Paper detail

The single- vs. two-gap scenario: the specific heat and the thermodynamic critical field of BeAu superconductor

The puzzling situation where some thermodynamic quantities require a single-gap description, while others need a more complex gap scenario, is discussed. Our approach reveals that in some cases, the conclusions based on measurements of only one thermodynamic quantity may lead to conflicting results. As an example, temperature evolutions of the electronic specific heat [$C_{\rm e}(T)$] and the thermodynamic critical field [$B_{\rm c}(T)$] of BeAu superconductor were reconsidered within the framework of the single-gap and the two-gap scenarios. The analysis shows that the single-gap approach describes the temperature dependencies of $C_{\rm e}(T)$ and the superfluid density $ρ_{\rm s}(T)$ satisfactorily. However it fails in the case of $B_{\rm c}(T)$. The self-consistent two-gap model, in contrast, is able to describe all of the mentioned thermodynamic quantities by using a similar set of parameters. Our results reveal that a proper description of the thermodynamic quantities, related to the superconducting pairing mechanism, requires the use of similar model containing the same set of parameters.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.