Comment on "Precision global measurements of London penetration depth in FeTe$_{0.58}$Se$_{0.42}$"
T. Klein, P. Rodiere, C. Marcenat
arXiv:1205.2566 · DOI 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.066501 · 2012-05-11 · Physical Review B
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
Cho et al. [Phys. Rev. B, 84, 174502 (2011)] have reported on the temperature dependence of the London penetration depth deduced from Tunnel Diode Oscillator (TDO) measurements in optimally doped Fe(Se,Te) single crystals. According to their analysis, these measurements chould suggest a nodeless two-gap pairing symmetry with strong pair breaking effects. However, to reach this conclusion, the authors fit the temperature dependence of the superfluid density with a two band {\it clean} limit model which is incompatible with the presence of strong pair breaking effects, deduced from the $T^n$ temperature dependence of the London penetration depth below $T_c/3$. Moreover they claim that their results are also ruling out the suggestion that surface conditions can significantly affect the TDO data but this conclusion is based on one very specific damaging process, and is completely ignoring the large dispersion in the previously published TDO data.
Source-reported materials — not catalogue approval
| Formula | Reported Tc (K) | Pressure (GPa) | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| FeTe0.58Se0.42 Archive — disputed claim Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | — | Pressure not reported | — |
| FeTe0.58Se0.42 Archive — disputed claim Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | — | Pressure not reported | — |
| FeTe0.58Se0.42 Archive — disputed claim Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | — | Pressure not reported | — |
| FeTe0.58Se0.42 Archive — disputed claim Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | — | Pressure not reported | — |
| KFe2As2 Archive — visibility unverified Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | — | Pressure not reported | — |
| Ba(FexNi1-x)2As2 Archive — visibility unverified Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | — | Pressure not reported | — |
| Ba(Fe,Co)2As2 Archive — visibility unverified Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | — | Pressure not reported | — |
Similar papers
London penetration depth and superfluid density in single crystals of Fe(Te,Se) and Fe(Te,S) superconductors
similarity 0.90H. Kim et al. · 2010 · arXiv:1001.2042
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
How robust the global measurements of London penetration depth are: the case of Fe(Te,Se)
similarity 0.89K. Cho et al. · 2011 · arXiv:1107.0711
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Possible nodal superconducting gap in Fe(TeSe) single crystals from ultra-low temperature penetration depth measurements
similarity 0.88Andrei Diaconu et al. · 2013 · arXiv:1306.0977
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Anomalous Temperature Dependence of the Superfluid Density Caused by Dirty-to-Clean Crossover in FeSeTe Single Crystals
similarity 0.88Hideyuki Takahashi et al. · 2011 · arXiv:1106.1485
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Temperature dependence of lower critical field Hc1(T) shows nodeless superconductivity in FeSe
similarity 0.88M. Abdel-Hafiez et al. · 2014 · arXiv:1409.0614
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Thermodynamic phase diagram of Fe(SeTe) single crystals up to 28 Tesla
similarity 0.88T. Klein et al. · 2010 · arXiv:1010.0493
Source status unknown — claims are unverified