On the coupling of magnetic moments to superconducting quantum interference devices
J. Linek, M. Wyszynski, B. Müller, D. Korinski, M. V. Milošević, R. Kleiner, D. Koelle
arXiv:2307.05724 · DOI 10.1088/1361-6668/ad1ae9 · 2023-07-11 · Superconductor Science and Technology
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 investigate the coupling factor $φ_μ$ that quantifies the magnetic flux $Φ$ per magnetic moment $μ$ of a point-like magnetic dipole that couples to a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID). Representing the dipole by a current-carrying loop, the reciprocity of mutual inductances of SQUID and loop provides a way of calculating $φ_μ(\vec{r}, \vec{e}_μ)$ vs.~position $\vec{r}$ and orientation $\vec{e}_μ$ of the dipole anywhere in space from the magnetic field $B(\vec{r})$ produced by a supercurrent circulating in the SQUID loop. We use numerical simulations based on London and Ginzburg-Landau theory to calculate $φ_μ$ from the supercurrent density distributions in various SQUID geometries. We treat the far-field regime ($r\gtrsim a=$ inner size of the SQUID loop) with the dipole placed on the symmetry axis of circular or square shaped loops. We compare expressions for $φ_μ$ from filamentary loop models with simulation results for loops with finite width $w$ (outer size $A>a$), thickness $d$ and London penetration depth $λ_L$ and show that for thin ($d\ll a$) and narrow ($w < a$) loops the introduction of an effective loop size $a_{\rm eff}$ in the filamentary loop-model expressions results in agreement with simulations. For a dipole placed in the center of the loop, simulations provide an expression $φ_μ(a,A,d,λ_L)$ that covers a wide parameter range. In the near-field regime (dipole centered at small distance $z$ above one SQUID arm) only coupling to a single strip representing the SQUID arm has to be considered. Here, we compare simulations with an analytical expression derived for a homogeneous current density distribution, which yields excellent agreement for $λ_L>w,d$. Moreover, we analyze $φ_μ$ provided by the introduction of a constriction in the SQUID arm below the magnetic dipole.
Similar papers
NanoSQUID magnetometry of individual cobalt nanoparticles grown by focused electron beam induced deposition
similarity 0.88Martínez-Pérez, M. J. et al. · 2016 · arXiv:1610.09150
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Nanoscale multifunctional sensor formed by a Ni nanotube and a scanning Nb nanoSQUID
similarity 0.88J. Nagel et al. · 2013 · arXiv:1305.1195
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Spatial resolution and point spread function of high-resolution scanning SQUID microscopy probes
similarity 0.88Jan Ullmann et al. · 2026 · arXiv:2607.17414
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Optimizing the spin sensitivity of grain boundary junction nanoSQUIDs -- towards detection of small spin systems with single-spin resolution
similarity 0.87Roman Wölbing et al. · 2013 · arXiv:1301.1189
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Superconducting strip in an oblique magnetic field
similarity 0.87G. P. Mikitik et al. · 2004 · arXiv:cond-mat/0407671
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Numerical analysis of detection-mechanism models of SNSPD
similarity 0.86Andreas Engel & Andreas Schilling · 2013 · arXiv:1308.5781
Source status unknown — claims are unverified