JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICSVOLUME 96, NUMBER 1

1 JULY 2004

Exponentially localized magnetic fields for single-spin quantum logic gates
D. A. Lidar
Chemical Physics Theory Group and Center for Quantum Information and Quantum Control, Chemistry
Department, University of Toronto, 80 Saint George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3H6, Canada

J. H. Thywissena)
McLennan Physical Laboratories, Physics Department, University of Toronto, 60 Saint George Street,Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A7, Canada

共Received 23 February 2004; accepted 1 April 2004兲
An infinite array of parallel current-carrying wires is known, from the field of neutral particle optics,
to produce an exponentially localized magnetic field when the current direction is antiparallel inadjacent wires. We show that a finite array of several tens of superconducting Nb nanowires can
produce a peak magnetic field of 10 mT that decays by a factor of 104 over a length scale of 500
nm. Such an array is readily manufacturable with current technology, and is compatible with both
semiconductor and superconducting quantum computer architectures. A series of such arrays can beused to individually address single single-spin or flux qubits spaced as little as 100 nm apart, and canlead to quantum logic gate times of 5 ns. © 2004 American Institute of Physics.
关DOI: 10.1063/1.1753664兴
I. INTRODUCTION

also possible to avoid using localized magnetic fields by introducing an appropriate encoding.16
Here we revisit the possibility of applying highly localized magnetic fields. We show that a scheme inspired bymagnetic mirrors for cold neutrons,17 and more recently cold
atoms18 –22 is capable of generating a magnetic field that decays exponentially fast over a length scale comparable to thespacing between nanofabricated quantum dots, and has
strength and switching times that are compatible with QC
given available estimates of decoherence times. Our scheme
uses arrays of parallel current-carrying wires, that is readily
implementable with currently available nanotechnology,1,23
and appears well suited for integration with quantum dot
nanofabrication methods, as well as with superconducting
flux qubits and spin-cluster qubits, where the length scales
are larger. Thus we believe that QC with localized magnetic
fields deserves a fresh look.

Among the many and varied proposals for constructing
quantum computers, spintronic solid state devices occupy a
special place because of the prospects of integration with theexisting semiconductor technological infrastructure.1 At thesame time, superconducting devices have taken an early leadin demonstrating the viability of the building blocks of quantum computing 共QC兲 in the solid state, with recent reports ofcontrolled single-qubit operations and entanglement
generation.2
In both the spintronics QC proposals, such as quantum
dots,3– 6 donor spins in Si,7 electrons on helium,8 and thesuperconducting QC proposals,9 the ability to apply highly
localized and inhomogeneous magnetic fields would be adefinite advantage, if it could be done without excessive
technical difficulties. In fact the early proposals suggested
manipulating individual spin qubits using such localized
magnetic fields, e.g., by a scanning-probe tip or by coupling
to an auxiliary ferromagnetic dot,3 but there are significant
speed, controllability, and other difficulties associated withsuch methods. Because of these difficulties, in particular the
spintronics requirement to resolve single spins, many alternatives to the use of localized magnetic fields have been
proposed in spin-based QC. These alternatives typically
avoid the use of magnetic fields altogether: e.g., g-factor engineering combined with all-electrical control,10 optical spin
manipulation,11 or encoding into the states of several
spins.12,13 Other alternatives include gate teleportation,
which requires control lable exchange interactions and certain two-spin measurements,14 and qubits encoded into antiferromagnetic spin clusters, in which case the magnetic fieldneeds to be controlled only over the length scale of the cluster diameter.15 In the context of superconducting qubits it is

II. EXPONENTIALLY LOCALIZED MAGNETIC FIELDFROM AN INFINITE WIRE ARRAYIn order to have a concrete application in mind we shallfrom now on refer to semiconductor quantum dot spinqubits.3– 6 However, our results are equally applicable toother qubits that are manipulated by localized magnetic
fields, such as superconducting flux qubits.9 The first requirement for single-spin magnetic resolution is a magnetic field
profile that decays exponentially fast over length scales comparable with the interspin spacing. We will now show, inclose analogy to results from magnetic mirrors, how to produce such an exponentially localized magnetic field. The basic design is one of an array of parallel current carrying
wires, with the current direction alternating from wire to
wire: see Fig. 1.
We first consider the idealized case of infinitely longwires. In this case the field can be calculated analytically
共see, also, Refs. 17 and 18兲. Let B ␣N be the magnetic field ina兲Electronic mail: joseph.thywissen@utoronto.ca

0021-8979/2004/96(1)/754/5/$22.00

754© 2004 American Institute of Physics

Downloaded 25 Jun 2004 to 128.100.78.50. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright, see http://jap.aip.org/jap/copyright.jsp

J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 96, No. 1, 1 July 2004

D. A. Lidar and J. H. Thywissen

FIG. 1. Schematic depiction of quantum dots 共disks兲 with an array of current carrying wires. Array period is a, current is I and alternates direction as
indicated by arrows. The resulting magnetic field profile is drawn schematically.

the ␣ ⫽x, z direction generated by N infinitely long wires.
We add magnetic field contributions from each wire, to get
the field components from N wire pairs
N⫺1

␮ 0I
B z 共 x,z 兲 ⫽兺 共 ⫺1 兲 n
2 ␲ a n⫽0

⫹

冉

冉 冊
冋冉 冊 册

冉 冊
冋冉 冊 册

1⫹n /2⫺x2

2
1⫹n /2⫹x ⫹z 22冊

冉 冋冉 冊 册冋冉 冊 册 冊

␮ 0I
兺 共 ⫺1 兲 n
2 ␲ a n⫽0

⫺

z

2
1
⫹n /2⫺x ⫹z 2
2

z
,
2
1
⫹n /2⫹x ⫹z 2
2

1

where ␨ k are the poles of f ( ␨ ), yielding

B z⬁ 共 x,y,z 兲 ⫽␮ 0 I 2 cos共 kx 兲 cosh共 kz 兲a cos共 2kx 兲 ⫹cosh共 2kz 兲x⫽0 ␮ I0⫽azⰇa 2 ␮ I
0

sech共 kz 兲 →ae ⫺k 兩 z 兩 .

oscillates with period a in the x-direction: see Fig. 2.

兺j⫽⫺ 共 K⫺1 兲 /2

I j b 共 z⫺z j 兲 .

共4兲Suppose we wish the field to have magnitude c j at positionz j . Formally, we need to solve
B 兵 K 其 共 z j 兲 ⫽c j ,j苸 关 ⫺ 共 K⫺1 兲 /2,共 K⫺1 兲 /2兴 .

共5兲

This is a linear system of K equations in the K unknowns I j ,so it can always be solved in terms of the K positions z j .
E.g., the fields with and without the correction are shown, forK⫽5, in Fig. 3.

k␮ 0 I 2 sin共 kx 兲 sinh共 kz 兲,a cos共 2kx 兲 ⫹cosh共 2kz 兲

共3兲

共 K⫺1 兲 /2

Res共 f , ␨ k 兲 ,兺 共 ⫺1 兲 n f 共 n 兲 ⫽⫺ ␲ 兺n⫽⫺⬁␨ sin ␲␨ k

B ⬁x 共 x,y,z 兲 ⫽B ⬁ ⫽ 兩 B⬁ 兩 ⫽ 冑2 关 cos共 2kx 兲 ⫹cosh共 2kz 兲兴 ⫺1/2

B 兵 K 其共 z 兲 ⫽where I is the current through each wire and k⫽2 ␲ /a is thereciprocal array constant. This sum can be computed analytically in the limit N→⬁ using the residue theorem result⬁

array. The flat top of the sech profile is a useful design feature, since it implies no exponential sensitivity in the rangezⱗa. 6 The field magnitude

For the purposes of QC, we should ideally be able toaddress each spin separately. To this end we propose to center a separate wire array on each quantum dot. Then, as longas the dots are spaced on the order of the lattice constant a,
we have exponentially sensitive addressability of each dot.
The introduction of multiple arrays is useful in another respect: We can adjust the magnitudes and directions of currents in different arrays so as to exactly cancel the field at all
共or only some兲 other dots except the desired one 共or ones兲.
To see this, let b(z)⬅B z⬁ (z)/I⫽ ␮ 0 /a sech kz. The field at
position z from K arrays of wires, with the jth array having
current I j and intersecting the z-axis at position z j 共typicallythe center of one of the dots兲, is,N⫺1

B x 共 x,z 兲 ⫽FIG. 2. The magnetic field magnitude from a infinite array of infinitely longwires 共‘‘doubly infinite’’兲, on a logarithmic scale. Note that the field is flat
between the wires, and decays exponentially in z.

III. MULTIPLE ARRAYS

2

1⫹n /2⫺x ⫹z 2
2

1
⫹n /2⫹x
2

755

共1兲

共2兲

The z-component result shows the basic point: An exponentially localized magnetic field can be generated using a wire

IV. FINITE SIZE EFFECTS

For a finite system (N⬍⬁ wires, finite length and thickness, nondeal shape, etc.兲, we can only expect the above
results to hold to an approximation. Much of the theory ofcorrections to finite size effects has already been worked out
in Refs. 19 and 22, in the context of atomic mirrors. Since
for atomic mirrors the primary concern is specular reflection,
there the focus was on reducing the variation of the fieldmagnitude in the planes parallel to the wire arrays. For us

Downloaded 25 Jun 2004 to 128.100.78.50. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright, see http://jap.aip.org/jap/copyright.jsp

756

J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 96, No. 1, 1 July 2004

D. A. Lidar and J. H. Thywissen

FIG. 3. Magnetic field generated by a single doubly infinite wire array
centered at z⫽0 共solid兲, vs the field generated by K⫽5 such arrays
共dashed兲, with currents chosen to cancel the field at positions z⫽⫾2a,⫾a.

this criterion is unimportant; instead, our focus is on making
the field as localized as possible along the z-axis.
The first important conclusion in the case of a finite
number of wires N is that there is a transition from exponential to quadratic 共i.e., 1/z 2 ) decay.22 The transition takes placeat the inflection point 共zero second derivative兲 of B N (z);however, this is difficult to obtain analytically. To roughly
estimate the transition point we compute where the fieldfrom a single pair of wires, positioned at the edge of an arrayof N wires (y⫽⫾Na/4), generates a field of magnitude
equal to that from an infinite array:

␮ 0I
Na/4
␮ 0 I ⫺2 ␲ z/a
⫽
.
e
2
2
␲ z ⫹ 共 Na/4兲
a

共6兲

Since the transition happens for x/aⰆN we neglect x/a inthe denominator. The solution is then
z t⬇

冉 冊

␲a
␲N
ln
.
20
4

共7兲

Numerical calculations show that Eq. 共7兲 overestimates the
position of the transition point by about a factor of 5; however, after this correction is made, analytics and numerics
agree well across several orders of magnitude of N.
The logarithmic dependence of the transition point on
the number of wires might appear to pose a severe scalability
constraint on our method. However, this is not the case when
we take into account the threshold for fault tolerant quantum
error correction.24 For, it follows from the threshold resultthat we only need to make the ratio of the residual field to thepeak field 共applied to the desired spin兲 to the residual fieldsmaller than, say 10⫺4 . The crucial question thus becomesfor what N this can be achieved, and this brings us to the ideaof ‘‘endcaps.’’
As observed in Refs. 19, 21, and 22, near the center of
the array the magnetic field that would be produced by thesemi-infinite array of ‘‘missing’’ wires is the same 共to firstorder in 4/N) as that of a pair of wires carrying current I cap⫽I/2 and placed with their centers shifted by a/4 from theoutermost wires in the array. Thus, to cancel this field, one
can simply place two ‘‘endcap’’ wires carrying currents ⫾I/2
at these positions. In the context of atomic mirrors this isimportant to improve flatness, and hence specular reflection.
In Ref. 22 it was observed that flatness can be further enhanced by using an odd number of wires.

FIG. 4. Deviation 兩 B⬁ ⫺B30兩 of the field of a finite array 共solid lines兲 fromthe field 兩 B⬁ 兩 of an infinite array 共gray dashed line, shown for comparison兲.
This array has N⫽30 wires 共including two endcap wires兲, such that main
wires are at ⫾a/4,⫾3a/4,...,⫾27a/4, and endcap wires are at ⫾7a, carrying current I cap⫽I/2. Field deviations are plotted for a range of endcap
currents (⫾10⫺3 I cap) and positions (⫾a/100⫽2.5 nm). Note that the residual field never exceeds the threshold of 10⫺4 .

Some of these schemes can be used to improve field
localization, a criterion not considered orginally. For instance, we find that the number of wires can be reduced
drastically—from N⬇104 to as few as N⫽22 wires—when
endcaps are used to achieve a residual field smaller than
10⫺4 . By contrast, using an odd N is disastrous for localization: For example, residual fields appear at the 3% level forN⫽23, even including endcap correction. Higher 共even兲 wire
number increases the robustness of the cancellation against
experimental uncertainty in the current and position of theendcaps: N⫽30 is required to maintain B/ ␮ 0 I⭐10⫺4 for afractional current variation of ⫾10⫺3 and a positional uncertainty of ⫾2.5 nm, as shown in Fig. 4. Finally, we note thatthe corrections arising from the finite length of the wires andthe short, perpendicular connecting wires, can also be compensated for by the use of judiciously placed compensating
wires.22
V. FEASIBILITY AND IMPLEMENTATIONCONSIDERATIONS

We now come to estimates of whether the fields and size
scales required are feasible in practice. Let us first calculate
the magnetic field strength required for single-qubit operations. A spin can be rotated by a relative angle ␾⫽g ␮ B B ␶ /2ប by turning on the field B for a time ␶ 共whereg⬇1 is the g-factor, and ␮ B is the Bohr magneton兲. Recent
estimates of dephasing times are 50 ␮s for electron spins in
GaAs quantum dots 共a calculation, assuming spectral diffusion is dominant兲,25 and a measurement of 60 ms for T 2 ofphosphorus donors in Si.26 If we use the more pessimistic ofthese numbers, and assume a fault tolerance threshold of
10⫺4 for QC,24 we may estimate the desired operation timeas ␶ ⬃10⫺4 ⫻50 ␮ s⫽5 ns for an angle ␾⫽␲/2. Thus the desired field strength is B⫽2ប ␾ /g ␮ B ␶ ⬇7 mT.
To evaluate the feasibility of such a specification, we
consider an array with periodicity a⫽250 nm, wire radiusr⫽50 nm, N⫽32 wires, and length L y ⫽10 ␮ m along they-direction. These dimensions are compatible with the 100
nm length scales of quantum dots.6 In order to reach thedesired field strength of 7 mT, I⫽aB z⬁ / ␮ 0 ⬇1.4 mA would
be required. However, decoherence due to heating with such

Downloaded 25 Jun 2004 to 128.100.78.50. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright, see http://jap.aip.org/jap/copyright.jsp

J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 96, No. 1, 1 July 2004

a current could be a major issue. An upper bound estimate
for the required temperature T can be given by TⰆE Z /k B ,where E Z ⫽g ␮ B B/2 is the Zeeman splitting of the spins in
the applied magnetic field B. In our case, we have constrained B by the gate time ␶, so we can write k B TⰆ ␲ ប/2␶ , or TⰆ2.4 mK for ␶⫽5 ns. This is feasible withdilution refrigeration technology if the heat load is on theorder of 100 pW,27 comparable to the dissipation of quantum
dots.6
For normal metal wires, such a heat load restriction isprohibitive. The power P dissipated is P⫽ j 2 ␳ Aᐉ, where j isthe current density, ᐉ⫽N(2L y ⫹a) is the total wire length,and ␳ is the resistivity. Below 10 K, oxygen-free copper canhave ␳ ⬇3⫻10⫺11 ⍀ m. 28 At P⭐100 pW, I⭐3.6 ␮ A, which
would give ␶⭓2.0 ␮s—nearly a thousand times slower thanour original goal. Although this would be acceptably fast if
the decoherence time were 60 ms, as in Ref. 26, the highpurity ␳ we have used is optimistic for nanofabricated wires,and the heat generated would increase linearly with the number of qubits manipulated.
One can circumvent resistive heating by using superconductors. A wire with radius rⱗ ␰ 0 , where ␰ 0 is the coherence
length, can also avoid heating mechanisms associated withvortex movement through the superconductor. For r⬃␭ orsmaller, where ␭ is the penetration depth, the critical current
density is due to depairing: j c ⫽(2/3) 3/2B c /( ␮ 0 ␭). 29 These
constraints are compatible when ␭ⱗ ␰ 0 , i.e., mostly type I
superconductors. For Nb, B c1 ⫽0.206 T, ␭⫽52 nm, and ␰ 0⫽39 nm, 30 so j c ⫽1.7⫻1012 A/m2 . Note that hightemperature superconductors typically have higher ␭ andthus lower j c . In any case, the critical current density of Nb
is more than is required: A gate time of ␶⫽5 ns would require j⬇0.1j c .
One final note about the devices considered is that theircounter-wound geometry minimizes magnetic field energy:20
the inductance of a single array discussed above is on theorder of 10 ⫺15 H. This is important for ease of fast and independent switching.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND EXTRAPOLATIONS

In conclusion, our results indicate that QC with localized
magnetic fields deserves renewed consideration. We haveshown that a method to produce exponentially decaying
magnetic fields using an array of current-carrying wires,known in the cold neutron and atom optics communities, isadaptable to solid state quantum computer implementations.
Our estimates indicate that in all respects the method is technologically feasible, provided superconducting wires with
sufficiently high critical current density 共such as Nb兲 areused.
Our work is motivated by the quest to perform singlespin or flux-qubit rotations, which is a component of a universal set of quantum logic gates. The geometry shown in
Fig. 1 yields a field that is localized in the z-direction; inorder to perform arbitrary single-qubit rotations we need to
localize the field along another, perpendicular direction. An
independent field vector can be produced by a second set ofinterleaved arrays placed at 45° with respect to the original

D. A. Lidar and J. H. Thywissen757

arrays, with current flowing along 共z⫹y兲/&. With a judicious
array placement and na⫽d/ 冑2, for qubit spacing d and any
integer n, the field direction will be along x at all qubits 共thisdesign will need to be optimized similarly to our considerations above—an issue we do not intend to address here兲.
The additional spatial constraints would require only a fourfold increase in a for the same currents and wire sizes. If on
the other hand, introducing a second array is undesirable,‘‘software’’ solutions using recoupling and encoding techniques have been developed to still allow for universal QC.13
These techniques would be considerably simplified by theability to perform single-qubit operations along one direction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Dr. Alexandre Zagoskin, Dr. Brian
Statt, and Dr. John Wei for useful discussions. D.A.L.’s research is sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency under the QuIST program and managed by
the Air Force Research Laboratory 共AFOSR兲, under Agreement No. F49620-01-1-0468. D.A.L. further gratefully acknowledges the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation for a Research
Fellowship. J.H.T. thanks the Canada Research Chairs program for financial support.
1

Semiconductor Spintronics and Quantum Computation, edited by D. D.
Awschalom, D. Loss, and N. Samarth 共Springer, Berlin, 2002兲.
2
D. Vion, A. Aassime, A. Cottet, P. Joyez, H. Pothier, C. Urbina, D. Esteve,and M. H. Devoret, Science 296, 886 共2002兲; Y. Yu, S. Han, X. Chu, S.
Chu, and Z. Wang, ibid. 296, 889 共2002兲; A. J. Berkley, H. Xu, R. C.
Ramos, M. A. Gubrud, F. W. Strauch, P. R. Johnson, J. R. Anderson, A. J.
Dragt, C. J. Lobb, and F. C. Wellstood, ibid. 300, 1548 共2003兲.
3
D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 共1998兲.
4
G. Burkard, D. Loss, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. B 59, 2070 共1999兲.
5
J. Levy, Phys. Rev. A 64, 052306 共2001兲; X. Hu, R. de Sousa, and S. Das
Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 918 共2001兲.
6
M. Friesen, P. Rugheimer, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, D. W. van der
Weide, R. Joynt, and M. A. Eriksson, Phys. Rev. B 67, 121 301共R兲 共2003兲.
7
B. E. Kane, Nature 共London兲 393, 133 共1998兲; R. Vrijen, E. Yablonovitch,
K. Wang, H. W. Jiang, A. Balandin, V. Roychowdhury, T. Mor, and D.
DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A 62, 012 306 共2000兲; D. Mozyrsky, V. Privman,and M. L. Glasser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5112 共2001兲.
8
S. A. Lyon, e-print cond-mat/0301581.
9C. H. van der Wal, A. C. J. ter Haar, F. K. Wilhelm, R. N. Schouten, C. J.
M. P. Harmans, T. P. Orlando, S. Lloyd, and J. E. Mooij, Science 290, 773
共2000兲; J. R. Friedman, V. Patel, W. Chen, S. K. Tolpygo, and J. E.
Lukens, Nature 共London兲 406, 43 共2000兲; A. Blais and A. M. Zagoskin,
Phys. Rev. A 61, 042 308 共2000兲; Y. Makhlin, G. Schön, and A. Shnirman,
Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 357 共2001兲.
10
Y. Kato, R. C. Myers, D. C. Driscoll, A. C. Gossard, J. Levey, and D. D.
Awschalom, Science 299, 1201 共2003兲.
11
C. Piermarocchi, P. Chen, L. J. Sham, and D. G. Steel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89,
167 402 共2002兲.
12
D. Bacon, J. Kempe, D. A. Lidar, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85,
1758 共2000兲; J. Kempe, D. Bacon, D. A. Lidar, and K. B. Whaley, Phys.
Rev. A 63, 042 307 共2001兲; D. P. DiVincenzo, D. Bacon, J. Kempe, G.
Burkard, and K. B. Whaley, Nature 共London兲 408, 339 共2000兲.
13
D. A. Lidar and L.-A. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 017 905 共2002兲.
14
L.-A. Wu and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. A 67, 050 303 共2003兲.
15
F. Meier, J. Levy, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 047 901 共2003兲.
16
D. A. Lidar, L.-A. Wu, and A. Blais, Quant. Inf. Proc. 1, 155 共2002兲.
17
V. V. Vladimirskii, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 39, 1062 共1960兲; 关Sov. Phys. JETP
12, 740 共1961兲兴.
18
G. I. Opat, S. J. Wark, and A. Cimmino, Appl. Phys. B: Photophys. Laser
Chem. 54, 396 共1992兲.
19
A. I. Sidorov, R. J. McLean, W. J. Rowlands, D. C. Lau, J. E. Murphy, M.

Downloaded 25 Jun 2004 to 128.100.78.50. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright, see http://jap.aip.org/jap/copyright.jsp

758

J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 96, No. 1, 1 July 2004

Walkiewicz, G. I. Opat, and P. Hannaford, Quantum Semiclassic. Opt. 8,
713 共1996兲.
20
K. S. Johnson, M. Drndic, J. H. Thywissen, G. Zabow, R. M. Westervelt,
and M. Prentiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1137 共1998兲.
21
D. C. Lau, A. I. Sidorov, G. I. Opat, R. J. McLean, W. J. Rowlands, and P.
Hannaford, Eur. Phys. J. D 5, 193 共1999兲.
22
G. Zabow, M. Drndic, J. H. Thywissen, K. S. Johnson, R. M. Westervelt,
and M. Prentiss, Eur. Phys. J. D 7, 351 共1999兲.
23
N. A. Melosh, A. Boukai, F. Diana, B. Gerardot, A. Badolato, P. M.
Petroff, and J. R. Heath, Science 300, 112 共2003兲.
24
A. M. Steane, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042322 共2003兲.

D. A. Lidar and J. H. Thywissen
R. de Sousa and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 67, 033 301 共2003兲.
A. M. Tyryshkin, S. A. Lyon, A. V. Astashkin, and A. M. Raitsimring,
Phys. Rev. B 68, 193207 共2003兲.
27
Specifications of the KevinoxMX400 dilution refrigerator from Oxford
Instruments.
28
F. R. Fickett, in Materials at Low Temperatures, edited by R. P. Reed andA. F. Clark 共American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1983兲, p. 163.
29
M. Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd Ed. 共McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1996兲, p. 21.
30
C. P. Poole, Handbook of Superconductivity 共Academic Press, San Diego,
2000兲, p. 436.
25
26

Downloaded 25 Jun 2004 to 128.100.78.50. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright, see http://jap.aip.org/jap/copyright.jsp