Reply to “Comment on ‘Muon-spin-rotation study of the superconducting properties of Mo3Sb7’ ”

Abstract

Khasanov et al. [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. B82, 016501 (2010)] have published a Comment aiming to show that our analysis with the assumption of two superconducting energy gaps in Mo3Sb7 [Tran et al., Phys. Rev. B 78, 172505 (2008); Acta Mater. 56, 5694 (2008)] cannot be justified. Further, they have shown that our heat-capacity data can be accounted for using a single isotropic gap with a small amount of impurity but failed to mention the quantitative amount of the impurity. In this Reply, we address the key issues raised by Khasanov et al. in their Comment and show again with our analysis that our μSR data fit better with two energy gaps. Furthermore, our reanalysis of the heat-capacity data based on a single gap with the impurity term reveals that one needs 7.3% of the impurity to account for the low-temperature heat capacity, which is very high and has not been seen in our x-ray diffraction or electron probe micro-analyzer studies. We also discuss the point on the London model raised by Khasanov et al. Further, we present some experimental evidence that supports the two-gap model over the one-gap model.

Source-reported materials — not catalogue approval

Similar papers