# Critical current: criteria, geometry and pinning

Compare transport, magnetization and depairing limits with their field, time scale and area convention. Preserve measurement conditions before comparing conductor performance.

## Scope

Critical current is a limit defined for a specimen, measurement protocol and operating conditions. Transport measurements use a voltage or electric-field criterion; magnetization measurements infer a current through a model; the depairing current describes loss of stability of a superconducting state within a specified theory. These quantities must not share an unlabeled performance ranking. [R5](#ref-source-25347d9dbd8e915f)

Blatter and colleagues explicitly distinguish depinning and depairing current densities in their review abstract. Pinning, thermal fluctuations and vortex motion affect practical current transport. A measured threshold can instead be limited by weak connections or heating; its mechanism requires evidence beyond the value of the current itself. [R2](#ref-source-82f53ca35625217d)

## Mathematical assumptions

For voltage taps separated by length $L$, define the mean longitudinal electric-field criterion $E_c=V_c/L$. Using the same measured $I_c$, distinguish the nominal superconducting cross-section $A_s$ from the entire conductor area $A_t$:

$$J_c=\frac{I_c}{A_s},\qquad J_e=\frac{I_c}{A_t}=fJ_c,\qquad f=\frac{A_s}{A_t}.$$

Here $J_e$ is an engineering current density for the stated whole-conductor area. Nominal superconducting area does not resolve nonuniform current paths or pores. A different definition of non-copper area, filament area or cable area requires a different label. These identities compare area conventions; they do not correct a damaged conductor or infer intrinsic microscopic current density.

A simple sensitivity calculation illustrates why the criterion matters. If a measured interval is modeled by $E=E_0(J/J_0)^n$ with positive constant $n$, changing the criterion by a factor $r$ changes the inferred current by $r^{1/n}$. For $n=20$, a tenfold criterion change gives a factor of about 1.122. This is an illustrative power-law calculation, not a measured exponent or a universal transport law. [R5](#ref-source-25347d9dbd8e915f)

The magnetic force density is the vector product $\mathbf F=\mathbf J\times\mathbf B$. For current perpendicular to the induction, its magnitude at the threshold becomes $F_p=J_cB$ if a static pinning-force balance is the applicable model. In SI units this is N/m³; resistive heating instead has power density $\mathbf E\cdot\mathbf J$ in W/m³. A parallel configuration has no force from this cross product. Replacing $B$ by $\mu_0H$ requires an additional approximation, especially near self-field conditions.

For an explicit geometry check, take an infinite slab of full thickness $2a$, field parallel to its faces, constant $J_c$ and fully developed opposite critical-state branches. Neglect demagnetization, reversible magnetization and creep. Ampere's law gives $|dB/dx|=\mu_0J_c$. With $x$ measured across the thickness, the ideal branch profiles are $B_\pm(x)=\mu_0[H_a\pm J_c(a-|x|)]$. Their spatial averages give

$$M_\pm=\pm\frac{J_ca}{2},\qquad \Delta M=M_+-M_-=J_ca,\qquad J_c=\frac{\Delta M}{a}.$$

$\Delta M$ is the full vertical loop width in A/m; $a$ is the half-thickness in metres. Numerically integrating these stated profiles verifies the factor and dimensions. This is a local derivation under ideal assumptions, not a reanalysis of Bean's original data. Bean's 1962 paper is the historical source; its full text was not available in this check. Do not transfer this slab expression to arbitrary films, cylinders, partial penetration or field-dependent $J_c$. [R1](#ref-source-39e3e980bd8a0271)

## Experimental criteria

Keep enough information to reconstruct both the measured threshold and the conversion to a current density. The following is an editorial reporting guide, not a table of certified material records.

| Measurement | Record with the result | Interpretation boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Transport | Temperature, field magnitude and orientation, voltage-tap spacing, electric-field criterion, current ramp or pulse duration, duty cycle, area convention | Contact heating, current sharing and voltage offsets can change the inferred threshold |
| Magnetization | Magnetic moment, volume, dimensions, field history, sweep rate, elapsed time and background subtraction | Conversion to current requires a geometry and critical-state model |
| Conductor or cable | Superconducting fraction, whole-conductor area, length, strain and thermal stabilization | Layer current density and engineering current density answer different questions |
| Depairing model | Model, temperature regime, geometry and stability assumptions | A calculated instability is not automatically the measured transport limit |

MacManus-Driscoll and colleagues studied YBCO films grown with BaZrO3 added to the target. Their selected manuscript passages report improved in-field transport at 75.5 K, despite lower transition temperature or self-field current in some samples. The rotated field remained perpendicular to current. This comparison illustrates distinct performance measures, not proof of a different pairing mechanism. No electric-field criterion was extracted here, so no numerical current record is tabulated. [R3](#ref-source-51c947cf11bea72e)

Larbalestier and colleagues' 2014 paper is a primary Bi-2212 round-wire study, not a general engineering review. Its earlier author manuscript distinguishes whole-conductor $J_e$ from superconducting-area $J_c$ and compares short specimens with a demonstration coil. This entry uses that distinction without importing a cross-family ranking; the final published dataset and all measurement criteria were not independently re-extracted. [R4](#ref-source-c1a5f8c50328f68e)

## Limits and disputes

An irreversible magnetic response and the upper critical field are different observables. A loss of measurable hysteresis or a transport threshold need not locate the destruction of superconductivity. Report the criterion, time scale and field history rather than silently equating an irreversibility line with $H_{c2}$. Thermally activated creep is one reason different observation times can yield different apparent current limits. [R2](#ref-source-82f53ca35625217d)

A fitted pinning-curve exponent or angular peak does not uniquely identify a defect. Compare microscopy, processing controls and temperature/angle dependence. In the checked YBCO manuscript, the detailed composition of the small second-phase particles is not conclusively established; describing every particle as chemically proven BaZrO3 would overstate the evidence. [R3](#ref-source-51c947cf11bea72e)

## Discovery implications

Separate a better transport path, stronger pinning, a larger superconducting fraction and a higher depairing limit as distinct hypotheses. Compare controlled specimens under matched conditions before assigning an improvement to a microscopic mechanism. A gain in current-carrying performance does not by itself demonstrate higher $T_c$, a new pairing interaction or a new superconducting phase.

Preserve the measured signal, uncertainty and analysis conventions together. If the voltage criterion, geometry or thermal history is unavailable, retain that gap in the record. A useful follow-up is the measurement that discriminates between the competing limits, rather than another unsupported performance ranking. [R5](#ref-source-25347d9dbd8e915f)

## Related topics

Connect to [critical fields](/scwiki/critical-fields), [zero resistance](/scwiki/zero-resistance), [Meissner effect](/scwiki/meissner-effect), [BCS theory](/scwiki/bcs-weak-coupling), and [superconducting gap](/scwiki/superconducting-gap).

## Material cases

No sample-specific material records are included in this article. Model results are not experimental transition temperatures.

## Sources

### Ref source-39e3e980bd8a0271

[R1] Magnetization of Hard Superconductors (1962). [DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.8.250](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.8.250). Publication: journal-article. Check: publisher-metadata-scoped-check. Checked: 2026-10-18. Publisher identity checked. Original full text inaccessible at attempted PDF endpoint. The explicitly ideal slab calculation is a separate local Ampere-law derivation, not a verified transcription of the original paper.
### Ref source-82f53ca35625217d

[R2] Vortices in high-temperature superconductors (1994). [DOI 10.1103/RevModPhys.66.1125](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.66.1125). Publication: journal-article. Check: review-abstract-scoped-check. Checked: 2026-10-18. Publisher abstract distinguishes depinning and depairing currents and discusses thermal fluctuations, pinning and creep. Full review derivations and quantitative phase boundaries were not checked.
### Ref source-51c947cf11bea72e

[R3] Strongly enhanced current densities in superconducting coated conductors of YBa2Cu3O7-x + BaZrO3 (2004). [DOI 10.1038/nmat1156](https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat1156). Publication: journal-article. Check: author-manuscript-scoped-check. Checked: 2026-10-18. Selected pp. 2–4: preparation, transport field orientation, in-field/self-field comparison and particle-composition ambiguity. No electric-field criterion extracted; raw curves and micrographs not independently reproduced.
### Ref source-c1a5f8c50328f68e

[R4] Isotropic round-wire multifilament cuprate superconductor for generation of magnetic fields above 30 T (2014). [DOI 10.1038/nmat3887](https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3887). Publication: journal-article. Check: author-manuscript-and-publisher-metadata-scoped-check. Checked: 2026-10-18. Publisher identifies a primary Article published 9 March 2014. Earlier 2013 author manuscript, selected pp. 3–4, distinguishes superconducting/whole-conductor areas and sample lengths. Not a review; final dataset, criterion and manuscript-to-journal changes not fully checked.
### Ref source-25347d9dbd8e915f

[R5] II-3: Critical current measurement methods: quantitative evaluation (1995). [Source publication](https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=30406). Publication: journal-article. Check: full-text-selected-page-check. Checked: 2026-10-19. NIST-hosted Cryogenics 35 supplement, p. S19: criterion definition, empirical voltage-current power law, Fig. 1 voltage/field criterion, and sensitivity to strain and experimental conditions. Selected first-page pixels read; remaining pages and underlying measurements not reanalyzed.

## Claim evidence and conditions

### scwiki-a7-claim-scope-1

Critical current is a limit defined for a specimen, measurement protocol and operating conditions. Transport measurements use a voltage or electric-field criterion; magnetization measurements infer a current through a model; the depairing current describes loss of stability of a superconducting state within a specified theory. These quantities must not share an unlabeled performance ranking.

Evidence: hypothesis. Sources: source-82f53ca35625217d, source-25347d9dbd8e915f.

Source relationship: mixed-source-and-local-derivation. NIST p. S19 supports operational transport criteria and sensitivity to measurement conditions; Blatter abstract supplies vortex/depinning context. The reporting checklist and refusal to rank incomparable limits are local editorial guidance, not a certified standard or measured result.

Conditions: Editorial reporting/inference guidance; requires a sample-specific source, protocol and uncertainty. No new current or transition-temperature dataset certified.

Verification scope: NIST Goodrich-Srivastava 1995 p. S19 and Blatter publisher abstract, plus explicit local reporting guidance; remaining full texts and sample-specific data not validated.

### scwiki-a7-claim-scope-2

Blatter and colleagues explicitly distinguish depinning and depairing current densities in their review abstract. Pinning, thermal fluctuations and vortex motion affect practical current transport. A measured threshold can instead be limited by weak connections or heating; its mechanism requires evidence beyond the value of the current itself.

Evidence: theory. Sources: source-82f53ca35625217d.

Conditions: Qualitative vortex/pinning interpretation; not a fitted universal Jc or critical-field boundary.

Verification scope: Pinned chapter plus Blatter publisher abstract; full review remains unchecked.

### scwiki-a7-claim-mathematical-assumptions-1

For voltage taps separated by length $L$, define the mean longitudinal electric-field criterion $E_c=V_c/L$. Using the same measured $I_c$, distinguish the nominal superconducting cross-section $A_s$ from the entire conductor area $A_t$:

Evidence: theory. Sources: source-25347d9dbd8e915f.

Source relationship: mixed-source-and-local-derivation. NIST p. S19 defines transport criteria and an empirical V-I power law. Conversion to a mean electric field, area conventions and the criterion-ratio example are local algebra with fixed geometry and positive constant exponent; no measured material exponent is assigned.

Conditions: Definitions and local illustrative models: stated area convention, constant positive n power law, vector Lorentz force; slab uses full loop width, half-thickness, field parallel to faces, full penetration, constant Jc, no creep/demagnetization/reversible background.

Verification scope: Independent local algebra, SI dimensional checks and numerical profile integration; not a full-text check of Bean 1962 or a fit to material data.

### scwiki-a7-claim-mathematical-assumptions-2

$$J_c=\frac{I_c}{A_s},\qquad J_e=\frac{I_c}{A_t}=fJ_c,\qquad f=\frac{A_s}{A_t}.$$

Evidence: theory. Sources: source-39e3e980bd8a0271.

Source relationship: context-for-local-derivation. The stated algebra, vector force and ideal slab model are local derivations under explicit assumptions. Bean is historical context only; original full-text support was not verified.

Conditions: Definitions and local illustrative models: stated area convention, constant positive n power law, vector Lorentz force; slab uses full loop width, half-thickness, field parallel to faces, full penetration, constant Jc, no creep/demagnetization/reversible background.

Verification scope: Independent local algebra, SI dimensional checks and numerical profile integration; not a full-text check of Bean 1962 or a fit to material data.

### scwiki-a7-claim-mathematical-assumptions-3

Here $J_e$ is an engineering current density for the stated whole-conductor area. Nominal superconducting area does not resolve nonuniform current paths or pores. A different definition of non-copper area, filament area or cable area requires a different label. These identities compare area conventions; they do not correct a damaged conductor or infer intrinsic microscopic current density.

Evidence: theory. Sources: source-39e3e980bd8a0271.

Source relationship: context-for-local-derivation. The stated algebra, vector force and ideal slab model are local derivations under explicit assumptions. Bean is historical context only; original full-text support was not verified.

Conditions: Definitions and local illustrative models: stated area convention, constant positive n power law, vector Lorentz force; slab uses full loop width, half-thickness, field parallel to faces, full penetration, constant Jc, no creep/demagnetization/reversible background.

Verification scope: Independent local algebra, SI dimensional checks and numerical profile integration; not a full-text check of Bean 1962 or a fit to material data.

### scwiki-a7-claim-mathematical-assumptions-4

A simple sensitivity calculation illustrates why the criterion matters. If a measured interval is modeled by $E=E_0(J/J_0)^n$ with positive constant $n$, changing the criterion by a factor $r$ changes the inferred current by $r^{1/n}$. For $n=20$, a tenfold criterion change gives a factor of about 1.122. This is an illustrative power-law calculation, not a measured exponent or a universal transport law.

Evidence: theory. Sources: source-25347d9dbd8e915f.

Source relationship: mixed-source-and-local-derivation. NIST p. S19 defines transport criteria and an empirical V-I power law. Conversion to a mean electric field, area conventions and the criterion-ratio example are local algebra with fixed geometry and positive constant exponent; no measured material exponent is assigned.

Conditions: Definitions and local illustrative models: stated area convention, constant positive n power law, vector Lorentz force; slab uses full loop width, half-thickness, field parallel to faces, full penetration, constant Jc, no creep/demagnetization/reversible background.

Verification scope: Independent local algebra, SI dimensional checks and numerical profile integration; not a full-text check of Bean 1962 or a fit to material data.

### scwiki-a7-claim-mathematical-assumptions-5

The magnetic force density is the vector product $\mathbf F=\mathbf J\times\mathbf B$. For current perpendicular to the induction, its magnitude at the threshold becomes $F_p=J_cB$ if a static pinning-force balance is the applicable model. In SI units this is N/m³; resistive heating instead has power density $\mathbf E\cdot\mathbf J$ in W/m³. A parallel configuration has no force from this cross product. Replacing $B$ by $\mu_0H$ requires an additional approximation, especially near self-field conditions.

Evidence: theory. Sources: source-39e3e980bd8a0271.

Source relationship: context-for-local-derivation. The stated algebra, vector force and ideal slab model are local derivations under explicit assumptions. Bean is historical context only; original full-text support was not verified.

Conditions: Definitions and local illustrative models: stated area convention, constant positive n power law, vector Lorentz force; slab uses full loop width, half-thickness, field parallel to faces, full penetration, constant Jc, no creep/demagnetization/reversible background.

Verification scope: Independent local algebra, SI dimensional checks and numerical profile integration; not a full-text check of Bean 1962 or a fit to material data.

### scwiki-a7-claim-mathematical-assumptions-6

For an explicit geometry check, take an infinite slab of full thickness $2a$, field parallel to its faces, constant $J_c$ and fully developed opposite critical-state branches. Neglect demagnetization, reversible magnetization and creep. Ampere's law gives $|dB/dx|=\mu_0J_c$. With $x$ measured across the thickness, the ideal branch profiles are $B_\pm(x)=\mu_0[H_a\pm J_c(a-|x|)]$. Their spatial averages give

Evidence: theory. Sources: source-39e3e980bd8a0271.

Source relationship: context-for-local-derivation. The stated algebra, vector force and ideal slab model are local derivations under explicit assumptions. Bean is historical context only; original full-text support was not verified.

Conditions: Definitions and local illustrative models: stated area convention, constant positive n power law, vector Lorentz force; slab uses full loop width, half-thickness, field parallel to faces, full penetration, constant Jc, no creep/demagnetization/reversible background.

Verification scope: Independent local algebra, SI dimensional checks and numerical profile integration; not a full-text check of Bean 1962 or a fit to material data.

### scwiki-a7-claim-mathematical-assumptions-7

$$M_\pm=\pm\frac{J_ca}{2},\qquad \Delta M=M_+-M_-=J_ca,\qquad J_c=\frac{\Delta M}{a}.$$

Evidence: theory. Sources: source-39e3e980bd8a0271.

Source relationship: context-for-local-derivation. The stated algebra, vector force and ideal slab model are local derivations under explicit assumptions. Bean is historical context only; original full-text support was not verified.

Conditions: Definitions and local illustrative models: stated area convention, constant positive n power law, vector Lorentz force; slab uses full loop width, half-thickness, field parallel to faces, full penetration, constant Jc, no creep/demagnetization/reversible background.

Verification scope: Independent local algebra, SI dimensional checks and numerical profile integration; not a full-text check of Bean 1962 or a fit to material data.

### scwiki-a7-claim-mathematical-assumptions-8

$\Delta M$ is the full vertical loop width in A/m; $a$ is the half-thickness in metres. Numerically integrating these stated profiles verifies the factor and dimensions. This is a local derivation under ideal assumptions, not a reanalysis of Bean's original data. Bean's 1962 paper is the historical source; its full text was not available in this check. Do not transfer this slab expression to arbitrary films, cylinders, partial penetration or field-dependent $J_c$.

Evidence: theory. Sources: source-39e3e980bd8a0271.

Source relationship: context-for-local-derivation. The stated algebra, vector force and ideal slab model are local derivations under explicit assumptions. Bean is historical context only; original full-text support was not verified.

Conditions: Definitions and local illustrative models: stated area convention, constant positive n power law, vector Lorentz force; slab uses full loop width, half-thickness, field parallel to faces, full penetration, constant Jc, no creep/demagnetization/reversible background.

Verification scope: Independent local algebra, SI dimensional checks and numerical profile integration; not a full-text check of Bean 1962 or a fit to material data.

### scwiki-a7-claim-experimental-criteria-1

Keep enough information to reconstruct both the measured threshold and the conversion to a current density. The following is an editorial reporting guide, not a table of certified material records.

Evidence: hypothesis. Sources: source-82f53ca35625217d, source-25347d9dbd8e915f.

Source relationship: mixed-source-and-local-derivation. NIST p. S19 supports operational transport criteria and sensitivity to measurement conditions; Blatter abstract supplies vortex/depinning context. The reporting checklist and refusal to rank incomparable limits are local editorial guidance, not a certified standard or measured result.

Conditions: Editorial reporting/inference guidance; requires a sample-specific source, protocol and uncertainty. No new current or transition-temperature dataset certified.

Verification scope: NIST Goodrich-Srivastava 1995 p. S19 and Blatter publisher abstract, plus explicit local reporting guidance; remaining full texts and sample-specific data not validated.

### scwiki-a7-claim-experimental-criteria-2

| Measurement | Record with the result | Interpretation boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Transport | Temperature, field magnitude and orientation, voltage-tap spacing, electric-field criterion, current ramp or pulse duration, duty cycle, area convention | Contact heating, current sharing and voltage offsets can change the inferred threshold |
| Magnetization | Magnetic moment, volume, dimensions, field history, sweep rate, elapsed time and background subtraction | Conversion to current requires a geometry and critical-state model |
| Conductor or cable | Superconducting fraction, whole-conductor area, length, strain and thermal stabilization | Layer current density and engineering current density answer different questions |
| Depairing model | Model, temperature regime, geometry and stability assumptions | A calculated instability is not automatically the measured transport limit |

Evidence: hypothesis. Sources: source-82f53ca35625217d, source-25347d9dbd8e915f.

Source relationship: mixed-source-and-local-derivation. NIST p. S19 supports operational transport criteria and sensitivity to measurement conditions; Blatter abstract supplies vortex/depinning context. The reporting checklist and refusal to rank incomparable limits are local editorial guidance, not a certified standard or measured result.

Conditions: Editorial reporting/inference guidance; requires a sample-specific source, protocol and uncertainty. No new current or transition-temperature dataset certified.

Verification scope: NIST Goodrich-Srivastava 1995 p. S19 and Blatter publisher abstract, plus explicit local reporting guidance; remaining full texts and sample-specific data not validated.

### scwiki-a7-claim-experimental-criteria-3

MacManus-Driscoll and colleagues studied YBCO films grown with BaZrO3 added to the target. Their selected manuscript passages report improved in-field transport at 75.5 K, despite lower transition temperature or self-field current in some samples. The rotated field remained perpendicular to current. This comparison illustrates distinct performance measures, not proof of a different pairing mechanism. No electric-field criterion was extracted here, so no numerical current record is tabulated.

Evidence: experiment. Sources: source-51c947cf11bea72e.

Conditions: Selected author-manuscript passages only; retain sample, orientation, area and version limits. No complete numerical performance record or independent experimental reproduction.

Verification scope: nmat1156 author manuscript pp. 2–4; nmat3887 earlier manuscript pp. 3–4 and publisher article identity, as applicable.

### scwiki-a7-claim-experimental-criteria-4

Larbalestier and colleagues' 2014 paper is a primary Bi-2212 round-wire study, not a general engineering review. Its earlier author manuscript distinguishes whole-conductor $J_e$ from superconducting-area $J_c$ and compares short specimens with a demonstration coil. This entry uses that distinction without importing a cross-family ranking; the final published dataset and all measurement criteria were not independently re-extracted.

Evidence: experiment. Sources: source-c1a5f8c50328f68e.

Conditions: Selected author-manuscript passages only; retain sample, orientation, area and version limits. No complete numerical performance record or independent experimental reproduction.

Verification scope: nmat1156 author manuscript pp. 2–4; nmat3887 earlier manuscript pp. 3–4 and publisher article identity, as applicable.

### scwiki-a7-claim-limits-and-disputes-1

An irreversible magnetic response and the upper critical field are different observables. A loss of measurable hysteresis or a transport threshold need not locate the destruction of superconductivity. Report the criterion, time scale and field history rather than silently equating an irreversibility line with $H_{c2}$. Thermally activated creep is one reason different observation times can yield different apparent current limits.

Evidence: theory. Sources: source-82f53ca35625217d.

Conditions: Qualitative vortex/pinning interpretation; not a fitted universal Jc or critical-field boundary.

Verification scope: Pinned chapter plus Blatter publisher abstract; full review remains unchecked.

### scwiki-a7-claim-limits-and-disputes-2

A fitted pinning-curve exponent or angular peak does not uniquely identify a defect. Compare microscopy, processing controls and temperature/angle dependence. In the checked YBCO manuscript, the detailed composition of the small second-phase particles is not conclusively established; describing every particle as chemically proven BaZrO3 would overstate the evidence.

Evidence: experiment. Sources: source-51c947cf11bea72e.

Conditions: Selected author-manuscript passages only; retain sample, orientation, area and version limits. No complete numerical performance record or independent experimental reproduction.

Verification scope: nmat1156 author manuscript pp. 2–4; nmat3887 earlier manuscript pp. 3–4 and publisher article identity, as applicable.

### scwiki-a7-claim-discovery-implications-1

Separate a better transport path, stronger pinning, a larger superconducting fraction and a higher depairing limit as distinct hypotheses. Compare controlled specimens under matched conditions before assigning an improvement to a microscopic mechanism. A gain in current-carrying performance does not by itself demonstrate higher $T_c$, a new pairing interaction or a new superconducting phase.

Evidence: hypothesis. Sources: source-82f53ca35625217d.

Conditions: Editorial reporting/inference guidance; requires a sample-specific source, protocol and uncertainty. No new current or transition-temperature dataset certified.

Verification scope: Pinned chapter edited with explicitly limited reference checks.

### scwiki-a7-claim-discovery-implications-2

Preserve the measured signal, uncertainty and analysis conventions together. If the voltage criterion, geometry or thermal history is unavailable, retain that gap in the record. A useful follow-up is the measurement that discriminates between the competing limits, rather than another unsupported performance ranking.

Evidence: hypothesis. Sources: source-82f53ca35625217d, source-25347d9dbd8e915f.

Source relationship: mixed-source-and-local-derivation. NIST p. S19 supports operational transport criteria and sensitivity to measurement conditions; Blatter abstract supplies vortex/depinning context. The reporting checklist and refusal to rank incomparable limits are local editorial guidance, not a certified standard or measured result.

Conditions: Editorial reporting/inference guidance; requires a sample-specific source, protocol and uncertainty. No new current or transition-temperature dataset certified.

Verification scope: NIST Goodrich-Srivastava 1995 p. S19 and Blatter publisher abstract, plus explicit local reporting guidance; remaining full texts and sample-specific data not validated.

## Revision and review

Article ID: scwiki-a7. Revision: c5bc330ef247c18130fa. Updated: 2026-10-19.

Review scope: Edited pinned A7 chapter, selected engineering author-manuscript passages, publisher identities and vortex-review abstract; independent conditional current/force/slab calculations. NIST-hosted Goodrich-Srivastava 1995 p. S19 checked for operational criteria and measurement-condition dependence.

- Selected source checks are not full scientific acceptance or independent experimental replication.
- Bean original full text was inaccessible; the slab formula is a separately derived ideal model. Blatter is abstract-scoped.
- Engineering sources are checked at stated manuscript passages; no complete electric-field criterion or final numerical performance dataset was re-extracted.
- No cross-family current ranking, experimental Tc record or universal depairing value is inferred.
- NIST source is a selected-page check of a measurement-methods paper, not validation of every reporting recommendation or material current record.

Source: [A_phenomenology/A7_critical_current.md](https://github.com/JackZH26/jzis-superconductivity/blob/0a7c9d6696804ec26aa12f8eed68b55c9b3c0fcf/A_phenomenology/A7_critical_current.md), commit 0a7c9d6696804ec26aa12f8eed68b55c9b3c0fcf, SHA-256 cddae9252ba1d88a829fbec70ef330b7ccd1b837a61692e8d5c64c82942a833d.