REVIEW
Evidence for current suppression in superconductor-superconductor bilayers
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
Superconducting radio frequency (SRF) cavities, which are critical components in many particle accelerators, need to be operated in the Meissner state to avoid strong dissipation from magnetic vortices. For a defect-free superconductor, the maximum attainable magnetic field for operation is set by the superheating field, $B_{\mathrm{sh}}$, which directly depends on the surface current. In heterostructures composed of different superconductors, the current in each layer depends not only on the properties of the individual material, but also on the electromagnetic response of the adjacent layers through boundary conditions at the interfaces. Three prototypical bilayers [$\mathrm{Nb_{1-x}Ti_xN}$(50 nm)/Nb, $\mathrm{Nb_{1-x}Ti_xN}$(80 nm)/Nb, and $\mathrm{Nb_{1-x}Ti_xN}$(160 nm)/Nb] are investigated here by depth-resolved measurements of their Meissner screening profiles using low-energy muon spin rotation (LE-$\mu$SR). From fits to a model based on London theory (with appropriate boundary and continuity conditions), a magnetic penetration depth for the thin $\mathrm{Nb_{1-x}Ti_xN}$ layers of $\lambda_\mathrm{Nb_{1-x}Ti_xN} =$ 182.5(31) nm is found, in good agreement with literature values for the bulk alloy. Using the measured $\lambda_\mathrm{Nb_{1-x}Ti_xN}$, the maximum vortex-free field, $B_{\mathrm{max}}$, of the superconductor-superconductor (SS) bilayer structure was estimated to be 610(40) mT. The strong suppression of the surface current in the $\mathrm{Nb_{1-x}Ti_xN}$ layer suggests an optimal thickness of $\sim 1.4 \lambda_{\mathrm{Nb_{1-x}Ti_xN}} =$ 261(14) nm.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.