Tunneling conductance of graphene NIS junctions
Subhro Bhattacharjee, K. Sengupta
arXiv:cond-mat/0607489 · 2006-07-19
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 show that in contrast to conventional normal metal-insulator-superconductor (NIS) junctions, the tunneling conductance of a NIS junction in graphene is an oscillatory function of the effective barrier strength of the insulating region, in the limit of a thin barrier. The amplitude of these oscillations are maximum for aligned Fermi surfaces of the normal and superconducting regions and vanishes for large Fermi surface mismatch. The zero-bias tunneling conductance, in sharp contrast to its counterpart in conventional NIS junctions, becomes maximum for a finite barrier strength. We also suggest experiments to test these predictions.
Similar papers
Theory of tunneling conductance of graphene NIS junctions
similarity 0.91Subhro Bhattacharjee et al. · 2007 · arXiv:0704.2760
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Magnetically modulated superconductor-graphene-superconductor (SGS) Josephson junctions and their tunability
similarity 0.90Partha Sarathi Banerjee et al. · 2024 · arXiv:2408.09925
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Josephson effect in graphene SBS junctions
similarity 0.89Moitri Maiti & K. Sengupta · 2006 · arXiv:cond-mat/0611614
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Andreev-Klein reflection in graphene ferromagnet-superconductor junctions
similarity 0.89Malek Zareyan et al. · 2008 · arXiv:0804.2774
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Effect of Andreev Processes on the Goos-Hänchen (GH) shift in the Graphene-Superconductor-Graphene (GSG) junctions
similarity 0.89Shahrukh Salim et al. · 2023 · arXiv:2311.02403
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Andreev reflection in ballistic normal metal/graphene/superconductor junctions
similarity 0.89P. Pandey et al. · 2019 · arXiv:1907.13581
Source status unknown — claims are unverified