Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gibbs and Helmholtz energies of a superconductor

  1. Jun 29, 2015 #1
    Hello,
    I concider an ideal superconductor with the gibbs-energy $$ d G=-SdT + VdP - \mu_0 M V dH$$
    and helmholtz energy $$ dF = -SdT -P dV + \mu_0 V H dM$$
    Assuming, that in the normal state the magnetization is too small, so that [itex]G_n(H) = G_n(H=0)[/itex] and at the transition point [itex]H_c[/itex] the superconducting phase energy equals to the normal state [itex]G_s(H_c) = G_n (H_c)[/itex] I get a continuous gibbs energy function with the superconducting-normal- states energy differency $$G_n (T)-G_s(T) =\frac{1}{2} H^2_c(T) V$$, when [itex]H_c(T)=H_c(0)(1-(\frac{T}{T_c})^2)[/itex].

    Why one cannot use the helmholtz energy for the same calculation of the energy differences and would the function of the helmholtz energy would be continous as well?

    Thanks
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 4, 2015 #2
    Thanks for the post! This is an automated courtesy bump. Sorry you aren't generating responses at the moment. Do you have any further information, come to any new conclusions or is it possible to reword the post?
     
  4. Jul 7, 2015 #3

    DrDu

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I suppose you could use Helmholtz energy, too, but which experimental setup would correspond to this situation? You assumed that the magnetisation in the normal state is very small, so if you want to keep M constant, it would have to be so in the superconducting phase, too. So basically you want to discuss the field free case.
     
  5. Jul 7, 2015 #4
    No, i just assume that the magnetization is small enough in the normal state, because the sample is not diamagnetic in normal state. The diamagnetism is only seen in the superconducting state with $$M=H,$$ and hence can not be assumed to be small enough to be neglected
     
  6. Jul 7, 2015 #5

    DrDu

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I understand this. But the Gibbs potential is so useful in this case because H is not changing on the transition, in contrast to M.
     
  7. Jul 8, 2015 #6
    But the helmholtz energy should still be continous at [itex]T_c[/itex] like the gibbs energy, right?
     
  8. Jul 8, 2015 #7

    DrDu

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I don't think so. The two differ by a term MH. But below Tc, M=H, while below M=0. So if one is continuous, the other one jumps by ##H^2##.
     
  9. Jul 8, 2015 #8

    DrDu

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Just realsed that at Tc H=0, so both are continuous.
     
  10. Jul 23, 2015 #9
    Ok, thanks
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Gibbs and Helmholtz energies of a superconductor
Loading...