1972
DOI: 10.1063/1.2946179
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Theory for Superconductivity in d-Band Metals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
71
0

Year Published

1973
1973
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 128 publications
(76 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
71
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The most striking feature of the dependence of the superconducting transition temperature T~ on the number of electrons per atom (e/a) is that it does not follow the "Matthias rule" as in the crystalline case, but rather exhibits a triangular peak around elan7 for the 4d-and 5d-transition metal series [2]. In view of these experimental results it was concluded [2] that recent theories of superconductivity in transition metals [3,5] were not capable of explaining this dependence of T~ on valence.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 92%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The most striking feature of the dependence of the superconducting transition temperature T~ on the number of electrons per atom (e/a) is that it does not follow the "Matthias rule" as in the crystalline case, but rather exhibits a triangular peak around elan7 for the 4d-and 5d-transition metal series [2]. In view of these experimental results it was concluded [2] that recent theories of superconductivity in transition metals [3,5] were not capable of explaining this dependence of T~ on valence.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…For numerical analysis of the superconducting transition temperature Tc of amorphous transition metals we used the McMillan theory for d-band superconductivity [5]. Then,…”
Section: Numerical Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Here, µ* is the electron-electron interaction parameter, which is estimated using the relation [32] µ* = 0.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[7]). Our choice of µ * = 0.1 can be justified by the empirical formula proposed by Bennemann and Garland [20].…”
Section: Computational Detailsmentioning
confidence: 99%