2008
DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/20/37/375102
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electrical resistivity of liquid Mg–Al, Na–Cs, Ni–Ce, Li–Cd and Mg–Cd alloys within the ‘2kF’ scattering model

Abstract: The resistivities of liquid Mg-Al, Na-Cs, Ni-Ce, Li-Cd and Mg-Cd alloys were calculated. The Faber-Ziman diffraction model and the Morgan-Howson-Saub '2k(F)' scattering model were used in calculations. The results obtained within these two models for the same alloy and with use of the same set of parameters differ substantially, even for alloys that are not highly resistive. It is possible in principle to achieve good agreement with experiment by means of each of these two models; however we suggest that the '… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The numerical errors in computation of the Fourier transform and other integrals may also be the reason of the discrepancies between our calculations and the experiment. Nevertheless, our model presented here is much better than the previous one presented in [4] because of three reasons: (i) the calculations are more stable, i.e. the change in the resistivity due to a small change of parameters is also small; (ii) the number of free parameters is smaller than in the previous work [4]; (iii) the parameters are unambiguously assigned to each element used which results in the universality of the calculations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The numerical errors in computation of the Fourier transform and other integrals may also be the reason of the discrepancies between our calculations and the experiment. Nevertheless, our model presented here is much better than the previous one presented in [4] because of three reasons: (i) the calculations are more stable, i.e. the change in the resistivity due to a small change of parameters is also small; (ii) the number of free parameters is smaller than in the previous work [4]; (iii) the parameters are unambiguously assigned to each element used which results in the universality of the calculations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…This method was used to reproduce resistivities of some simple alloys with rather good agreement with experiment [2,3]. In our previous work we examined this model and came to the following important conclusions [4]:…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…The resistance of the single thin metallic layers was calculated lately by Paja and co-workers [2,3] for the binary and ternary alloys [4,5]. The transport properties for trilayers and multilayers were considered in [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among different theoretical approaches for studying the melts of transition metals (for example, at last years, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]; see also the review [9]), the Wills-Harrison (WH) approach [10] is one of the most successful. The WH model is based on the Harrison-Froyen [11] approximation which introduces some elements of the muffin-tin orbital theory [12] into transition-metal pseudopotential theory [13,14], the rectangular model for density of d states [15] and the simple-metal pseudopotential theory which works in the framework of the nearly-free-electron (NFE) approximation [16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%