Layer buckling and absence of superconductivity in LaNiO2
Authors:
S. Rathnayaka,
S. Yano,
K. Kawashima,
J. Akimitsu,
C. M. Brown,
J. Neuefeind,
D. Louca
Abstract:
The recent observation of unconventional superconductivity in thin films of LaNiO2 (critical temperature, Tc~10 K) and in bulk single crystals of La3Ni2O7 (327) under pressure (Tc~80 K), has brought to light a long sought-after class of superconducting nickelates. Through structural measurements in the 327-system, it was shown that the absence of superconductivity is related to bending of the O-Ni…
▽ More
The recent observation of unconventional superconductivity in thin films of LaNiO2 (critical temperature, Tc~10 K) and in bulk single crystals of La3Ni2O7 (327) under pressure (Tc~80 K), has brought to light a long sought-after class of superconducting nickelates. Through structural measurements in the 327-system, it was shown that the absence of superconductivity is related to bending of the O-Ni-O bonds. Similarly, the bond bending may be linked to the absence of superconductivity in bulk LaNiO2. Neutron diffraction was used on bulk non-superconducting La(1-x)Sr(x)NiO(2) samples to show that the layers are naturally buckled, creating a Ni-O-Ni bond angle of 177 at 2 K and ambient pressure. The buckling angle increases to 170 on warming to room temperature. Furthermore, a broad paramagnetic continuum is observed that decreases in intensity on cooling from room temperature signaling a possible transition to a coherent state. However, no antiferromagnetic (AFM) peaks are detected, although enhancement of ferromagnetic (FM) correlations cannot be excluded.
△ Less
Submitted 14 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
Dynamics of Acoustically Levitated Ice Impacts on Smooth and Textured Surfaces: Effects of Surface Roughness, Elasticity, and Structure
Authors:
Adam McElligott,
André Guerra,
Alexandre Brailovski,
Shashini Rathnayaka,
Xiaodan Zhu,
Alexia Denoncourt,
Alejandro D. Rey,
Anne-Marie Kietzig,
Phillip Servio
Abstract:
Through acoustically levitated ice formation and subsequent release onto a controlled area, this study introduces a third class of ice-countering system beyond de- and anti-icing: ice-impacting. By subjecting stainless steel 316 (SS), epoxy resin-coated (ER), and laser-textured (LT) surfaces with known surface roughness, hardness, and structural characteristics to 40 ice droplet impacts each, the…
▽ More
Through acoustically levitated ice formation and subsequent release onto a controlled area, this study introduces a third class of ice-countering system beyond de- and anti-icing: ice-impacting. By subjecting stainless steel 316 (SS), epoxy resin-coated (ER), and laser-textured (LT) surfaces with known surface roughness, hardness, and structural characteristics to 40 ice droplet impacts each, the effect on surface properties and their effect on solid-solid interfacial impact dynamics, in turn, was examined using a novel analysis framework based on fundamental conservation laws. For the velocities experienced in this study, the impacts did not affect the surface properties; they were consistent after each impact. Elasticity was the most significant factor in droplet behavior: the ER surface exhibited rebounding for 78% of impacts (important for moving surfaces). Surface roughness also played a role, particularly for droplets with rotational motion, as immobilization occurred for 66% of impacts on the rougher LT surface. However, the nanostructures on that textured surface resulted in droplet redirection perpendicular to the surface directionality (critical for stationary surfaces). In contrast, the other surfaces saw no change or no consistent change in rebound angle. Elasticity also affected momentum retention, where the ER surface had a translational restitution coefficient of 0.32 compared to 0.17 for the two stainless steel surfaces. Surface roughness was the predominant aspect of energy retention: the LT surface had a translational-to-rotational energy transfer coefficient of 0.07 (0.23 for the smoother surfaces), resulting in an overall energy retention coefficient of 0.09 compared to 0.28 for the SS and ER surfaces on average.
△ Less
Submitted 16 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
