The Metal-Dielectric Interface in a Capacitor

  • Thread starter Thread starter chuckschuldiner
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Capacitor Interface
chuckschuldiner
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

I have been reading a recent Nature paper (Stengel and Spaldin, 2006) where ab initio simulations on SrRuO_3/SrTiO_3/SrRu_O3 nanocapacitors have been performed to investigate the origin of the so-called dead layer effect in thin-film nanocapacitors. They arrive at several interesting results which i will try to summarise

1) SrRuO_3 electrodes were found to have poor electron screening which resulted in high charge penetration inside the electrodes. This also resulted in a large depolarization field inside the SrTiO_3 dielectric layer which resulted in the observed capacitance being around 6 times lesser than the expected capacitance

2) The results also show that at the interface of the metal and the dielectric, the dielectric constant is continuos. Specifically, for the metal the dielectric constant is the same as that for the dielectric at the interface and increases to infinity at a large enough distance from the dielectric.

My question is, is the continuity in dielectric constant anything special? Will all physical properties be continuos at the interface? Also, is there any way i can model the spatial behavior of the dielectric constant of the metal?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This schematic is nothing but a Josephson junction, taking into assumption that SrRuO_3 is a superconductor. SrTiO_3(Strontium Titanium Oxide) will be the dielectric(insulating barrier), so this insulating barrier is treated as the junction capacitance. Properties of this insulating barrier:Now based on whether the electrostatic energy is greater/less than the energy due to josephson coupling, we can find out whether we have strong or weak tunneling of cooper pairs(in other words this will tell us whether our junction capacitance is small/big). This is all true if SrTiO_3 is a superconductor. I'm not too experienced in this subject YET, so I apologize if there are a couple of misnomers in my reply.
 
SRO is a superconductor, but only at very low temperatures (Tc is pretty low)
.
But SRO is also an oxide which is used to make what is sometimes called "functional interfaces". As a matter a fact these interfaces ARE somewhat related to Josephson junctions in that they are made (grown) using methods originally developed to fabricate trilayer high-Tc Josephson junctions (which are also oxides); you will find that many groups working on SRO also work on high-Tc.
However, this is the only connection; this has nothing direcly to do with JJ.

Unfortunately, I can't answer any of the originaly questions. However, I think Jochen Mannhart from University of Augsburg has published (or will publish soon) a short review on the subject which might be helpfull.
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top