4.6 Article

Experimental conditions required for accurate measurements of electrical resistivity, thermal conductivity, and dimensionless figure of merit (ZT) using Harman and impedance spectroscopy methods

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS
卷 125, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.5077071

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Agencia Estatal de Investigacion under the Ramon y Cajal program [RYC-2013-13970]
  2. Universitat Jaume I [UJI-A2016-08]
  3. UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K019767/1]
  4. EPSRC [EP/K019767/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Harman method is used extensively for the characterization of the dimensionless figure of merit ZT of thermoelectric (TE) materials and devices. However, its accuracy has often been questioned, since in many cases there are relatively high errors associated with the method. The impedance spectroscopy technique, which has recently been shown as a suitable tool to also characterize TE materials and devices, has some similarities with the Harman method and can also directly provide ZT. In order to obtain reliable measurements in both methods, there are some common critical points that must be taken into account, such as the requirement of fully adiabatic conditions and a negligible Joule effect. In this study, we have evaluated the effect of different experimental conditions in the accuracy of both methods using a sample with known TE properties. Our analysis has led to the identification of different sources of errors and other issues that have not been clearly identified to date that can lead to inaccurate results, namely, the need of a homogeneous Peltier effect at the junctions, problems arising from the use of Ag paint, and the selection of the right value for the current perturbation applied to the system. These problems and sources of errors need to be identified and carefully considered if accurate results are to be obtained. Published under license by AIP Publishing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据