Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 62 references

Observation of Uniform Supercurrent Flow in Polycrystalline K-doped Ba122 by Combined Magneto-optical Imaging and Finite-element Modeling

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magneto-optical images and finite-element simulations agree that supercurrent flows uniformly in a polycrystalline iron-based superconductor.

desk verdict Clear MO evidence for uniform supercurrent flow in polycrystalline K-doped Ba122, with an FEM consistency check that is less quantitative than the authors claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08501 v1 pith:A4KWPS6U submitted 2025-06-10 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Shota Ishiwata , Sunseng Pyon , Tsuyoshi Tamegai , Mark D. Ainslie , Akiyasu Yamamoto This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords iron-basedsuperconductorK-dopedBa122magneto-opticalimagingfinite-elementmodelingcriticalcurrentdensitysupercurrentuniformitytrappedfieldmagnetsparkplasmasintering
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

The paper sets out to show that a polycrystalline (Ba,K)Fe2As2 bulk made by high-energy milling and spark plasma sintering carries its supercurrent uniformly across the whole sample, rather than through a patchwork of weakly connected grains. The evidence is a three-way comparison: critical current density $J_c(B,T)$ from magnetization hysteresis on a small specimen, direct magneto-optical images of trapped flux in a square prism, and finite-element simulations that take the measured $J_c$ as input. The images show clean roof-top flux patterns with fourfold symmetry from 5 K to 32 K, and the simulated flux profiles agree closely with the measured ones. On that basis the authors conclude that the measured $J_c$ is quantitatively the local current density everywhere at the roughly micrometer resolution of magneto-optical imaging, so the mechanism limiting $J_c$ must act below that scale, in submicron microstructure and grain boundaries.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the combined magneto-optical imaging and a 3D H–Φ finite-element model of the remanent magnetization state. In the H–Φ formulation the magnetic field is solved in the air region and a scalar magnetic potential in the conductor, which reduces the degrees of freedom; modeling one-eighth of the square prism with symmetry boundary conditions makes the computation feasible. The superconductor's nonlinear resistivity is represented by the E–J power law, with $n=35$ taken from earlier work on the same material, and the measured $J_c(B,T)$ curve is fed in by direct interpolation. The comparison that carries the argument is the $B_z(x)$ profile across the sample surface: the slope of that profile is proportional to the local $J_c$, so agreement between the simulated and observed profiles is the operational definition of uniform current flow.

What would settle it

Perform the same zero-field-cooling runs with the applied field raised above 80 mT using a Hall-probe or higher-range indicator: if local flux-density gradients across the surface become position-dependent or patchy, or if the finite-element profile computed from the small-specimen $J_c(B,T)$ falls outside the measured error bars, the uniformity claim fails at those fields. A cheaper check: cut several small specimens from different regions of the same bulk and compare their magnetization $J_c$; disagreement would show the single measured $J_c$ is not the local $J_c$ everywhere.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as the authors would state it, is that in this K-doped Ba122 polycrystalline bulk the supercurrent circulates uniformly, so the critical current density obtained from magnetization measurements on a 0.52 × 1.48 × 2.41 mm³ specimen is quantitatively equivalent to the local $J_c$ that produces the flux-density gradients seen in the magneto-optical images. Evidence for the claim: the zero-field-cooled MO images show ideal roof-top patterns and fourfold symmetry up to 32 K, no electromagnetic granularity of the kind seen in earlier 1111-phase and 11-phase iron-based polycrystals, and no magnetic-impurity signal at 40 K. Finite-element simulations using the measured $J_c(B,T)$ with an $E \propto J^n$ power law ($n=35$) reproduce the measured $B_z(x)$ profiles closely enough that the authors attribute the small discrepancies to non-isothermal heating during magnetization rather than to current inhomogeneity. The authors explicitly note that the MO indicator film saturates at 80 mT, so uniformity at higher fields, where flux pinning is stronger, remains untested.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that the critical current density measured on one small specimen is exactly the local critical current density at every point in the larger magneto-optical sample; if the two pieces carry different currents, the simulation's match to the images proves nothing about uniformity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the current is uniform at the MO scale, polycrystalline K-doped Ba122 bulks can be treated as homogeneous in trapped-field magnet design, simplifying predictions of field uniformity.
  • The limiting factor for $J_c$ sits below a few micrometers, so further gains must come from submicron flux-pinning enhancement and grain-boundary engineering rather than from macroscopic densification.
  • A single $J_c(B,T)$ curve plus $n=35$ reproduces the magnetization behavior from 5 K to 32 K, giving magnet designers a compact material law to work with.
  • The close-to-$T_c$ uniform circulation at 30 K implies the sample has no low-$T_c$ or weakly superconducting regions at the observation scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves higher-field behavior untouched; a natural extension is to repeat the MO–FEM comparison above 80 mT, where stronger flux pinning might expose granularity that is invisible at low fields.
  • The uniformity result makes a testable prediction: several small specimens cut from different regions of the same bulk should give the same $J_c(B,T)$, and local flux-gradient extractions should agree with that curve everywhere.
  • Because natural grain boundaries in untextured polycrystals can exceed 24° misorientation, the uniform flow suggests the bulk current is not globally blocked by such boundaries; comparing local magnetization with transport across artificial boundaries at those angles would sharpen that conclusion.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a multi-technique study of a polycrystalline K-doped Ba122 bulk sample (square prism, 2.00 × 2.00 × 0.45 mm³) fabricated by high-energy milling and spark plasma sintering. Magneto-optical (MO) imaging at 30 K shows uniform flux penetration and, after removal of a 160 mT field, roof-top remanent flux patterns with approximate fourfold symmetry at temperatures up to 32 K. The authors compare these images with 3D H-Φ finite-element simulations that use the magnetization-derived Jc(B,T) as input together with an E-J power law (n = 35), finding close qualitative and, they argue, quantitative agreement. They conclude that the supercurrent circulates uniformly throughout the sample at the scale of the MO resolution and that the critical-current limitation occurs below this scale, likely at grain boundaries.

Significance. The MO imaging data are of high visual quality and provide strong, direct evidence for the absence of macroscopic electromagnetic granularity: the roof-top patterns, fourfold symmetry, and Meissner shielding near Tc are exactly what would be expected for a homogeneous type-II superconductor. If the quantitative claim were established, this would be a useful result for polycrystalline iron-based superconductors and for trapped-field magnet development. However, the quantitative 'equivalence' between the local supercurrent and the magnetization-derived Jc is not independently established: the FEM calculation is forced by the same Jc(B,T) it is meant to confirm, and the only independent estimate (Eq. (1)) differs by 60% from the magnetization value, without error bars. The qualitative uniformity claim is well supported; the quantitative part needs further work.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2 (FEM setup) and §3 (Figs. 5–6)] The finite-element model is driven by the same Jc(B,T) data (Fig. 1) that the paper claims are 'quantitatively equivalent' to the local supercurrent. The agreement between simulated and measured Bz(x) profiles is therefore a consistency check, not an independent validation of the local Jc magnitude. The local slope of Bz(x) in Fig. 4 is itself proportional to Jc and could provide an independent estimate from the MO images alone; as written, the comparison cannot falsify a spatially uniform Jc because spatial uniformity was assumed in the FEM input. Please reframe the claim or add an independent extraction of Jc from the MO gradient.
  2. [§3, Eq. (1)] The two quantitative estimates of Jc differ by 60%: Eq. (1) gives 8.1×10⁴ A/cm² while the magnetization hysteresis gives 1.3×10⁵ A/cm². Attributing this to the thin-strip approximation of Eq. (1) is plausible but unquantified; no error bars are given for the measured width b or for the magnetization Jc. This is too large a discrepancy to call 'good agreement' at the quantitative level. Please provide a sensitivity analysis for Eq. (1), including the finite-thickness geometry, and report uncertainties on all extracted quantities.
  3. [§2 and §3 (isothermal assumption and n sensitivity)] The FEM assumes isothermal conditions, a flux-creep exponent n = 35 taken from an earlier paper, and a ramp time of 10 s, with no sensitivity study for any of these choices. The authors attribute the slightly deeper flux penetration observed experimentally to flux-flow heating, but this effect is not modeled. The quantitative agreement therefore depends on an unverified assumption. Please test the sensitivity of the simulated profiles to n and to possible temperature excursions, or make the agreement qualitative only.
  4. [Abstract and §4 (resolution claim)] The conclusion that the supercurrent is 'uniform on the order of MO resolution' is not quantifiable because no spatial resolution of the MO system or iron-garnet indicator film is reported. Please state the pixel-limited resolution and the indicator-film resolution; otherwise the scale at which uniformity is claimed (a few micrometers versus tens of micrometers) is undefined.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3] The word 'macrocopic' should be 'macroscopic'.
  2. [§2, Eq. (1)] The symbols in Eq. (1) are not fully defined: Ha is presumably the applied magnetic field in A/m, but its units and relation to the applied field of 160 mT should be stated explicitly, and the equation should be checked for unit consistency with d and w in centimeters.
  3. [§3, Fig. 4] The conclusion of smooth homogeneity is based on one line profile per temperature; providing averaged profiles or multiple line traces would strengthen the uniformity claim.
  4. [§2 (magnetization)] The 'extended Bean model' used to compute Jc from magnetization is not referenced; please cite the specific formula or model version used.
  5. [Reference list] Reference [20] contains a typo: 'Nati. Sci. Rev.' should be 'Natl. Sci. Rev.'
  6. [§2 (MO imaging)] The 'sawtooth-shaped bright contrasts' attributed to in-plane domains of the indicator film would be clearer if marked with arrows in Fig. 2 or described with a schematic.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FEM-MO comparison is a genuine cross-validation with no parameter fitted to the MO data.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is: (1) Jc(B,T) is measured independently via magnetization hysteresis on a small specimen (Fig. 1); (2) MO imaging provides independent spatial flux-density data on a different square specimen; (3) FEM takes the measured Jc(B,T) as input with no free parameters fitted to the MO images, and reproduces the observed Bz(x) profiles. Because the input Jc is not derived from the MO data and the output flux profile is a nontrivial function of geometry, applied field history, and Jc(B), the comparison is a legitimate forward-model test that could have failed. The uniformity conclusion is primarily supported by the MO images themselves (fourfold symmetry, uniform flux penetration, ideal roof-top patterns), which are independent of the FEM assumptions. The only self-citation is the choice n=35 from prior work by overlapping authors [17]; this is a non-load-bearing modeling parameter that does not encode the target result (uniformity) and does not affect the independent MO evidence. The 60% discrepancy in the Eq. (1) estimate is acknowledged and attributed to geometry, so it is not hidden. Thus the central claim is not equivalent to its inputs by construction; the FEM-MO agreement is best characterized as a consistency check, a limitation in inferential strength rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on transferring a measured Jc(B,T) from one specimen to another, on the validity of the E-J power law at low fields, and on the assumption that the magneto-optical contrast maps linearly to Bz. No new entities are introduced. The main free parameters are the input Jc(B,T) and the creep exponent n=35 taken from prior work.

free parameters (3)
  • Jc(B,T) from magnetization measurements = 1.4 x 10^5 A/cm2 at 5 K self-field; field dependence in Fig. 1
    Input to FEM; measured on a small specimen and assumed to represent local Jc throughout the MO sample. The 60% discrepancy with Eq. (1) shows the magnitude is not independently confirmed.
  • Flux creep exponent n = 35
    Assumed from ref [17]; the E-J power law's sharpness controls flux penetration profiles. Not fitted to this sample's MO data.
  • Ramp time tramp = 10 s
    Simulated magnetization ramp duration; affects dynamic flux profiles if n is finite, but isothermal and quasi-static assumptions make it a minor influence.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The E-J power law E proportional to J^n describes the local nonlinear resistivity of the superconductor.
    Invoked in Section 2 FEM model; standard for type-II superconductors but an approximation.
  • domain assumption Jc(B,T) measured on a small specimen is representative of the local Jc in the 2x2x0.45 mm3 MO sample.
    The entire FEM-MO comparison depends on transferring magnetization data from one cut to another; any spatial variation in Jc within the bulk would break the comparison.
  • domain assumption Isothermal conditions during magnetization, with no heat generation from flux motion.
    Stated in Section 2; the paper acknowledges local heating as a possible source of discrepancy at 25 K.
  • domain assumption Equation (1) from the Brandt-Indenbom strip model gives a valid Jc estimate from the Meissner region width in the square sample.
    Used in Section 3; the authors note the geometry mismatch and the 60% discrepancy, so this assumption is weak.
  • domain assumption The iron-garnet indicator film's optical contrast is linearly proportional to local Bz over the field range.
    Needed to convert MO images to flux density profiles; resolution and calibration are not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observation of Uniform Supercurrent Flow in Polycrystalline K-doped Ba122 by Combined Magneto-optical Imaging and Finite-element Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A4KWPS6U

@misc{pith2026250608501,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observation of Uniform Supercurrent Flow in Polycrystalline K-doped Ba122 by Combined Magneto-optical Imaging and Finite-element Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A4KWPS6U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08501}
}
read the original abstract

Macroscopic current uniformity in a (Ba,K)Fe2As2 bulk sample produced by a process that demonstrated high trapped magnetic fields was evaluated through a comparative experimental and modeling approach. The bulk sample, with a well-defined square geometry, exhibited ideal roof-top patterns in magneto-optical (MO) images. Comparison of the magnetic moment, MO images, and finite element modeling results showed good agreement for the critical current density, suggesting that the supercurrent circulates uniformly throughout the sample on the order of MO resolution. These results highlight the importance of enhancing flux pinning strength and microstructural control at the submicron and grain boundary scale in iron-based superconducting polycrystalline materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08501 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. External field dependence of critical current density from 5 K to 32 K. The inset shows the temperature dependence of the magnetic susceptibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) shows an optical microscope image of the square￾shaped sample prepared for MO imaging. Figs. 2(b-h) present MO images captured under external fields ranging from 1 to 30 mT, following cooling to 30 K in the absence of external field. The dark contrast represents regions with low magnetic flux density, while the bright contrast corresponds to regions with high magnetic flux density. The sawtooth-shaped bright con… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a-h) Magneto-optical images of the remanent magnetic flux density distribution in the sample after zero-field cooling to (a) 5 K, (b) 10 K, (c) 15 K, (d) 20 K, (e) 25 K, (f) 30 K, (g) 32 K, and (h) 40 K, after the application and removal of an external field of 160 mT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Magnetic flux density profiles at each temperature along the red horizontal lines in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a-g) Simulation results reproducing the MO results shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Magnetic flux density profiles at each temperature across the center of the surface of sample, as shown in the simulation results of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Though 30 K is the temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kamihara Y, Watanabe T, Hirano M and Hosono H 2008 J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130 3296

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Today 21 278

    Hosono H, Yamamoto A, Hiramatsu H and Ma Y 2018 Mater. Today 21 278

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Tarantini C, Gurevich A, Jaroszynski J, Balakirev F, Bellingeri E, Pallecchi I, Ferdeghini C, Shen B, Wen H H and Larbalestier D C 2011 Phys. Rev. B 84 184522

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Altarawneh M M, Collar K, Mielke C H, Ni N, Bud’ko S L, and Canfield P C 2008 Phys. Rev. B 78 220505

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Hänisch J, Iida K, Kurth F, Reich E, Tarantini C, Jaroszynski J, Förster T, Fuchs G, Hühne R, Grinenko V, Schultz L and Holzapfel B 2015 Scientific Reports 5 17363

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Ishida S, Song D, Ogino H, Iyo A, Eisaki H, Nakajima M, Shimoyama J and Eisterer M 2017 Phys. Rev. B 95 014517

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Vinod K, Satya A T, Sharma S, Sundar C S and Bharathi A 2011 Phys. Rev. B 84 012502

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Yamamoto A, Jaroszynski J, Tarantini C, Balicas L, Jiang J, Gurevich A, Larbalestier D C, Jin R, Sefat A S, McGuire M A, Sales B C, Christen D K and Mandrus D 2009 Appl. Phys. Lett. 94 062511

    work page 2009

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Yuan H Q, Singleton J, Balakirev F F, Baily S A, Chen G F, Luo J L and Wang N L 2009 Nature 457 565

    2009

  2. [10]

    Tokuta S, Hasegawa Y, Shimada Y and Yamamoto A 2022 iScience 25 103992

    2022

  3. [11]

    Pak C, Su Y F, Collantes Y, Tarantini C, Hellstrom E E, Larbalestier D C and Kametani F 2020 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 33 084010

    2020

  4. [12]

    Pyon S, Suwa T, Tamegai T, Takano K, Kajitani H, Koizumi N, Awaji S, Zhou N and Shi Z 2018 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 31 055016

    2018

  5. [13]

    Phys.: Conf

    Pyon S, Ito T, Tamegai T, Kajitani H, Koizumi N, Awaji S, Kito H, Ishida S and Yoshida Y 2022 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2323 012020

    2022

  6. [14]

    Huang H, Yao C, Dong C, Zhang X, Wang D, Cheng Z, Li J, Awaji S, Wen H H and Ma Y 2018 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 31 015017

    2018

  7. [15]

    Gao Z, Togano K, Zhang Y, Matsumoto A, Kikuchi A and Kumakura H 2017 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 30 095012

    2017

  8. [16]

    Weiss J D, Yamamoto A, Polyanskii A A, Richardson R B, Larbalestier D C and Hellstrom E E 2015 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 28 112001

    2015

  9. [17]

    Yamamoto A, Tokuta S, Ishii A, Yamanaka A, Shimada Y and Ainslie M D 2024 NPG Asia Mater. 16 29

    2024

  10. [18]

    Pyon S, Ito T, Sakagami R, Tamegai T, Awaji S, Kito H, Ishida S, Eisaki H, Yoshida Y and Kajitani H 2023 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 36 015009

    2023

  11. [19]

    Ding H, Zhao H, Huang P, Yu L, Xu J, Fang Z, Chen Z, Wang D, Zhang X and Chen W 2023 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 36 11LT01

    2023

  12. [20]

    Dong C H, Xu Q J, Ma Y W 2024 Nati. Sci. Rev. 11 nwae122

    2024

  13. [21]

    Yamamoto A, Polyanskii A A, Jiang J, Kametani F, Tarantini C, Hunte F, Jaroszynski J, Hellstrom E E, Lee P J, Gurevich A, Larbalestier D C, Ren Z A, Yang J, Dong X L, Lu W and Zhao Z X 2008 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 21 095008

    2008

  14. [22]

    Palenzona A, Sala A, Bernini C, Braccini V, Cimberle M R, Ferdeghini C, Lamura G, Martinelli A, Pallecchi I and Romano G 2012 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 25 115018

    2012

  15. [23]

    Yamamoto A, Jiang J, Kametani F, Polyanskii A, Hellstrom E, Larbalestier D, Martinelli A, Palenzona A, Tropeano M and Putti M 2011 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 24 045010

    2011

  16. [24]

    Lee S, Jiang J, Weiss J D, Folkman C M, Bark C W, Tarantini C, Xu A, Abraimov D, Polyanskii A, Nelson C T, Zhang Y, Baek S H, Jang H W, Yamamoto A, Kametani F, Pan X Q, Hellstrom E E, Gurevich A, Eom C B and Larbalestier D C 2009 Appl. Phys. Lett. 95 212505

    2009

  17. [25]

    Katase T, Ishimaru Y, Tsukamoto A, Hiramatsu H, Kamiya T, Tanabe K and Hosono H 2011 Nat. Commun. 2 409

    2011

  18. [26]

    Luo J Y, Okada T, Awaji S, Liu C and Ma Y W 2023 IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 33 8200405

    2023

  19. [27]

    Hecher J, Baumgartner T, Weiss J D, Tarantini C, Yamamoto A, Jiang J, Hellstrom E E, Larbalestier D C and Eisterer M 2016 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 29 025004

    2016

  20. [28]

    Kametani F, Su Y F, Collantes Y, Pak C, Tarantini C, Larbalestier D C and Hellstrom E E 2020 Appl. Phys. Express 13 113002

    2020

  21. [29]

    Shimada Y, Tokuta S, Yamanaka A, Yamamoto A and Konno T J 2022 J. Alloy. Compd. 923 166358

    2022

  22. [30]

    266 119648

    Guo Z M, Muraoka K, Gao H Y, Shimada Y, Harada T, Tokuta S, Hasegawa Y, Yamamoto A and Hata S 2024 Acta Mater. 266 119648

    2024

  23. [31]

    China Mater

    Liu S F, Yao C, Huang H, Dong C H, Guo W W, Cheng Z, Zhu Y C, Awaji S and Ma Y W 2021 Sci. China Mater. 64 2530

    2021

  24. [32]

    Kametani F, Su Y, Tarantini C, Hellstrom E, Matsumoto A, Kumakura H, Togano K, Huang H and Ma Y 2024 Appl. Phys. Express 17 013004

    2024

  25. [33]

    Tarantini C, Pak C, Su Y F, Hellstrom E E, Larbalestier D C and Kametani F 2021 Scientific Reports 11 3143

    2021

  26. [34]

    Hirabayashi Y, Iga H, Ogawa H, Tokuta S, Shimada Y and Yamamoto A 2024 NPG Comput. Mater. 10 46

    2024

  27. [35]

    Ishii A, Kikuchi S, Yamanaka A and Yamamoto A 2023 J. Alloy. Compd. 966 171613

    2023

  28. [36]

    Bagni T, Bovone G, Rack A, Mauro D, Barth C, Matera D, Buta F and Senatore C 2021 Scientific Reports 11 7767

    2021

  29. [37]

    Yamamoto A, Yamanaka A, Iida K, Shimada Y and Hata S 2024 Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 26 2436347

    2024

  30. [38]

    7 111107

    Tokuta S and Yamamoto A 2019 APL Mater. 7 111107

    2019

  31. [39]

    Tokuta S, Shimada Y and Yamamoto A 2020 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 33 094010

    2020

  32. [40]

    Rotter M, Pangerl M, Tegel M and Johrendt D 2008 Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 47 7949

    2008

  33. [41]

    Nikolo M, Weiss J D, Singleton J, Jiang J and Hellstrom E E 2018 IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 28 7300104

    2018

  34. [42]

    Tamegai T, Pyon S, Tsuchiya Y, Inoue H, Koizumi N and Kajitani H 2015 IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 25 7300504

    2015

  35. [43]

    Yang H, Luo H Q, Wang Z S and Wen H H 2008 Appl. Phys. Lett. 93, 142506

    2008

  36. [44]

    Arsenault A, Sirois F and Grilli F 2021 IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 31 680011

    2021

  37. [45]

    Zhang K, Ainslie M, Calvi M, Kinjo R and Schmidt T 2021 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 34 094002

    2021

  38. [46]

    Ainslie M D, Huang K Y, Fujishiro H, Chaddock J, Takahashi K, Namba S, Cardwell D A and Durrell J H 2019 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 32 034002

    2019

  39. [47]

    Rhyner J 1993 Physica C 212 292 8

    1993

  40. [48]

    Plummer C J G and Evetts J E 1987 IEEE Trans. Magn. 23 1179

    1987

  41. [49]

    Ainslie M D, Fujishiro H, Mochizuki H, Takahashi K, Shi Y-H, Namburi D K, Zou J, Zhou D, Dennis A R and Cardwell D A 2016 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 29 074003

    2016

  42. [50]

    Ding Q P, Mohan S, Tsuchiya Y, Taen T, Nakajima Y and Tamegai T 2011 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 24 075025

    2011

  43. [51]

    Prozorov R, Tillman M E, Mun E D and Canfield P C 2009 New J. Phys. 11 035004

    2009

  44. [52]

    Kametani F, Polyanskii A A, Yamamoto A, Jiang J, Hellstrom E E, Gurevich A, Larbalestier D C, Ren Z A, Yang J, Dong X L, Lu W and Zhao Z X 2009 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 22 015010

    2009

  45. [53]

    Tamegai T, Nakajima Y, Tsuchiya Y, Iyo A, Miyazawa K, Shirage P M, Kito H and Eisaki H 2009 Physica C 469 915

    2009

  46. [54]

    Brandt E H and Indenbom M 1993 Phys. Rev. B 48 12893

    1993

  47. [55]

    Ainslie M and Fujishiro H 2019 Numerical modelling of bulk superconductor magnetisation (IOP Publishing)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Larbalestier D C, Cooley L D, Rikel M O, Polyanskii A A, Jiang J, Patnaik S, Cai X Y, Feldmann D M, Gurevich A, Squitieri A A, Naus M T, Eom C B, Hellstrom E E, Cava R J, Regan K A, Rogado N, Hayward M A, He T, Slusky J S, Khalifah P, Inumaru K and Haas M 2001 Nature 410 186

    2001

  49. [57]

    Yamamoto A, Ishihara A, Tomita M and Kishio K 2014 Appl. Phys. Lett. 105, 032601

    2014

  50. [58]

    Iida K, Qin D Y, Tarantini C, Hatano T, Wang C, Guo Z M, Gao H Y, Saito H, Hata S, Naito M and Yamamoto A 2021 NPG Asia Mater. 13 68

    2021

  51. [59]

    Qin D, Iida K, Guo Z, Wang C, Saito H, Hata S, Naito M and Yamamoto A 2022 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 35 09LT01

    2022

  52. [60]

    Qin D Y, Guo Z M, Tarantini C, Hata S, Naito M and Yamamoto A 2024 Appl. Phys. Lett. 125 182601

    2024

  53. [61]

    Taen T, Ohtake F, Pyon S, Tamegai T and Kitamura H 2015 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 28 085003

    2015

  54. [62]

    Hatano T, Qin D Y, Iida K, Gao H Y, Guo Z M, Saito H, Hata S, Shimada Y, Naito M and Yamamoto A 2024 NPG Asia Mater. 16 41

    2024

Pith tools

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