← Back to search

Collective motion of Josephson vortices in intrinsic Josephson junctions in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+y

G. Hechtfischer, R. Kleiner, K. Schlenga, W. Walkenhorst, P. Müller, H. L. Johnson

DOI 10.1103/PhysRevB.55.14638 · Physical Review B

T1

Active bibliographic source — not scientific approval

Bibliographic access preserves source history; it does not approve extracted materials or validate reported claims. Review warnings on each occurrence separately.

Abstract

We report on the experimental observation of moving Josephson vortices in mesa structures patterned on the surface of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+y single crystals. Mesas form stacks of typically 100 intrinsic Josephson junctions. In magnetic fields parallel to the superconducting copper oxide layers, a flux-flow branch develops on the current-voltage (I-V) characteristic. We investigate this branch in magnetic fields H up to 15 kOe for junctions with lateral dimensions ranging from 20×20 μm2 to 500×20 μm2. Investigations show that the voltage of the branch scales with 1/H. For mesas of the same height its slope is inversely proportional to the junction area showing that the flux-flow resistance is independent of the particular junction length. Microwave emission is sensitive to the direction of fluxon motion. This shows that the flux-flow branch in the I-V characteristic is caused by the collective motion of vortices. We compare our data to numerical simulations based on the coupled sine-Gordon equations for strongly coupled, stacked Josephson junctions. We show that the observed branch can be understood as a flux-flow state caused by vortices moving with the lowest collective-mode velocity of the system. The value derived for the Swihart velocity is in good agreement with recent measurements of the c-axis Josephson plasma frequency.

Source-reported materials — not catalogue approval

FormulaReported Tc (K)Pressure (GPa)Type
Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+y

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

86Pressure not reportedunknown

Similar papers