrees with the Fermi-surface geometry determined from dHvA and AMRO experiments under an isotropic relaxation-time approximation, thereby resolving a long-standing discrepancy between transport and quantum-oscillation measurements in Tl2201.

Significance. If the factor-of-3 c-axis result is correct, it would provide a quantitative reconciliation of c-axis transport with the experimentally determined Fermi-surface warping in Tl2201 and would establish cryo-FIB microstructuring as a reliable route to absolute transport measurements in beam- and heat-sensitive quantum materials. The paper's strengths are substantial: the in-plane and Hall validation is convincing; the structural data (XRD, STEM, iDPC) support the claim of minimal beam damage; and the c-axis results are reproducible across nine devices and 26 measurements spanning a wide doping range. The main weakness is that the central claim—that intrinsic ρc is ~3× larger than bulk literature—rests on the absolute geometric calibration of the c-axis devices, which is less thoroughly validated than the in-plane geometry.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods Eq. (1), Fig. 4, Table II] The absolute c-axis resistivity is extracted from ρc = (V/I)(wt/l) with all dimensions determined by SEM. The in-plane validation in Fig. 3 does not validate this formula for the c-axis geometry, because the c-axis devices inject current through 45°-sloped Au edges and measure along the direction of highest resistivity (ρc/ρab > 1000). Any non-uniform current distribution—current spreading at the contacts, a reduced effective conducting cross-section from FIB-damaged sidewalls, or a systematic error in the effective voltage-contact separation l—enters linearly into ρc. A systematic geometric overestimate of ~2.9 would fully account for the discrepancy without requiring bulk measurements to be wrong. Reproducibility across aspect ratios (Table II) rules out random errors but not a systematic error common to all c-axis devices. No finite-element simulation of the current flow, no propagati
  2. [Fig. 4c, Discussion] The factor 2.9±0.3 is obtained by comparing the microstructured device data at 200 K with 'equivalent single-crystal values' from Refs. [16,33,34]. The procedure for selecting these literature values and for matching the doping level (Tc) is not described. Bulk c-axis measurements are known to be sensitive to contact geometry, current injection, and possible current shorting; the paper's own speculation about stacking faults and low-angle boundaries (Discussion) is not tested. Without a same-batch bulk c-axis crystal measured with the same instrumentation and geometry, the discrepancy cannot be unambiguously attributed to a systematic underestimate in bulk measurements. The authors should either provide such a control measurement or present a comprehensive error budget for the geometric factors in both the microstructured and bulk measurements.
  3. [Fig. 5, Discussion] The claim of 'quantitative agreement' with the dHvA-derived anisotropy is somewhat overstated. For the Tc ≈ 30 K sample, the match to the Boltzmann calculation is only 'plausible' after a temperature extrapolation that assumes a stronger T-dependence (dashed lines). The calculation assumes an isotropic relaxation time and a zero-temperature extrapolation, and the temperature dependence of the measured anisotropy is not fully reproduced. The agreement is better for the Tc ≈ 10 K sample, but the overall conclusion that 'a strongly anisotropic scattering rate is not required' depends on the same factor-2.9 enhancement at issue in the first major comment. The authors should temper the language or provide a more rigorous statistical comparison between the measured and calculated anisotropy.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'quantitativec-axis' should read 'quantitative c-axis'.
  2. [Fig. 3d] The legend 'Tc = 85K microstructure Tc = 90K bulk device Ref. [32]' is cramped and unclear. Please separate the entries and specify the units of n_H explicitly.
  3. [Results, Table II] The text states 'performed 26 measurements of ρc(T) across nine devices', but Table II lists only 25 c-axis entries. Please reconcile the count or clarify whether one measurement is not tabulated.
  4. [Methods, Eq. (2)] In the Hall resistivity formula, the thickness t is used, but for the Hall bar geometry the relevant thickness is the out-of-plane dimension. Clarify that t here is the lamella thickness and that it is measured the same way as in Eq. (1).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: c-axis ρc is measured directly (Eq. 1) and the 2.9× enhancement is an experimental result, not a fitted or self-referential quantity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that cryo-FIB microstructured Tl2201 devices yield absolute c-axis resistivities approximately three times larger than earlier bulk reports, and that the resulting anisotropy agrees with the Fermi-surface geometry determined by dHvA/AMRO under isotropic τ. The c-axis resistivity is obtained directly from Eq. (1), ρx = (Vx/Ix)(wt/l), with no free parameter that is tuned to match the Fermi-surface prediction. The in-plane resistivity and Hall density are validated against bulk literature values (Fig. 3) without rescaling, and the factor 2.9±0.3 is a measured ratio of independent datasets (Fig. 4c), reproducible across nine devices and 26 measurements. The Fermi-surface comparison in Fig. 5 uses dHvA and AMRO data from Refs. [9,10,19]; these probes determine the Fermi-surface warping independently of the absolute c-axis resistivity, so the resulting Boltzmann-anisotropy estimate is a genuinely external benchmark rather than an input to the resistivity extraction. There are self-citations (e.g., Moll's FIB methodology in Refs. [4,5] and Mackenzie's earlier transport measurements in Refs. [16,17]), but none carries the derivation: the fabrication protocol is validated within this paper by structural, in-plane transport, and Hall measurements, and the prior bulk c-axis data are the objects being compared against, not the justification for the new values. The geometric-uniform-current assumption in Eq. (1) is a legitimate uncertainty/correctness concern, not evidence of circularity, because it is a measurement assumption rather than a reduction of the conclusion to its own inputs. No step in the paper defines, fits, or derives its conclusion from the quantity it claims to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the geometric validity of the c-axis four-terminal measurement and on external Fermi-surface data; no fitted parameters are introduced. The most fragile unverified input is the speculative explanation that all historical bulk c-axis measurements were biased low.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The four-terminal formula ρ = (V/I)(wt/l) with uniform current density is valid for the anisotropic lamella devices.
    Invoked in Methods Eq. 1; if current spreading or constriction occurs in the c-axis geometry, the deduced resistivity could be systematically biased by the factor of three that is central to the paper.
  • domain assumption The Fermi-surface warping from dHvA and AMRO in Refs [9,10,19] is representative of the measured devices.
    Fig. 5 compares the measured anisotropy to Boltzmann calculations based on that Fermi surface; if the device Fermi surface differs, the agreement could be coincidental.
  • domain assumption An isotropic relaxation-time approximation is valid for Tl2201.
    Required to convert Fermi-surface geometry into resistivity anisotropy; stated as consistent with AMRO studies [19], but not directly established by the present measurements.
  • domain assumption Cryo-FIB preserves oxygen stoichiometry in the transport devices, and residual inhomogeneity is removed by low-temperature annealing.
    Supported by Tc-shift suppression, XRD, STEM, and in-plane reproducibility, but not directly measured on every c-axis device; oxygen content controls the doping that the claim depends on.
  • ad hoc to paper The factor-of-three discrepancy with literature arises from short-circuiting and geometric uncertainties in bulk measurements.
    Explicitly speculative in the Discussion ('We speculate that it may arise from current short-circuiting...'); used to frame the result as resolving the long-standing discrepancy rather than simply reporting a different number.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cryogenic focused-ion-beam microstructuring enabling quantitative $c$-axis transport measurements in Tl$_2$Ba$_2$CuO$_{6+\delta}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UKHRNMSV

@misc{pith2026260802344,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cryogenic focused-ion-beam microstructuring enabling quantitative $c$-axis transport measurements in Tl$_2$Ba$_2$CuO$_6+\delta$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UKHRNMSV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02344}
}
abstract

Absolute transport measurements in correlated quantum materials are often limited by disorder, inhomogeneity, geometric uncertainty, and small crystal size. Focused ion beam (FIB) technology offers a route to overcome many of these limitations by enabling transport devices with precisely defined geometry to be fabricated from lamellae extracted from carefully selected regions of a crystal, but its application to cuprate superconductors has been hindered by ion-beam-induced damage. Here we study the clean overdoped cuprate Tl2201 and show that conventional FIB processing causes thermally driven oxygen loss, while cryogenic FIB microstructuring largely suppresses this degradation and preserves the crystal structure from the bulk to the atomic scale. Microstructured devices quantitatively reproduce established in-plane resistivity and Hall carrier density measurements without rescaling. Applying this approach to $c$-axis transport, we obtain absolute $\rho_c(T)$ values approximately three times larger than previously reported, bringing the transport anisotropy into quantitative agreement with the known Fermi surface geometry within an isotropic relaxation-time approximation. These results resolve a long-standing discrepancy between transport and quantum oscillation measurements in overdoped Tl2201 and establish cryogenic FIB microstructuring as a route to reliable quantitative transport measurements in quantum materials where disorder, inhomogeneity, geometry, or small crystal size have previously limited experimental accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02344 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a [22–24]. This makes the electronic properties of Tl2201 highly sensitive to oxygen loss during processing. Fig. 1b shows ρab(T) for FIB microstructured devices, fabricated from an annealed single crystal, following the procedure of Moll et al. [4, 5]. In contrast to previous observations in YBCO and LSCO, where ion-beam expo￾sure increases resistivity and suppresses Tc [25–27], the FIB-sculpted Tl2201 devices inst… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a shows the gnomonic projections of a single-crystal XRD measurement on a cryo-FIB lamella mounted on a TEM grid and measured in transmission geometry, compared with an equivalent dataset from a bulk Tl2201 crystal. Fewer Bragg reflections are ob￾served in the lamella dataset due to geometric con￾straints imposed by the sample mounting. Nonetheless, both datasets exhibit identical Bragg reflections consis￾tent with … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Keimer, S

    B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida, and J. Zaanen, Nature518, 179 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    J. W. Ekin, inExperimental Techniques for Low- Temperature Measurements: Cryostat Design, Material Properties and Superconductor Critical-Current Testing (Oxford University Press, 2006)

    2006

  3. [3]

    Alloul, Frontiers in Physics12, 1406242 (2024)

    H. Alloul, Frontiers in Physics12, 1406242 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    P. J. Moll, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 9, 147 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    M. D. Bachmann,Manipulating Anisotropic Transport and Superconductivity by Focused Ion Beam Microstruc- turing, Ph.D. thesis, University of St Andrews (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Kushwaha, H

    P. Kushwaha, H. Borrmann, S. Khim, H. Rosner, P. J. W. Moll, D. A. Sokolov, V. Sunko, Y. Grin, and A. P. Mackenzie, Crystal Growth & Design17, 4144 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Putzke, M

    C. Putzke, M. D. Bachmann, P. McGuinness, E. Zhak- ina, V. Sunko, M. Konczykowski, T. Oka, R. Moess- ner, A. Stern, M. K¨ onig, S. Khim, A. P. Mackenzie, and P. J. W. Moll, Science368, 1234 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Vignolle, A

    B. Vignolle, A. Carrington, R. A. Cooper, M. M. J. French, A. P. Mackenzie, C. Jaudet, D. Vignolles, C. Proust, and N. E. Hussey, Nature455, 952 (2008)

    2008

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    P. M. C. Rourke, A. F. Bangura, T. M. Benseman, M. Matusiak, J. R. Cooper, A. Carrington, and N. E. Hussey, New Journal of Physics12, 105009 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    A. F. Bangura, P. M. C. Rourke, T. M. Benseman, M. Matusiak, J. R. Cooper, N. E. Hussey, and A. Car- rington, Physical Review B82, 140501 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    J. M. Wade, J. W. Loram, K. A. Mirza, J. R. Cooper, and J. L. Tallon, Journal of Superconductivity7, 261 (1994)

    1994

  4. [12]

    Carrington, A

    A. Carrington, A. P. Mackenzie, and A. Tyler, Physical Review B54, R3788 (1996)

    1996

  5. [13]

    A. P. Mackenzie, S. R. Julian, G. G. Lonzarich, A. Car- rington, S. D. Hughes, R. S. Liu, and D. S. Sinclair, Phys- ical Review Letters71, 1238 (1993)

    1993

  6. [14]

    A. P. Mackenzie, S. R. Julian, D. C. Sinclair, and C. T. Lin, Physical Review B53, 5848 (1996)

    1996

  7. [15]

    A. W. Tyler, Y. Ando, F. F. Balakirev, A. Passner, G. S. Boebinger, A. J. Schofield, A. P. Mackenzie, and O. Laborde, Physical Review B57, R728 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    N. E. Hussey, J. R. Cooper, J. M. Wheatley, I. R. Fisher, A. Carrington, A. P. Mackenzie, C. T. Lin, and O. Milat, Physical Review Letters76, 122 (1996)

    1996

  9. [17]

    N. E. Hussey, M. Abdel-Jawad, A. Carrington, A. P. Mackenzie, and L. Balicas, Nature425, 814 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    Plat´ e, J

    M. Plat´ e, J. D. F. Mottershead, I. S. Elfimov, D. C. Peets, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, S. Chiuzba- ian, M. Falub, M. Shi, L. Patthey, and A. Damascelli, Physical Review Letters95, 077001 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Abdel-Jawad, M

    M. Abdel-Jawad, M. P. Kennett, L. Balicas, A. Carring- ton, A. P. Mackenzie, R. H. McKenzie, and N. E. Hussey, Nature Physics2, 821 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    J. G. Analytis, M. Abdel-Jawad, L. Balicas, M. M. J. French, and N. E. Hussey, Physical Review B76, 104523 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    A. W. Tyler,An investigation into the magnetotransport properties of layered superconducting perovskites, Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge (1997)

    1997

  14. [22]

    J. L. Wagner, O. Chmaissem, J. D. Jorgensen, D. G. Hinks, P. G. Radaelli, B. A. Hunter, and W. R. Jensen, Physica C: Superconductivity277, 170 (1997)

    1997

  15. [23]

    D. C. Peets,Why be normal? Single crystal growth and the startlingly unremarkable electronic structure of Tl2201, Ph.D. thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Shimakawa, Physica C: Superconductivity204, 247 (1993)

    Y. Shimakawa, Physica C: Superconductivity204, 247 (1993)

    1993

  17. [25]

    Sefrioui, D

    Z. Sefrioui, D. Arias, E. M. Gonz´ alez, C. Le´ on, J. Santa- maria, and J. L. Vicent, Physical Review B63, 064503 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    Caruso, F

    R. Caruso, F. Camino, G. Gu, J. M. Tranquada, M. G. Han, Y. Zhu, A. T. Bollinger, and I. Boˇ zovi´ c, Condensed Matter8(2), 35 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Hensel, Journal of Nuclear Materials251, 218 (1997)

    B. Hensel, Journal of Nuclear Materials251, 218 (1997)

    1997

  20. [28]

    Rullier-Albenque, H

    F. Rullier-Albenque, H. Alloul, and R. Tourbot, Physical Review Letters87, 157001 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    S. Kim, M. J. Park, N. P. Balsara, G. Liu, and A. M. Minor, Ultramicroscopy111, 191 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Narayan and S

    K. Narayan and S. Subramaniam, Nature Methods12, 1021 (2015). 10

    2015

  23. [31]

    A. J. Noble and A. de Marco, Current Opinion in Struc- tural Biology87, 102864 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Putzke, S

    C. Putzke, S. Benhabib, W. Tabis, J. Ayres, Z. Wang, L. Malone, S. Licciardello, J. Lu, T. Kondo, T. Takeuchi, N. E. Hussey, J. R. Cooper, and A. Carrington, Nature Physics17, 826 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Y. C. Ma, J. W. Liu, H. W. Lu, and H. L. Zheng, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter19, 186203 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Manako, Y

    T. Manako, Y. Kubo, and Y. Shimakawa, Physical Re- view B46, 11019 (1992)

    1992

  27. [35]

    A. M. Hermann, H. M. Duan, W. Kiehl, and M. Paran- thaman, Physica C: Superconductivity209, 199 (1993)

    1993

  28. [36]

    Honma and P

    T. Honma and P. H. Hor, Solid State Communications 150, 2314 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    J. Diaz, C. Putzke, X. Huang, A. Estry, J. G. Analytis, D. Sabsovich, A. G. Grushin, R. Ilan, and P. J. W. Moll, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics55, 084001 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Hunter, C

    A. Hunter, C. Putzke, I. Gaponenko, A. Tamai, F. Baum- berger, and P. J. W. Moll, Review of Scientific Instru- ments95, 033905 (2024). 11 0100200300Temperature (K)0 400 600 200 800 1000ρc (mΩ.cm) 0100200300Temperature (K)0 400 600 200 800 1000ρc (mΩ.cm) Tc = 20-30K Tc = 30-40K...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.