100

200

500

1000

2 5 10 20

#1-2140

B||c

Magnetic Field (T)

Crit

ica

l cu

rre

nt

(A

/12

mm

)The same on log-log scale sample M3-609-1-MS norm to 12mm, thickness 2.15 um

sample M3-594-1-MS norm to 12 mm thickness 1.5 um

For starters c axis vs BWe have a lot of this, here there is Selva’s sample compared to old BZO SP and no BZO Sp

0

500

1000

1500

0 30 60 90

SP 25 1 T3 T5 T10 T14.5 T

FWHM @ 14.5 T approx 17 deg

deg

norm

alize

d to

4 m

m w

idth

very new 100 m Cu w=0.85 mmSP27 (former 25)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

-30 0 30 60 90

SP20 1 TSP20 5 TSP20 10 TSP20 15 TSP20 20 TSP20 25 TSP20 30 T

Ic (A

/4mm

-wid

th)

SP 20 w=1.05

0

500

1000

1500

0 30 60 90

1 T 687-24 T5 T10 T15 T20 T25 T30 T

angle (deg)

Ic (

A/4

mm

-wid

th)

M3-687-2 MS BZO w=1.01 mm

SP20

0

500

1000

1500

-30 0 30 60 90 120

3 T5 T10 T FWHM 22 deg15 T FWHM 19.5 deg20 T FWHM 14 deg25 T

deg

Ic (A

/4 m

m w

idth

)

SP26

0

500

1000

1500

0 30 60 90

T=4.2 K

609-1MS

15/20/25/30 T

10 T5 T

3 T

1 T

(deg)

0

500

1000

1500

0 30 60 90

T = 4.2 K

513-FS

10 T5 T

1 T

15/20/25/30 T

(deg)

I c(A/4

mm

wid

th)

In contrast to 77 K , at T =4.2 K different YBCO CC have similar Jc(, B)No c-axis maximumCusp-like ab maximum

Narrow channel to reduce current below 500 A

ab ab

For the above angular, maybe:

1 show that these with BZO wider

That exp fits for high fields

That GL fits for low fields-we have 1 T sometimesIf what Alex said is true, anizotropy for 1 T for NO BZO should be lower than for BZOI did not checked yet…

And maybe something about scaling, like starting from 1 T and vs B calculate how it departs from GLFor higher fields

50

100

200

500

1000

0 30 60 90

909 Y #2 FWHM= 16 deg892 Y #1 FWHM=20 deg921-2c #8 Y FWHM= 15 deg915 Zr #5 FWHM =23 deg923-2c-4 Zr #10 FWHM=23 deg923-1c #9 Zr FWHM=25 deg

open Zr doped

full Y-doped

B = 12 T T=4.2 K

deg

Ic (

A/c

m)

Same data, vertical scale logIt seems that Zr samples have wider maxima than Y dopedFWHM shown in the legend are larger for Zr doped, indeed

I very like this, but this is MetOx

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150

SP 07687-2-MS674 FSSP20SP19SP-01 (STDA) 515-FSBZO 594-BSSP-02 STDB 513-FSSP-04 STD D 549-BSasc3 515-FSSP-18 (STD12) 522 FS#2 asc 513-MSasc1 501-MS (501 FS=SP17)

SP07

SP19 SP20

687 MS

674 FS

slope 1.8

slope 1.2

#1 501-MS

SP01 (unwound from coil)

#2 5

13 M

S

SP 18

#3 515 FS

SP06

BZO BS

SP02

SP04

Ic 77 K SF

I c 4.2

K 1

4 T

Is it good for paper?Would SP be happy?

(there is a better version

Magneto-optical visualization reveals defects RESULTS

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150

SP 25SP 07687-2-MS674 FSSP20SP19SP-01 (STDA) 515-FSBZO 594-BSSP-02 STDB 513-FSSP-04 STD D 549-BSasc3 515-FSSP-18 (STD12) 522 FS#2 asc 513-MSasc1 501-MS (501 FS=SP17)

SP 25

522-MS

646-2FS 612-19BS

687 MS

674 FSslope 1.8

slope 1.2

501-MS

515-FS (unwound from coil)

513 M

S

522-FS

515 FS

609-1MS

594-BS

513-FS

549-BS

Ic 77 K SF

I c 4.2 K

14 T

How macroscopic defects in substrate, coating copper etc etc influence growth, performance? Is there any correlation?

All perfect

defects

bad

perfect

100

200

500

1000

1 2 5 10 2030

M3-687-2-MS t=0.94 mBZO doped

100

200

500

1000

1 2 5 10 2030

M3-612-19-BS (SP 20) 100

200

500

1000

1 2 5 10 2030

M3-609-MS (SP06)

50

100

200

500

1000

1 2 5 10 2030

M3-513-FS (SP 02)

I c(A

/4

mm

wid

t h)

B (T) B(T) B(T) B(T)

0 deg

6070

80

85

90

0 deg

6070

80

85

90

0 deg

6070

80

85

90

0 deg

60

70

80

85

90

•At 20 deg off plane: upto 200 A at 30 T•BZO doped sample: the highest Ic at 5 deg off

Ic vs. field @ 0/60/70/80/85/90 deg: different tapesMicrosoft Office Excel Worksheet

Figure as this??? SP26 should look better here