Skip to main content

Full text of "Some comments on superconductivity in diborides"

See other formats

Some comments on superconductivity in diborides 

D.Kaczorowski, J.Klamut, A.J.Zaleski 

Institute of Low Temperature and Structure Research, PAS, Wroclaw, Poland 


Short discussion trying to explain, why superconductivity revealed for some 
diborides is not always confirmed in experiments of different research groups. 

The discovery of superconductivity in MgB2 by Nagamatsu et al. awakened supercon- 
ductivity community who waited till satisfactory theory of high temperature superconduc- 
tivity will be developed. Although it looks impossible, the phenomenon was discovered in 
very simple, two-component compound and its critical temperature was surprisingly high. 
The activities during the first month after the presentation of the results by Akimitsu |T[ 
was the proof how well we are prepared for the study of new superconducting materials. 

But MgB 2 is only a member of a rich family of diborides. So also the other members 
of this family (Li, Be, Al, Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo) became the subject of intensive 
studies of different groups. 

Already in 1970 superconductivity was discovered by Cooper et al. |J in NbB2 with 
critical temperature equal to T c = 3.87 K and in Zro.13Moo.s7B2 with T c above 11 K. 

Systematic study of diborides was conducted by Leyarovska et al. [|J. They looked for 
superconductivity in these compounds at temperatures down to 0.42 K and showed that only 
NbB 2 was superconducting at T c = 0.62 K. They didn't check MgB 2 . (As an additional 
interesting fact it can be added that they also didn't check the compound UBei3, which 
they had got, but which was beyond the scope of their study. We can only try to imagine 
what would be if superconductivity in heavy fermion UBei3 and MgB 2 had been discovered 
already in 1979...) 


Reexamining of the properties of diborides leaded to interesting results. Some groups of 
researchers found superconductivity for compounds for which other groups found no such 
an effect. 

Kaczorowski et al. || found superconducting transition at T c = 9.5 K for TaB2 and no 
superconductivity for TiB 2 , HfB 2 , VB 2 , NbB 2 or ZrB 2 . Although Felner |J stated that BeB 2 
is not superconducting, according to Young |?j BeB 2 .75 is superconducting with T c pa 
0.7 K. Gasparov et al. [§] found ZrB 2 superconducting with T c = 5.5 K and simultaneously 
they did not confirm superconductivity for TaB 2 and NbB 2 . 

Superconductivity in TaB 2 was discovered in old, well aged material. Although from DC 
magnetization measurements it resulted that practically 100% of volume of the sample was 
superconducting, authors tried to prove that observed diamagnetic signal was not connected 
with some spurious phase. The main candidates for such phases were tantalum (or niobium) 
oxides and carbonates. But even if some of them have their critical temperatures similar to 
that measured in ||, their upper critical fields were much lower than measured TaB 2 being 
equal to H c2 (0) = 2.3 T. The only " impurity- type" explanation could be connected with 
the existence of some amount of tetragonal /3-Ta. , which could form superconducting phase 
with boron. 

It also should be added that hydrogenation of superconducting TaB 2 resulted in rather 
significant hydrogen uptake above 30% and decrease of the amount of superconducting phase 
with the practically unchanged critical temperature ||. This result also suggests that it is 
not tantalum oxide which is superconducting in the sample. It is also needless to say, that 
all tests to find oxygen or carbon using EDAX have failed. 

Attempts to prepare the new material with the same composition i.e. TaB 2 resulted in 
obtaining compound which had transition temperature about 10K, but calculated volume 
of superconducting material was within few percent. Similar result of superconducting 
transition of small percentage of the sample volume of nominal composition TaB 2 was also 
obtained in Dresden |TD[ It was also found that small changes in relative amount of tantalum 

and boron resulted in material possessing quite different magnetic properties (this issue is 

under systematic study now). Just these findings were the reason why the role of sub- and 
superstoichiometric compositions range in diborides was emphasized in ||. 

Recently this preassumption was supported by the paper by Young et al. 0] where 
superconductivity was obtained in the material with meaningful excess of boron. 



[1] J.Akimitsu, Symposium on Transition metal Oxides, Sendai, January 10, 2001 

[2] J.Nagamatsu, N.Nakagawa, T.Muramaka, Y.Zenitani, J.Akimitsu, Nature 410, 63 

[3] A.S.Cooper, E.Corenzerst, L.D.Longinotti, B.T.Matthias, W.H.Zachariasen, 
Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci. 67, 313 (1970) 

[4] L.Leyarovska, E.Leyarovski, J. Less-Common Metals, 67, 249 (1979) 

[5] D.Kaczorowski, A.J.Zaleski, O.J.Zogal, J.Klamut, condmat/0103571 (2001) 

[6] I.Felner, |cond-mat/0102508| (2001) 

[7] D.P.Young, P.W.Adams, J.Y.Chan, F.R.Fronczek, |cond-mat/0104063| (2001) 

[8] V.A.Gasparov, N.S.Sidorov, I.Izver'kova, M.P.Kulakov, |cond-mat/0l04323| (2001) 

[9] A.J.Zaleski, W.Iwasieczko, M.Tkacz, D.Kaczorowski, H.Drulis, O.J.Zogal, J.Klamut 
to be published 

[10] K.Nenkov - private communication