On the estimating the superconducting volume fraction from the internal magnetic susceptibility

TL;DR

This paper critically examines the common assumption that the superconducting volume fraction equals the internal magnetic susceptibility, providing counterexamples and urging a reevaluation of this methodology in superconductivity research.

Contribution

It challenges the widely used postulate relating superconducting volume fraction to internal susceptibility, offering counterexamples and calling for a reassessment of this assumption.

Findings

Counterexample shows $f < 0.10$ while $ig| ext{chi}_{internal} ig| = 0.82$

The postulate $f = | ext{chi}_{internal}|$ is invalid in some cases

Calls for reconsideration of susceptibility-based volume fraction estimation

Abstract

Zhang et al.$^1$ reported zero-field cooled (ZFC) and field cooled (FC) data measured in a highly compressed $Pr_4Ni_3O_{10}$ single crystal. These measurements provide unambiguous confirmation of bulk superconductivity in pressurized Ruddlesden-Popper nickelates. Zhang et al.$^1$ applied an equation (described in Refs.$^{2,3}$) to recalculate ZFC data measured in a $Pr_4Ni_3O_{10}$ (sample S3) in volume fraction $f$ of the superconducting phase in the sample. In result$^1$, $f = 0.85$ was reported for sample S3 at pressure P = 40.2 GPa. The key postulate of the methodology for the calculation of $f$ (see also works$^{4-6}$) is that $f$ is equal to the amplitude of the internal magnetic susceptibility $\vert \chi_{internal} \vert $, or $ f = \vert \chi_{internal} \vert $. Here we argue that this postulate is incorrect and present counterexample where the $Pr_4Ni_3O_{10}$ sample S3 can exhibit $f < 0.10$ and $\vert \chi_{internal} \vert = 0.82 $. In the result, we addressed recent Replies$^{2,3}$ on our Comments$^{7,8}$. Considering that the postulate $ f = \vert \chi_{internal} \vert $ is widely used in superconductivity, we extend our request to reconsider the validity of this postulate in the entire field of superconductivity.