On estimating superconducting shielding volume fraction from susceptibility in pressurized Ruddlesden-Popper nickelates: Response to arXiv:2602.19282
Yinghao Zhu, Di Peng, Enkang Zhang, Bingying Pan, Xu Chen, Zhenfang Xing, Cuiying Pei, Feiyu Li, Yanpeng Qi, Junjie Zhang, Qiaoshi Zeng, Jian-gang Guo, Jun Zhao
arXiv:2603.01062 · 2026-03-01
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
In a recent preprint (arXiv:2602.19282) [1], the authors questioned the procedure we used to evaluate the demagnetization-corrected superconducting shielding volume fraction in pressurized Ruddlesden-Popper nickelates [2-5]. They further claimed that this methodology has neither been derived nor used previously, and they proposed an alternative normalization scheme. Here we clarify that our evaluation follows directly from the standard magnetostatic self-consistency relation for finite samples and has been widely adopted in the superconductivity literature for decades. We also demonstrate that the discrepancies claimed in Ref. [1] stem from a fundamental flaw in their approach, namely, the assumption that the measured diamagnetic moment is linearly proportional to the superconducting shielding volume fraction in the presence of a finite demagnetization factor N. This assumption is not valid for strongly demagnetized, thin disk-like specimens, where the internal field and the measured moment are coupled self-consistently through the demagnetizing field.
Similar papers
Superconductivity in the Nb-Ru-Ge -Phase
similarity 0.82Elizabeth M. Carnicom et al. · 2017 · arXiv:1710.03347
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Transverse magnetization and torque in asymmetrical mesoscopic superconductors
similarity 0.81Antonio R. de C. Romaguera et al. · 2007 · arXiv:0712.4078
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Effective Demagnetization Factors of Diamagnetic Samples of Various Shapes
similarity 0.80R. Prozorov & V. G. Kogan · 2017 · arXiv:1712.06037
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Absolute cross-section normalization of magnetic neutron scattering data
similarity 0.80Guangyong Xu et al. · 2013 · arXiv:1305.5521
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Meissner-London susceptibility of superconducting right circular cylinders in an axial magnetic field
similarity 0.80Ruslan Prozorov · 2021 · arXiv:2105.00998
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Fluctuation-Induced Magnetoelectric Effect in Noncentrosymmetric Superconductors
similarity 0.79Jaglul Hasan et al. · 2026 · arXiv:2606.26261
Source status unknown — claims are unverified