Dale R. Harshman, Anthony T. Fiory
The superconducting transition temperatures of high-Tc compounds based on
copper, iron, ruthenium and certain organic molecules are discovered to be
dependent on bond lengths, ionic valences, and Coulomb coupling between
electronic bands in adjacent, spatially separated layers.[1] Optimal transition
temperature, denoted as Tc0, is given by the universal expression kBTc0 = e^2
{\beta} / \ell{\zeta}; \ell is the spacing between interacting charges within
the layers, {\zeta} is the distance between interacting layers and {\beta} is a
universal constant, equal to about twice the reduced electron Compton
wavelength (suggesting that Compton scattering plays a role in pairing).
Non-optimum compounds in which sample degradation is evident typically exhibit
Tc < Tc0. For the 31+ optimum compounds tested, the theoretical and
experimental Tc0 agree statistically to within +/- 1.4 K. The elemental high Tc
building block comprises two adjacent and spatially separated charge layers;
the factor e^2 \ell{\zeta} arises from Coulomb forces between them. The
theoretical charge structure representing a room-temperature superconductor is
also presented.
[1] DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/23/29/295701
View original:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.2480
I try to apply method described to predict Tc of Ca2-xNaxCuO2Cl2 which optimal doping is x=0.20 and max Tc=28K.
ReplyDeleteCrystall lattice constant at 10K are:
a=3.8673A
c=14.9567A
Z(Ca) = 0,39549
Z(Cl) = 0,18325
Cu is at the origin (0, 0, 0), O (0, 0.5, 0), and Ca and Cl at (0, 0, Z).
All data from D. Vaknin, L. L. Miller, J. L. Zarestky. Stacking of the square-lattice antiferromagnetic planes of Ca2CuO2Cl2. Phys. Rev. B 56, 8351 (1997).
Type I reservoir is Ca/NaCl - Ca/NaCl (two layers)
Type II reservoir is CuO2
Separation between adjacent layers of opposite type = (0.5 - Z(Ca)) * c = 1,5631A
Number of type II layers = 1.
I'am not not quite understand what gamma factor means. set it to 0.25 as in LaSrCuO4
T = 1247 * sqrt[(0.25*0,2/(3.8673)^2)]/1,
5631 = 46K
double then experimental value. Is there something wrong?
I'll be very grateful if you where verify my calculations and explain me what was wrong with it.