The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 9:30 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 1 hour.
1992
DOI: 10.1016/0921-4534(92)90560-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Trapping and relaxation of inter- and intragrain vortices in YBa2Cu3O7−δ

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
7
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
2
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At the lowest temperatures, a typical Anderson-Kim-like logarithmic dependence was observed. (figure 11), in agreement with previous investigations of intergranular flux creep [25][26][27]. In figure 12 we plot the field dependence of the normalized relaxation rate; several features associated with the different characteristic H (T ) lines in the magnetic phase diagram (figure 5) may be distinguished.…”
Section: Flux Dynamicssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…At the lowest temperatures, a typical Anderson-Kim-like logarithmic dependence was observed. (figure 11), in agreement with previous investigations of intergranular flux creep [25][26][27]. In figure 12 we plot the field dependence of the normalized relaxation rate; several features associated with the different characteristic H (T ) lines in the magnetic phase diagram (figure 5) may be distinguished.…”
Section: Flux Dynamicssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…We also address pertinent observations by several other workers [9][10][11][12][13][14] on the relaxation rates of magnetization where the initial field profiles correspond to that displayed in figure 1(b) or figure 1(d ) and compare these data with the predictions of our model.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 59%
“…These data should be compared with the initial portions of the theoretical curves displayed in figure 7. In our view and as noted by Blinov et al [1,9,18] and Fleisher et al [19], the difference between the experimental and theoretical curves in the low-field region arises because our simple model ignores H C1 . Hence our model neglects the feature that some flux adjacent to the surfaces of the particles is expelled during the field cooling and that the flux density profiles, after the removal of the applied field H 0 ≤ H C1 (T f ) H * (T f ), have zones where j is subcritical even before the magnetic relaxation commences [20][21][22].…”
Section: Display Data For M a Versus H F Cmentioning
confidence: 47%
See 2 more Smart Citations