Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Sputtered MoRe SQUID-on-tip for high-field magnetic and thermal nanoimaging

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A collimated sputtering source lets SQUID-on-tip magnetic and thermal sensors operate to 5 tesla using the MoRe alloy.

desk verdict A solid fabrication advance with real high-field MoRe SQUIDs-on-tip, but the generality claim rests on an unmeasured ballistic-flow premise. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09305 v1 pith:3FV6A3H7 submitted 2019-08-25 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.supr-conphysics.ins-det

Kousik Bagani , Jayanta Sarkar , Aviram Uri , Michael L. Rappaport , Martin E. Huber , Eli Zeldov , Yuri Myasoedov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-conphysics.ins-det PACS 85.25.Dq
keywords SQUID-on-tipmagnetronsputteringcollimateddepositionMoResuperconductorscanningSQUIDmicroscopycryogenicthermalimaginghighmagneticfield
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces a way to make SQUID-on-tip nanoscale sensors from sputtered alloys, not just elemental superconductors. It claims that enclosing the sputter gun in a small high-pressure chamber and letting atoms stream through a long narrow collimator into vacuum gives the point-like ballistic deposition that the self-aligned pipette geometry needs. With a MoRe alloy, the authors demonstrate devices with sub-50 nm apexes that stay superconducting up to 5 T, retain useful magnetic sensitivity up to 3 T, and achieve thermal noise better than 4 µK/√Hz up to 5 T. If correct, the same route should extend SQUID-on-tip fabrication to materials like NbN, MoGe, WSi, MgB2, and multilayer stacks, opening higher-field nanoscale imaging of quantum systems.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is collimated differential-pressure magnetron sputtering: a commercial magnetron source is sealed inside a small chamber held at roughly 5 mTorr of argon, and a long narrow collimator lets the sputtered flux escape into a UHV chamber at about 5×10⁻⁶ Torr. This produces line-of-sight, approximately point-source deposition that preserves the three-step self-aligned formation of two superconducting leads and an apex loop on a pulled quartz pipette, without lithography, while still allowing standard alloy sputtering recipes to be used.

What would settle it

Deposit MoRe through the same collimator onto a cylindrical test substrate at the same standoff and image the coverage: if the film wraps around the back side or the gap between the two lead depositions closes, the point-source ballistic assumption fails. Alternatively, shorten or widen the collimator while keeping the pressure fixed and check whether the SQUID interference pattern disappears as the deposition becomes more diffuse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that collimated differential-pressure magnetron sputtering enables the self-aligned three-step SQUID-on-tip fabrication from alloy superconductors, a capability previously limited to thermally evaporated elemental metals. In this technique, argon at about 5 mTorr fills a small sputtering chamber, while a 25 mm long, 2×20 mm racetrack collimator lets sputtered atoms pass into a cryopumped chamber at about 5×10⁻⁶ Torr, making the deposition effectively ballistic from a narrow source. Using this method, MoRe SQUID-on-tips with effective diameters of 49 to 105 nm remain superconducting at 5 T, show clear SQUID interference oscillations up to about 3 T with flux noise of 0.9 to 1.5 µΦ₀/√Hz and spin noise of 15 to 30 µB/√Hz, and reach thermal sensitivity better than 4 µK/√Hz over the full range up to 5 T.

Load-bearing premise

The entire fabrication scheme rests on the unmeasured assumption that sputtered atoms travel ballistically through the collimator from a small source, so the three angled depositions leave two separated leads and an apex loop instead of coating the pipette uniformly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SQUID-on-tip sensors can now be made from high-field alloy superconductors, with MoRe operating to 5 T, roughly five times the field range of previous Pb and Nb devices.
  • Nanoscale magnetic and spin imaging with sub-50 nm resolution becomes possible in fields up to about 3 T, with spin noise below 30 µB/√Hz in sensitive field regions.
  • Cryogenic thermal imaging of dissipation reaches fields up to 5 T with thermal noise below 4 µK/√Hz, enabling studies of dissipation in fractional quantum Hall states and other high-field quantum systems.
  • The sputtering route opens the door to other superconducting materials and multilayer structures, potentially tuning critical temperature, critical field, and device functionality beyond what elemental thermal evaporation allowed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same differential-pressure collimation concept could transfer to other point-source deposition tasks, such as shadow-masked contacts or nanowire devices, wherever the source pressure and substrate pressure need to be decoupled.
  • Because MoRe is not the highest-field superconductor available by sputtering, NbN or MgB2 SQUID-on-tips made this way might operate beyond 5 T, though film stress, oxidation, and deposition temperature would need to be managed.
  • The paper observes that MoRe flux noise is higher than Pb SQUID-on-tips and attributes it to lower critical current; a direct next test is whether tuning sputtering parameters or annealing raises Ic and proportionally lowers flux noise.
  • If the ballistic-deposition picture is correct, the collimator geometry should produce a sharp angular cutoff, so varying the collimator length or aspect ratio should predictably change the lead gap and interference visibility.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a collimated differential-pressure magnetron sputtering method for fabricating SQUID-on-tip (SOT) nanodevices from superconducting alloys, and demonstrates MoRe SOTs with effective diameters down to 49 nm. The devices are characterized by current-voltage curves and SQUID interference patterns up to 5 T at 4.2 K, current-noise spectra, magnetic response functions, and temperature-dependent IVs. The authors report flux noise of 0.9-1.5 micro-Phi0/Hz^1/2 in sensitive field regions up to 3 T and thermal noise better than 4 micro-K/Hz^1/2 up to 5 T, and argue that the technique extends self-aligned SOT fabrication to a broad range of alloys.

Significance. If the fabrication claim holds, this is a practical advance: it replaces thermal evaporation with magnetron sputtering, which is compatible with many superconducting alloys, and the demonstrated MoRe SOTs operate at fields up to 5 T, far beyond the ~1 T range of earlier Pb and Nb SOTs, while retaining thermal sensitivity comparable to Pb SOTs at low field. The device-level evidence is strong: directly measured IV characteristics, SQUID oscillations persisting to 5 T, current-noise spectra, and temperature-dependent IV curves. The sensitivity numbers are derived from directly measured quantities (current noise with separately measured dI/dB or dI/dT) using standard formulas rather than from an unconstrained model. The principal weaknesses are that the general-extension claim rests on an unverified ballistic point-source assumption, and the headline sensitivity statements in the abstract are more sweeping than the data in Figs. 3 and 4.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fabrication setup (Fig. 1) and Conclusions] The claim that the collimated differential-pressure sputtering scheme provides a point-like ballistic source is not directly established. The stated parameters (~5 mTorr Ar in the sputtering chamber, a 25 mm collimator, and a ~20 mm source-substrate distance) imply a mean free path of order 1 cm, comparable to the collimator length, so transport through the collimator is not trivially ballistic. The SEM gap in Figs. 1e,f is consistent with ballistic deposition but can also be produced by topographic shadowing from the grooved quartz pipette even with a broad angular source, so it does not uniquely prove a point-like source. Because the Conclusions generalize the method to a wide range of materials and multilayer structures, this premise is load-bearing. I request a direct measurement of the angular distribution (for example, film thickness on planar witness substrates through apertures at controlled angles, or sidewall coverage on ungrooved test pipettes), together with a quantitative estimate of the scattering mean free path under the stated conditions. The unpublished early tests with conventional sputtering, cited as 'confirmed by our early tests', should also be shown or described quantitatively.
  2. [Abstract and Fig. 3b] The flux-sensitivity claim in the abstract, 'flux sensitivity of 1.2 micro-Phi0/Hz^1/2 up to 3 T', is only demonstrated in the sensitive regions of the interference pattern, not over the whole 0-3 T range. Figure 3b shows flux noise oscillating, with values of 0.9-1.5 micro-Phi0/Hz^1/2 in the valleys and substantially higher values near the peaks. The body text already contains the qualifier 'in the sensitive regions', but the abstract and conclusion do not, which overstates the continuous operating specification. In addition, the quoted range appears to be derived from a single device (device B) with no error bars or device-to-device statistics. Please either add the qualifier in the abstract and conclusion or provide a statistical summary over several devices, including the fraction of the 0-3 T range over which the specified sensitivity is maintained.
  3. [Fig. 4 and Abstract] The thermal-sensitivity statement 'better than 4 micro-K/Hz^1/2 up to 5 T' is supported by device E alone (2.5-3.8 micro-K/Hz^1/2 over the full range), whereas device D, the other device used for the field dependence, reaches about 1 micro-K/Hz^1/2 only up to about 1 T and then exhibits oscillatory behavior, with the 'better than 2 micro-K/Hz^1/2' property restricted to sensitive field regions up to 4 T. The abstract and conclusion should identify which device and which bias-optimization procedure support each quoted specification. The phrase 'about five times higher than any previous report' is also ambiguous: it should specify the benchmark device and the field at which the comparison is made, since the zero-field thermal noise of ~1 micro-K/Hz^1/2 is comparable to, not five times better than, previously reported Pb SOT values [40,41].
minor comments (5)
  1. [p. 4, film characterization] The statement that 'the critical magnetic field Hc2 of the MoRe being over 5 T' is inferred from the persistence of a critical current at 5 T; a direct measurement or reference for the Hc2 of the deposited MoRe films would be more rigorous.
  2. [Throughout] Several symbols are garbled in the rendered text (notably the effective-diameter formula and the flux-noise equation); the typesetting should be checked carefully before publication.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The figure captions should state explicitly which devices were annealed and which were not, since annealing is reported to affect the critical current and film quality.
  4. [References] Reference [42] is cited as 'Nature in press' with an arXiv identifier; this should be updated at proof stage.
  5. [Fig. 1f] The claim of a 'clear gap' in the 49 nm SOT would be easier to assess with a higher-magnification image or scale-bar overlay; the current image shows limited contrast in the apex region.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported sensitivities are direct measurements and prior SOT work is used only as benchmarks, not as inputs.

full rationale

The central claims rest on direct electrical and noise measurements, not on a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction. Current noise is measured directly (Fig. 3a); flux noise is derived by dividing the measured current noise by the measured magnetic response dI/dPhi, with the effective loop area calibrated independently from the field periodicity of the SQUID interference pattern (Fig. 2c). Spin sensitivity uses the standard published Ketchen formula with explicitly stated assumptions about spin position and orientation, and thermal sensitivity is the ratio of measured current noise to measured dI/dT (Fig. 4b). None of these quantities is defined in terms of the paper's claimed conclusion, and no fitted input is renamed as a predicted outcome. Prior SQUID-on-tip works by the same group appear as benchmarks ('comparable to the state-of-the-art Pb SOT devices', 'lower than that of previously reported Al and Nb SOTs'), which is comparison rather than load-bearing derivation. The inference that sputtered atoms propagate ballistically is an empirical interpretation of the observed sharp SEM gap and SQUID interference, not a circular reduction: even if that inference is underdetermined or too strong, it does not make any measured sensitivity equal to an input by construction. No self-definitional relation, fitted-input-as-prediction, author-imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling-via-citation was found. The paper is self-contained against external benchmark comparisons, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. Its central quantitative claims rest on standard SQUID calibration formulas, the ballistic-flow assumption of the new sputtering geometry, and the choice of bias operating points. The only hand-chosen numerical input listed as a free parameter is the bias voltage used to maximize response; other settings are fabrication conditions rather than fitted model constants.

free parameters (1)
  • SOT bias voltage V_g = 0.02 V for flux noise (device B), 0.04 V for thermal response (device C), tuned at each field for devices D/E
    The reported magnetic and thermal sensitivities are measured at bias points chosen to maximize response; the thermal response depends on V_g, so the headline noise values are conditional on this tuning choice.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The SQUID critical current is periodic in applied flux with period Phi0 = h/2e, and the effective loop diameter is inferred from the field periodicity via D = 2 sqrt(Phi0 / (pi Delta B)).
    Used to convert the interference pattern period of 0.42 T into a 79 nm effective diameter in the quantum interference section.
  • domain assumption At the stated pressures (about 5 mTorr in the sputtering chamber and about 5e-6 Torr in the UHV chamber), sputtered atoms travel ballistically through the collimator and do not coat the pipette sidewalls.
    The claimed self-aligned point-source deposition rests on this assumption; the paper supports it indirectly through SEM images and device function rather than a direct angular-distribution measurement.
  • domain assumption The spin-noise conversion formula from Ketchen et al. [53] describes a spin located at the loop center and oriented perpendicular to the loop plane.
    Used to convert flux noise into spin sensitivity in Fig. 3b; it applies only to the idealized geometry stated in the text.
  • domain assumption A resistively shunted SOT behaves as an overdamped SQUID whose current-voltage characteristics and differential resistance encode the magnetic interference pattern without significant thermal or field-induced artifacts.
    The analysis of dI/dPhi and dI/dT assumes the measured IV curves at fixed bath temperature represent the quasistatic SQUID response.
  • domain assumption The thermal response dI_SOT/dT extracted from bath-temperature sweeps from 4.2 to 7 K accurately represents the local temperature response during nanoscale thermal imaging, including at fields above the 0-2 T range checked on one device.
    Used in the thermal response section to convert dI/dT and current noise into thermal noise; high-field thermal response is inferred rather than directly verified for every device.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sputtered MoRe SQUID-on-tip for high-field magnetic and thermal nanoimaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3FV6A3H7

@misc{pith2026190809305,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sputtered MoRe SQUID-on-tip for high-field magnetic and thermal nanoimaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3FV6A3H7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09305}
}
abstract

Scanning nanoscale superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) are gaining interest as highly sensitive microscopic magnetic and thermal characterization tools of quantum and topological states of matter and devices. Here we introduce a novel technique of collimated differential-pressure magnetron sputtering for versatile self aligned fabrication of SQUID on tip (SOT) nanodevices, which cannot be produced by conventional sputtering methods due to their diffusive, rather than the required directional point-source, deposition. The new technique provides access to a broad range of superconducting materials and alloys beyond the elemental superconductors employed in the existing thermal deposition methods, opening the route to greatly enhanced SOT characteristics and functionalities. Utilizing this method, we have developed MoRe SOT devices with sub-50 nm diameter, magnetic flux sensitivity of 1.2 $\mu\Phi_0/Hz^{1/2}$ up to 3 T at 4.2 K, and thermal sensitivity better than 4 $\mu K/Hz^{1/2}$ up to 5 T, about five times higher than any previous report, paving the way to nanoscale imaging of magnetic and spintronic phenomena and of dissipation mechanisms in previously inaccessible quantum states of matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09305 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. c shows the quantum interference pattern of MoRe SOT device B that was annealed in vacuum at 700 oC for one hour. It presents the color-rendered differential resistance % /% vs. " and  derived from the measured current-voltage characteristics. The modulation period of 0.42 T corresponds to an effective SQUID loop diameter of 79 nm. A slight canting and a relative shift in the modulation patterns for positive and … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    José Martínez-Pérez and D

    M. José Martínez-Pérez and D. Koelle, ''NanoSQUI Ds: Basics and recent advances'', Phys. Sci. Rev. 2, 5001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Granata and A

    C. Granata and A. Vettoliere, ''Nano Superconduc ting Quantum Interference device: A powerful tool for nanoscale investigations'', Phys. Rep. 614 , 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    J. R. Kirtley, L. Paulius, A. J. Rosenberg, J. C . Palmstrom, C. M. Holland, E. M. Spanton, D. Schiessl, C. L. Jermain, J. Gibbons, Y.-K.-K. Fung, M. E. Huber, D. C. Ralph, M. B. Ketchen, G. W. Gibson, and K. A. Moler, ''Scanning SQUID susceptometers with sub-micron spatial resolution'', Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87 , 093702 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    J. R. Kirtley, ''Fundamental studies of supercon ductors using scanning magnetic imaging'', Reports Prog. Phys. 73, 126501 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Kleiner, D

    R. Kleiner, D. Koelle, F. Ludwig, and J. Clarke, ''Superconducting quantum interference devices: State of the art and applications'', Proc. IEEE 92 , 1534 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    R. L. Fagaly, ''Superconducting quantum interfer ence device instruments and applications'', Rev. Sci. Instrum. 77 , 101101 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Veauvy, K

    C. Veauvy, K. Hasselbach, and D. Mailly, ''Scann ing μ-superconduction quantum interference device force microscope'', Rev. Sci. Instrum. 73 , 3825 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    Koelle, R

    D. Koelle, R. Kleiner, F. Ludwig, E. Dantsker, a nd J. Clarke, ''High-transition-temperature superconducting quantum interference devices'', Rev. Mod. Phys. 71 , 631 (1999)

    work page 1999

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    J. R. Kirtley and J. P. Wikswo, ''Scanning SQUID microscopy'', Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 29 , 117 (1999)

    1999

  2. [10]

    J. R. Kirtley, C. C. Tsuei, Ariando, C. J. M. V erwijs, S. Harkema, and H. Hilgenkamp, ''Angle-resolved phase-sensitive determination of the in-plane gap symmetry in YBa2Cu3O7−δ'', Nat. Phys. 2, 190 (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    D. J. Hykel, C. Paulsen, D. Aoki, J. R. Kirtley , and K. Hasselbach, ''Magnetic fields above the superconducting ferromagnet UCoGe'', Phys. Rev. B 90 , 184501 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Nishio, V

    T. Nishio, V. H. Dao, Q. Chen, L. F. Chibotaru, K. Kadowaki, and V. V. Moshchalkov, ''Scanning SQUID microscopy of vortex clusters in multiband superconductors'', Phys. Rev. B 81 , 020506 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Kokubo, S

    N. Kokubo, S. Okayasu, A. Kanda, and B. Shinoza ki, ''Scanning SQUID microscope study of vortex polygons and shells in weak-pinning disks of an amorphous superconducting film'', Phys. Rev. B 82 , 014501 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Embon, Y

    L. Embon, Y. Anahory, A. Suhov, D. Halbertal, J . Cuppens, A. Yakovenko, A. Uri, Y. Myasoedov, M. L. Rappaport, M. E. Huber, A. Gurevich, and E. Zeldov, ''Probing dynamics and pinning of single vortices in superconductors at nanometer scales'', Sci. Rep. 5, 7598 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    F. S. Wells, A. V. Pan, X. R. Wang, S. A. Fedos eev, and H. Hilgenkamp, ''Analysis of low-field isotropic vortex glass containing vortex groups in YBa2Cu3O7−x thin films visualized by scanning SQUID microscopy'', Sci. Rep. 5, 8677 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Embon, Y

    L. Embon, Y. Anahory, Ž. L. Jelić, E. O. Lachman , Y. Myasoedov, M. E. Huber, G. P. Mikitik, A. V. Silhanek, M. V. Milošević, A. Gurevich, and E. Zeldov, ''Imaging of super-fast dynamics and flow instabilities of superconducting vortices'', Nat. Commun. 8, 85 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    J. A. Bert, B. Kalisky, C. Bell, M. Kim, Y. Hik ita, H. Y. Hwang, and K. A. Moler, ''Direct imaging of the coexistence of ferromagnetism and superconductivity at the LaAlO3/SrTiO3 interface'', Nat. Phys. 7, 767 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    Kalisky, E

    B. Kalisky, E. M. Spanton, H. Noad, J. R. Kirtl ey, K. C. Nowack, C. Bell, H. K. Sato, M. Hosoda, Y. Xie, Y. Hikita, C. Woltmann, G. Pfanzelt, R. Jany, C. Richter, H. Y. Hwang, J. Mannhart, and K. A. Moler, ''Locally enhanced conductivity due to the tetragonal domain structure...

    2013

  11. [19]

    X. R. Wang, C. J. Li, W. M. Lu, T. R. Paudel, D . P. Leusink, M. Hoek, N. Poccia, A. Vailionis, T. Venkatesan, J. M. D. Coey, E. Y. Tsymbal, Ariando, and H. Hilgenkamp, ''Imaging and control of ferromagnetism in LaMnO3/SrTiO3 heterostructures'', Science 349 , 716 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Anahory, L

    Y. Anahory, L. Embon, C. J. Li, S. Banerjee, A. Meltzer, H. R. Naren, A. Yakovenko, J. Cuppens, Y. Myasoedov, M. L. Rappaport, M. E. Huber, K. Michaeli, T. Venkatesan, Ariando, and E. Zeldov, ''Emergent nanoscale superparamagnetism at oxide interfaces'', Nat. Commun. 7, 12566 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Persky and B

    E. Persky and B. Kalisky, ''Scanning SQUID View of Oxide Interfaces'', Adv. Mater. 30 , 1706653 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    K. C. Nowack, E. M. Spanton, M. Baenninger, M. König, J. R. Kirtley, B. Kalisky, C. Ames, P. Leubner, C. Brüne, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, and K. A. Moler, ''Imaging currents in HgTe quantum wells in the quantum spin Hall regime'', Nat. Mater. 12 , 787 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    E. O. Lachman, A. F. Young, A. Richardella, J. Cuppens, H. R. Naren, Y. Anahory, A. Y. Meltzer, A. Kandala, S. Kempinger, Y. Myasoedov, M. E. Huber, N. Samarth, and E. Zeldov, ''Visualization of superparamagnetic dynamics in magnetic topological insulators'', Sci. Adv. 1, e150...

    2015

  16. [24]

    E. O. Lachman, M. Mogi, J. Sarkar, A. Uri, K. B agani, Y. Anahory, Y. Myasoedov, M. E. Huber, A. Tsukazaki, M. Kawasaki, Y. Tokura, and E. Zeldov, ''Observation of superparamagnetism in coexistence with quantum anomalous Hall C = ±1 and C = 0 Chern states'', npj Quantum Mater....

    2017

  17. [25]

    Kremen, H

    A. Kremen, H. Khan, Y. L. Loh, T. I. Baturina, N. Trivedi, A. Frydman, and B. Kalisky, ''Imaging quantum fluctuations near criticality'', Nat. Phys. 14 , 1205 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    N. C. Koshnick, M. E. Huber, J. A. Bert, C. W. Hicks, J. Large, H. Edwards, and K. A. Moler, ''A terraced scanning super conducting quantum interference device susceptometer with submicron pickup loops'', Appl. Phys. Lett. 93 , 243101 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    J. R. Kirtley, M. B. Ketchen, K. G. Stawiasz, J . Z. Sun, W. J. Gallagher, S. H. Blanton, and S. J. Wind, ''High-resolution scanning SQUID microscope'', Appl. Phys. Lett. 66 , 1138 (1995)

    1995

  20. [28]

    M. E. Huber, N. C. Koshnick, H. Bluhm, L. J. Ar chuleta, T. Azua, P. G. Björnsson, B. W. Gardner, S. T. Halloran, E. A. Lucero, and K. A. Moler, ''Gradiometric micro-SQUID susceptometer for scanning measurements of mesoscopic samples'', Rev. Sci. Instrum. 79, 053704 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Wissberg, A

    S. Wissberg, A. Kremen, Y. Shperber, and B. Kal isky, ''Vortex configuration in the presence of local magnetic field and locally applied stress'', Phys. C 533 , 114 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    J. R. Kirtley, C. C. Tsuei, K. A. Moler, V. G. Kogan, J. R. Clem, and A. J. Turberfield, ''Variable sample temperature scanning superconducting quantum interference device microscope'', Appl. Phys. Lett. 74 , 4011 (1999)

    1999

  23. [31]

    Granata, A

    C. Granata, A. Vettoliere, R. Russo, E. Esposit o, M. Russo, and B. Ruggiero, ''Supercurrent decay in nano-superconducting quantum interference devices for intrinsic magnetic flux resolution'', Appl. Phys. Lett. 94 , 062503 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    Shibata, S

    Y. Shibata, S. Nomura, H. Kashiwaya, S. Kashiwa ya, R. Ishiguro, and H. Takayanagi, ''Imaging of current density distributions with a Nb weak-link scanning nano-SQUID microscope'', Sci. Rep. 5, 15097 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Foroughi, J.-M

    F. Foroughi, J.-M. Mol, T. Müller, J. R. Kirtle y, K. A. Moler, and H. Bluhm, ''A micro-SQUID with dispersive readout for magnetic scanning microscopy'', Appl. Phys. Lett. 112 , 252601 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Finkler, Y

    A. Finkler, Y. Segev, Y. Myasoedov, M. L. Rappa port, L. Ne’eman, D. Vasyukov, E. Zeldov, M. E. Huber, J. Martin, and A. Yacoby, ''Self-Aligned Nanoscale SQUID on a Tip'', Nano Lett. 10 , 1046 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Finkler, D

    A. Finkler, D. Vasyukov, Y. Segev, L. Ne’eman, E. O. Lachman, M. L. Rappaport, Y. Myasoedov, E. 11 Zeldov, and M. E. Huber, ''Scanning superconducting quantum interference device on a tip for magnetic imaging of nanoscale phenomena'', Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83 , 073702 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Vasyukov, Y

    D. Vasyukov, Y. Anahory, L. Embon, D. Halbertal , J. Cuppens, L. Neeman, A. Finkler, Y. Segev, Y. Myasoedov, M. L. Rappaport, M. E. Huber, and E. Zeldov, ''A scanning superconducting quantum interference device with single electron spin sensitivity'', Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 639 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Anahory, J

    Y. Anahory, J. Reiner, L. Embon, D. Halbertal, A. Yakovenko, Y. Myasoedov, M. L. Rappaport, M. E. Huber, and E. Zeldov, ''Three-Junction SQUID-on-Tip with Tunable In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Magnetic Field Sensitivity'', Nano Lett. 14 , 6481 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    A. Uri, A. Y. Meltzer, Y. Anahory, L. Embon, E. O. Lachman, D. Halbertal, N. HR, Y. Myasoedov, M. E. Huber, A. F. Young, and E. Zeldov, ''Electrically Tunable Multiterminal SQUID-on-Tip'', Nano Lett. 16 , 6910 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    C. A. Watson, A. S. Gibbs, A. P. Mackenzie, C. W. Hicks, and K. A. Moler, ''Micron-scale measurements of low anisotropic strain response of local Tc in Sr2RuO4'', Phys. Rev. B 98 , 094521 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Halbertal, J

    D. Halbertal, J. Cuppens, M. Ben Shalom, L. Emb on, N. Shadmi, Y. Anahory, H. R. Naren, J. Sarkar, A. Uri, Y. Ronen, Y. Myasoedov, L. S. Levitov, E. Joselevich, A. K. Geim, and E. Zeldov, ''Nanoscale thermal imaging of dissipation in quantum systems'', Nature 539 , 407 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Halbertal, M

    D. Halbertal, M. Ben Shalom, A. Uri, K. Bagani, A. Y. Meltzer, I. Marcus, Y. Myasoedov, J. Birkbeck, L. S. Levitov, A. K. Geim, and E. Zeldov, ''Imaging resonant dissipation from individual atomic defects in graphene'', Science 358 , 1303 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Marguerite, J

    A. Marguerite, J. Birkbeck, A. Aharon-Steinberg , D. Halbertal, K. Bagani, I. Marcus, Y. Myasoedov, A. K. Geim, D. J. Perello, and E. Zeldov, ''Imaging work and dissipation in the quantum Hall state in graphene'', arXiv:1907.08973 (Nature in press) (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    S. N. Dorenbos, E. M. Reiger, U. Perinetti, V. Zwiller, T. Zijlstra, and T. M. Klapwijk, ''Low noise superconducting single photon detectors on silicon'', Appl. Phys. Lett. 93 , 131101 (2008)

    2008

  36. [44]

    N. N. Iosad, B. D. Jackson, F. Ferro, J. R. Gao , S. N. Polyakov, P. N. Dmitriev, and T. M. Klapwijk, ''Source optimization for magnetron sputter-deposition of NbTiN tuning elements for SIS THz detectors'', Supercond. Sci. Technol. 12 , 736 (1999)

    1999

  37. [45]

    Singh, B

    V. Singh, B. H. Schneider, S. J. Bosman, E. P. J. Merkx, and G. A. Steele, ''Molybdenum-rhenium alloy based high- Q superconducting microwave resonators'', Appl. Phys. Lett. 105 , 222601 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Bajt, ''Improved reflectance and stability o f Mo-Si multilayers'', Opt

    S. Bajt, ''Improved reflectance and stability o f Mo-Si multilayers'', Opt. Eng. 41 , 1797 (2002)

    2002

  39. [47]

    M. Aziz, D. Christopher Hudson, and S. Russo, ' 'Molybdenum-rhenium superconducting suspended nanostructures'', Appl. Phys. Lett. 104 , 233102 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    S. M. Rossnagel, D. Mikalsen, H. Kinoshita, and J. J. Cuomo, ''Collimated magnetron sputter deposition'', J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 9, 261 (1991)

    1991

  41. [49]

    C. C. Li, H. K. Kim, and M. Migliuolo, ''Er-dop ed glass ridge-waveguide amplifiers fabricated with a collimated sputter deposition technique'', IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 9, 1223 (1997)

    1997

  42. [50]

    Maidul Haque, K

    S. Maidul Haque, K. Divakar Rao, S. Tripathi, R . De, D. D. Shinde, J. S. Misal, C. Prathap, M. Kumar, T. Som, U. Deshpande, and N. K. Sahoo, ''Glancing angle deposition of SiO2 thin films using a novel collimated magnetron sputtering technique'', Surf. Coatings Technol. 319 ,...

    2017

  43. [51]

    M. E. Huber, P. A. Neil, R. G. Benson, D. A. Bu rns, A. M. Corey, C. S. Flynn, Y. Kitaygorodskaya, O. Massihzadeh, J. M. Martinis, and G. C. Hilton, ''DC SQUID series array amplifiers with 120 MHz bandwidth'', IEEE Trans. Appiled Supercond. 11 , 1251 (2001)

    2001

  44. [52]

    S. M. Deambrosis, G. Keppel, V. Ramazzo, C. Ron colato, R. G. Sharma, and V. Palmieri, ''A15 superconductors: An alternative to niobium for RF cavities'', Phys. C 441 , 108 (2006)

    2006

  45. [53]

    M. B. Ketchen, D. D. Awschalom, W. J. Gallagher , A. W. Kleinsasser, R. L. Sandstrom, J. R. Rozen, 12 and B. Bumble, ''Design, fabrication, and performance of integrated miniature SQUID susceptometers'', IEEE Trans. Magn. 25 , 1212 (1989)

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.