4.6 Article

Magnetic field dependent microwave losses in superconducting niobium microstrip resonators

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS
Volume 124, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.5027003

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canada Excellence Research Chairs [215284]
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [RGPIN-418579, RGPIN-04178]
  3. Province of Ontario
  4. Canada First Research Excellence Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We describe an experimental protocol to characterize magnetic field dependent microwave losses in superconducting niobium microstrip resonators. Our approach provides a unified view that covers two well-known magnetic field dependent loss mechanisms: quasiparticle generation and vortex motion. We find that quasiparticle generation is the dominant loss mechanism for parallel magnetic fields. For perpendicular fields, the dominant loss mechanism is vortex motion or switches from quasiparticle generation to vortex motion, depending on the cooling procedures. In particular, we introduce a plot of the quality factor versus the resonance frequency as a general method for identifying the dominant loss mechanism. We calculate the expected resonance frequency and the quality factor as a function of the magnetic field by modeling the complex resistivity. Key parameters characterizing microwave loss are estimated from comparisons of the observed and expected resonator properties. Based on these key parameters, we find a niobium resonator whose thickness is similar to its penetration depth is the best choice for X-band electron spin resonance applications. Finally, we detect partial release of the Meissner current at the vortex penetration field, suggesting that the interaction between vortices and the Meissner current near the edges is essential to understand the magnetic field dependence of the resonator properties. Published by AIP Publishing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available