Sort by
Using Machine-Learned Force Fields for Describing Heat-Transport Related Quantities in AlGaN and Derived Materials
Simon Fernbach
,Egbert Zojer
,Natalia Bedoya-Martínez
Posted: 27 March 2026
Equation of State Under External Stress from Crystals to Non-Crystals (the Third Version)
Gang Liu
Posted: 26 March 2026
Z3 Vacuum Inertia in Nanoscale Transport: A Geometric Perspective on Anomalous Conductivity
Yuxuan Zhang
,Weitong Hu
,Wei Zhang
Posted: 26 March 2026
Negative Capacitance Revisited: A Unified Framework Based on Synchronization, Temporal Delay, and Spatial/Quantitative Mismatch
Yong Sun
,Shigeru Kanemitsu
Posted: 25 March 2026
A Significant Decrease in Thermal Conductivity in Eu- and Cd-Doped ZnO Films due to the Inhomogeneity of Impurities
Misha Khalid
,Hadiqa Naaz
,Ameneh Mkaeeli
,Ibtasam Bin Abdul Ghani
,Misbah Aslam
,E. Przezdziecka
,H. Mubeen
,R. Jakieła
,A. Wierzbicka
,B. Witkowski
+3 authors
Posted: 17 March 2026
High-Field Magnetoresistance and Hall Effect of a Nanocrystalline Ni Metal at 3 K and 300 K
Imre Bakonyi
,F.D. Czeschka
,A.T. Krupp
,Mario Basletić
Posted: 13 March 2026
Avrami Kinetics of Cylindrical Growth Under Hard-Wall Confinement: A Monte Carlo Study of Thin Film Crystallization
Catalin Iulian Berlic
Posted: 09 March 2026
Adjacent Sink Strengths Used in Multiscale Kinetic Rate Equation Simulations of Defects and Impurities in Solids
Tommy Ahlgren
Posted: 09 March 2026
Cation-Dependent Role of Water on the Dynamics and Ionic Conductivity of Levulinate Based Ionic Liquids
Georgios Tsonos
,Sotiria Kripotou
,Georgios Mavroeidis
,Christos Tsonos
,Lorenzo Guazzelli
,Luca Guglielmero
,Ilias Stavrakas
,Kostas Moutzouris
Posted: 05 March 2026
Chiral Electron-Hole Pairing as the Origin of Anomalous Quasiparticle Dispersions in Unconventional Superconductors
Wanpeng Tan
Posted: 28 February 2026
Geometric Resonance Analysis of Superconductivity in CaC6: Hexagonal and Rhombohedral Descriptions in the Roeser–Huber Framework
Michael R. Koblischka
,Anjela Koblischka-Veneva
The superconducting transition temperature of CaC6 is investigated within the Roeser–Huber (RH) formalism using both rhombohedral and hexagonal crystallographic representations. While these two descriptions are crystallographically equivalent, they differ in their geometric construction of superconducting paths and near-atom environments. In the rhombohedral representation, only translationally closed Ca–Ca vectors consistent with the primitive lattice are considered, yielding three symmetry-distinct RH paths. In the hexagonal representation, the same superconducting channels are expressed in an expanded conventional cell, where some paths appear as unfolded or symmetry-related sublattice connections. For each representation, the RH path lengths and effective near-atom counts are evaluated and used to compute the superconducting transition temperature. The rhombohedral description yields $T_c^{\rm(calc)} = 10.35$ K, while the hexagonal representation gives $T_c^{\rm(calc)} = 10.91$ K, both in good agreement with the experimental value $T_c^{\rm(exp)} = 11.5$ K. The difference between the calculat\( {The superconducting transition temperature of CaC$_6$ is investigated within the Roeser–Huber (RH) formalism using both rhombohedral and hexagonal crystallographic representations. While these two descriptions are crystallographically equivalent, they differ in their geometric construction of superconducting paths and near-atom environments. In the rhombohedral representation, only translationally closed Ca–Ca vectors consistent with the primitive lattice are considered, yielding three symmetry-distinct RH paths. In the hexagonal representation, the same superconducting channels are expressed in an expanded conventional cell, where some paths appear as unfolded or symmetry-related sublattice connections. For each representation, the RH path lengths and effective near-atom counts are evaluated and used to compute the superconducting transition temperature. The rhombohedral description yields $T_c^{\rm(calc)} = 10.35$ K, while the hexagonal representation gives $T_c^{\rm(calc)} = 10.91$ K, both in good agreement with the experimental value $T_c^{\rm(exp)} = 11.5$ K. The difference between the calculated values amounts to approximately 5.4\%. These results show that the underlying RH superconducting channels and their near-atom environments are representation independent, while minor quantitative differences in $T_c^{\rm(calc)}$ arise from metric redistribution of equivalent paths. This directly confirms that the RH formalism captures intrinsic structural features of superconductivity rather than artifacts of unit-cell representation. \)d values amounts to approximately 5.4\%. These results show that the underlying RH superconducting channels and their near-atom environments are representation independent, while minor quantitative differences in $T_c^{\rm(calc)}$ arise from metric redistribution of equivalent paths. This directly confirms that the RH formalism captures intrinsic structural features of superconductivity rather than artifacts of unit-cell representation.
The superconducting transition temperature of CaC6 is investigated within the Roeser–Huber (RH) formalism using both rhombohedral and hexagonal crystallographic representations. While these two descriptions are crystallographically equivalent, they differ in their geometric construction of superconducting paths and near-atom environments. In the rhombohedral representation, only translationally closed Ca–Ca vectors consistent with the primitive lattice are considered, yielding three symmetry-distinct RH paths. In the hexagonal representation, the same superconducting channels are expressed in an expanded conventional cell, where some paths appear as unfolded or symmetry-related sublattice connections. For each representation, the RH path lengths and effective near-atom counts are evaluated and used to compute the superconducting transition temperature. The rhombohedral description yields $T_c^{\rm(calc)} = 10.35$ K, while the hexagonal representation gives $T_c^{\rm(calc)} = 10.91$ K, both in good agreement with the experimental value $T_c^{\rm(exp)} = 11.5$ K. The difference between the calculat\( {The superconducting transition temperature of CaC$_6$ is investigated within the Roeser–Huber (RH) formalism using both rhombohedral and hexagonal crystallographic representations. While these two descriptions are crystallographically equivalent, they differ in their geometric construction of superconducting paths and near-atom environments. In the rhombohedral representation, only translationally closed Ca–Ca vectors consistent with the primitive lattice are considered, yielding three symmetry-distinct RH paths. In the hexagonal representation, the same superconducting channels are expressed in an expanded conventional cell, where some paths appear as unfolded or symmetry-related sublattice connections. For each representation, the RH path lengths and effective near-atom counts are evaluated and used to compute the superconducting transition temperature. The rhombohedral description yields $T_c^{\rm(calc)} = 10.35$ K, while the hexagonal representation gives $T_c^{\rm(calc)} = 10.91$ K, both in good agreement with the experimental value $T_c^{\rm(exp)} = 11.5$ K. The difference between the calculated values amounts to approximately 5.4\%. These results show that the underlying RH superconducting channels and their near-atom environments are representation independent, while minor quantitative differences in $T_c^{\rm(calc)}$ arise from metric redistribution of equivalent paths. This directly confirms that the RH formalism captures intrinsic structural features of superconductivity rather than artifacts of unit-cell representation. \)d values amounts to approximately 5.4\%. These results show that the underlying RH superconducting channels and their near-atom environments are representation independent, while minor quantitative differences in $T_c^{\rm(calc)}$ arise from metric redistribution of equivalent paths. This directly confirms that the RH formalism captures intrinsic structural features of superconductivity rather than artifacts of unit-cell representation.
Posted: 26 February 2026
Surface Diffusion with Coverage: The Method of the Characteristic Function
Elena Esther Torres-Miyares
,S. Miret-Artés
Posted: 25 February 2026
A DFT Investigation of SF6 Decomposition Products Adsorption on V-doped Graphene/MoS2 Heterostructures
Aijuan Zhang
,Xinwei Chang
,Tingting Liu
,Jiayi An
,Xin Liu
,Yike Cui
,Keqi Li
,Xianrui Dong
Posted: 25 February 2026
Investigation of the Effects of Er- and Er/Yb Co-Doping on ZnO Thin Film Properties and Schottky Barrier Diode Performance
Teshome Senbeta Debela
,Belayneh Mesfin Ali
,Dechasa Tolera Fufa
Posted: 13 February 2026
Electro-Optical Properties of Excitons in CdSe Nanoplatelets
Gerard Zygfryd Czajkowski
Posted: 09 February 2026
Small Molecule Adsorption on Defective Phosphorene
A. S. Giraldo-Neira
,C. A. Duque
,A. L. Morales
,J. D. Correa
,M. E. Mora-Ramos
Posted: 04 February 2026
LaSrCoFeO3 Thin Films Deposited by Sputtering for Battery Electrodes
Jorge Vidal
,Ahmad Telfah
,Carlos Costa
,Rafael Pinto
,Fátima Cerqueira
,Carlos José Tavares
Posted: 03 February 2026
Effects of Uniaxial Distortion on the Stability of Square Skyrmion Crystals in Noncentrosymmetric Magnets
Satoru Hayami
Posted: 02 February 2026
Optical Absorption and Raman Scattering in ZnO/MgxZn1−xO Quantum Wells Under Non-Resonant Laser Effect
Salomon Uran-Parra
,John A. Gil-Corrales
,Juan A. Vinasco
,Alvaro L. Morales
,Carlos A. Duque
Posted: 29 January 2026
Temporal Duality in Non-Equilibrium Materials: Reversible and Irreversible Time Regimes in Viscoelastic and Aging Systems
Mohamed Haj Yousef
Posted: 28 January 2026
of 28