Penetration Depth of General Complex Conductivity

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the derivation of the skin depth formula for general complex conductivity as presented in Michael Tinkham's "Introduction to Superconductivity." The skin depth is defined as $$\delta = \frac{c}{\sqrt{2\pi\omega\left(|\sigma| + \sigma_2\right)}}$$, where $$\sigma = \sigma_1 - i\sigma_2$$. The participants explore the implications of assuming $$\sigma_1 << \sigma_2$$ and the conditions under which Tinkham's assertion of a "general" solution holds true. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the assumptions made in the derivation, particularly regarding displacement current and the nature of good conductors.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of complex conductivity in superconductors.
  • Familiarity with electromagnetic theory, specifically Faraday's and Ampere's laws.
  • Knowledge of Gaussian units versus SI units in physics.
  • Basic proficiency in solving differential equations involving complex numbers.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of skin depth in superconductors using complex conductivity.
  • Learn about the implications of displacement current in electromagnetic theory.
  • Explore the differences between Gaussian and SI units in electromagnetic equations.
  • Investigate the properties of good conductors and their frequency-dependent behavior.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, electrical engineers, and students studying superconductivity or electromagnetic theory, particularly those interested in the behavior of complex conductivity in materials.

IDumb
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I'm working through chapter 2 of Michael Tinkham's Introduction to Superconductivity. On page 40, he asserts that the skin-depth for a general complex conductivity is (In Gaussian units)
$$\delta = \frac{c}{\sqrt{2\pi\omega\left(|\sigma| + \sigma_2\right)}}$$
where $$\sigma = \sigma_1 - i\sigma_2$$

I am trying to derive this skin-depth expression, but can't seem to get it. My process is as follows. I have bolded the two places where potential issues could be. Start with combining Faraday's law and Ampere's law:
$$\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{E} = -\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial\vec{B}}{\partial t}$$
$$ \vec{\nabla}\times\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{E} = -\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\frac{4\pi}{c}\vec{J} + \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial\vec{E}}{\partial t}\right)$$
Now use J = \sigma E and assume E = exp(i\omega t),
$$ \vec{\nabla}(\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{E}) - \nabla^2\vec{E} = -\frac{1}{c}\left(\frac{i4\pi\sigma\omega}{c}\vec{E} - \frac{\omega^2}{c}\vec{E}\right) $$

Now a potentially sketchy step, I assume the displacement current term is very small (I'm dealing with a superconductor here, so it makes sense), and I also assume the charge density is spatially uniform. This results in eliminating the first and fourth terms. I think this may be where I'm losing it, but I'm not sure how else to do it. The result is

$$\nabla^2\vec{E} = \frac{i4\pi\sigma\omega}{c^2}\vec{E}$$

Solving this,

$$\vec{E} = \vec{E}_0\exp{\left(-\sqrt{\frac{i4\pi\sigma\omega}{c^2}}z\right)} $$

$$= \vec{E}_0 \exp{\left(-\sqrt{\frac{4\pi\omega(\sigma_2 + i\sigma_1)}{c^2}}z\right)}$$

I'm having trouble now. I try to separate this into real and imaginary parts, but the real part does not seem to be what Tinkham has. I think the way I'm taking the squareroot of a complex number is the problem.

$$= \vec{E}_0 \exp{\left(-\sqrt{\frac{4\pi\omega|\sigma|}{c^2}}\left(\cos{\theta/2} + i\sin{\theta/2}\right)\right)}$$
Where $$\theta = \arctan{\frac{\sigma_1}{\sigma_2}}$$

The resulting skin depth is
$$\delta = \frac{c}{\sqrt{4\pi\omega |\sigma |}}\frac{1}{\cos{\theta/2}}$$
This makes sense to me, is close to the given value, and reduces to the skin depth of a real conductivity for \sigma_2 = 0, as it should. My expression does reduce to Tinkham's if I assume \sigma_1 << \sigma_2, which is a very reasonable approximation. But the assertion in the book that this is a "genera" solution is what troubles me.

Does anyone have ideas on what I'm missing? I would really appreciate your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I assume \sigma_1 << \sigma_2, . . . the assertion in the book that this is a "genera" solution is what troubles me

Given the title of the book, does "general" solution simply mean it's true all superconductors (or even all reasonably good conductors)?
 
John Park said:
Given the title of the book, does "general" solution simply mean it's true all superconductors (or even all reasonably good conductors)?

I assume so. That's the justification for removing the displacement current term at least. He says a "General complex conductivity" though... Which contradicts that.
 
"General complex conductivity"

I still suspect it's semantic. As far as I can tell a real, frequency-dependent skin-depth implies a good conductor. How does Tinkham set up the problem?
 
I just looked at Tinkham's page 40 on the web; he says he's "solving the skin depth problem", as though it's an understood procedure, presumably with standard assumptions and approximations. And he's talking about good conductors the whole time; so I think "general" here simply means both real and imaginary parts of σ are included, but they're still limited to a good conductor.
 
Note: that formula from Tinkham is in Gaussian units, which might confuse (sane) people who only have worked in SI units. --M. A. Lindeman
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
831
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
599
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K