Advanced Lab Course 16:

Josephson Effects in Superconductors

Team 122 :
Ahmed Krifa, Hamza Ouerfelli, Pascal Sedlmeier
Technical University of Munich
4 July 2019

Contents
1 Introduction 2

2 Experimental Setup 2

3 Experimental procedure 3
3.1 The nuclear instrumentation module (NIM) . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2 The LabView program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4 Results/evaluation 5
4.1 Zero field measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1 Critical current and resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.2 McCumber parameters and self-capacitance . . . . . . 6
4.2 Critical current in the magnetic field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5 Questions 8

6 Appendix 12

1
1 Introduction
In the following experiment the characteristics of a Josephson contact made
of niobium and aluminium oxide were investigated. Using the liquid helium
the niobium layer was first cooled down to a cryogenic temperature, allowing
quantum effects to appear, namely superconductivity.

2 Experimental Setup
In the first step, the sample rod, which is a thin film layer contact consisting
of niobium as superconductor and aluminium oxide (AlOx) as the separating
layer, shown in Figure 1, is cooled using liquid helium to approximately 4 K.

To measure the flowing current and the applied voltage of this Josephson
contact without major errors, a 4-wire measurement is used.
The actual contact is located at the end of the sample rod, which is fixed
on a sample holder. The superconductors (niobium, light blue) are arranged
in a cross shape. As a separating medium (gray) the crossing point is the
insulator aluminum oxide, used and thus cuts through both current directions.
The two materials were fixed on a common support (blue), which in turn
is mounted on a larger plate (brown light). The contacts are connected to
lead points on the plate using test leads (black) (see Fig. 1). The measuring
process is then carried out with the directly connected NIM frame, which
is completely controlled by a LabView program (see Fig. 2). The current
through the contact can thus be run over a certain range of values, e.g. to
determine the critical current. In the last part of the task, a magnetic field
will be generated by the coil (red) which surrounds the sample.

2
 Figure 1: Sketch of the sample rod

3 Experimental procedure
3.1 The nuclear instrumentation module (NIM)
The connected nuclear instrumentation module is used to carry out the digital
evaluation as well as the adjustment of the current. The pins 1 and 2 (yellow)
of the connection box are connected to the current source (connection: I Out).
From this, the power lines run from the terminals 5 and 8 (green) to the
Josephon contacts, with the lines for the voltage measurement to the pins 6
and 7 are returned (see Fig.2).

3
 Figure 2: Sketch of The nuclear instrumentation module

3.2 The LabView program

A digital source module unit (SMU) is connected to the power lines allowing
4-wire measurements and forwarding data to the computer using a LAN cable.
This allows then the control of the measurements with LabView (see Fig. 3).

4
 Figure 3: Interface of the LabView program

4 Results/evaluation
Figure 4 shows the characteristic curve of the Josephson junction. The
upper curve is recorded when the current is increased, the lower curve during
the subsequent decrease. The further course of the curve shows a linear
relationship in which the ohmic law applies.

4.1 Zero field measurement

4.1.1 Critical current and resistance
The critical current and the return current can now be determined from the
characteristic curve. When the current is increased, a voltage greater than 0
V can be measured as of a magnitude IC . The lower curve shows a sudden
drop in voltage to 0 V on the return current. The systematic uncertainty of

5
 Figure 4: characteristic curve of the Josephson junction

these values results from the number of measured values in the set interval.

IC = (5, 63 ± 0, 02)mA

IR = (0, 19 ± 0, 02)mA
The red curve in Figure 4 shows a linear regression of the ohmic region. From
the inverse slope of the line follows the resistance

Rn = (0, 25 ± 0, 01)Ω.

4.1.2 McCumber parameters and self-capacitance

Using the hysteresis, the McCumber parameter can be directly determined
using Formula 2.16 from the Experiment Guide.
4IC 2
βC = ( ) = 1428 ± 4
πIR

6
Since βC > 1, the contact is in a sub-loss. Thus the U-I curve shows the
observed hysteresis. When the critical current is exceeded, the voltage jumps
to a finite value within one picosecond. This behavior is used in Josephson
devices for fast switching. From Definition 2.15 of the Experimental Guide,
the value of Rn is followed by the intrinsic capacity of the contact.
βC Φ 0
C= = (353 ± 4)pF
2πRn 2 IC
Here, the literature value Φ0 = 2, 067810−15 W b was used for the flux quantum.
Due to its structure, Josephson contact can be understood as a plate capacitor
with superconducting plates. If one compares this capacity with an equivalent
plate capacitor with aluminum oxide as a dielectric ( r = 9, 6),

L2 (19, 5µm)2
C = r 0 = 0 .9, 6. = 0, 18pF
d 177, 83nm
a deviation of two order of magnitude occurs. The reason for this very large
deviation is probably the measurement and the fit of the data.

4.2 Critical current in the magnetic field

For changing magnetic field strengths, the measured values shown in Figure 5
are obtained for the critical current. The periodic behavior can be explained
by the flux quantization, which forms in the superconductor flow tubes, which
leads to an energy minimisation. Using the equation

sin( πφ
φ0
)
IC (H) = IC (0). | πφ
| (1)
φ0

from the experiment instructions, the curve can be approximated with a sinc
function. According to this approximation, the value of the quantum flux can
be determined.

Φ0 = (1, 75 ± 0, 01)10−15 W b.
The obtained value have thus only the same order as the given literature value.
This inaccuracy may be due to the fit function (see Fig. 5) or a non-linear
dependence of the coil current on the generated magnetic field.

7
Figure 5: Dependence of the critical current Ic(H) of a Josephson contact on
the magnetic field

5 Questions
1. What are the benefits of a 4-wire (or 4-point) resistance mea-
surement compared to a 2-wire configuration?
The four-wire measurement is used in the measurement of electrical
resistors with a four-wire connection, if the line resistance can falsify
the measurement. In the case of the four-wire measuring arrangement,
a known electric current flows through the resistor via two of the lines.
The voltage dropping across the resistor is tapped at high impedance
via two further lines and measured with a voltmeter; the resistance to
be measured is calculated from this according to Ohm’s law.

2. At which bias voltage do you expect radiation emission of the

Josephson-contact with a frequency of 10GHz? At which bias
voltage do you expect the second harmonic to have a frequency
of 10GHz?

8
Figure 6: Two-wire measurement:
It does not measure the voltage
across the resistor R but over the
sum of the resistors or at the current
source.
Figure 7: Four-wire measurement:
The voltage is measured over the
resistance Rt alone.

According to the secondnd Josephson equation, a constant voltage leads

to a time-dependent phase, which gives together with the first Josephson
equation, an alternating current with the frequency
2·e
f=
h·U
flowing over the contact. The radiated EM waves oscillate at the same
frequency, so switching to f = 10GHz leads to U = 20V . For the first
harmonic at a frequency of 5 GHz, a voltage of 10 V follows.

3. Derive the second Josephson equation starting from the sec-

ond Schrödinger equation with respect to the total wave func-
tion of a Cooper-pair (n = 1)

To solve this question we introduce a coupling constant k in following

Schrödinger equation, describing the interaction between Cooper-pairs
and over the non-conductor Aluminiumoxid :
∂ψ1,2
ih̄ = E1,2 ψ1,2 + kψ2,1 (2)
∂t

One gets :
√ iΦ1 √
ψ1 = n1 e , ψ2 = n2 eiΦ2 (3)
where ni stands for the density of the Cooper-pairs and ψi for the
phases.

9
 Let’s calculate the time derivatives :
√ ṅ1 √ ṅ2
ψ̇1 = eiΦ1 (i n1 Φ̇1 + √ ), ψ̇2 = eiΦ2 (i n2 Φ̇2 + √ )
2 n1 2 n2
(4)

We get following two equations :

√ ṅ1 √ √
eiΦ1 (i n1 Φ̇1 + √ ) = E1 n1 eiΦ1 + k n2 eiΦ2 (5)
2 n1

√ ṅ2 √ √
eiΦ2 (i n2 Φ̇2 + √ ) = E2 n2 eiΦ2 + k n1 eiΦ1 (6)
2 n2
It is sufficient to consider only the real part of theses equations. Making
the difference (first equation - second equation), we get :
√ √ √ √
−h̄( n2 Φ̇2 − n1 Φ̇1 ) = E2 n2 − E1 n1 (7)

With the assumption that the density of the Cooper-pairs is equal

to 1 in both superconductors (which means n=n1 =n2 =1), we obtain
following expression with the difference of the phases γ = Φ2 - Φ1 und
the difference of energy E = E2 − E1 = hf = −2eU :
−h̄(Φ̇2 − Φ̇1 ) = −h̄γ̇ = −2eU (8)

Dividing by h̄ and rearranging leads to :

2e
γ̇ − U =0 (9)
h̄
4. Derive from the second Josephson equation a differential equa-
tion for γ. Which analogy exists between the parameters C,
Rn, γ, I and the fundamental parameters of a physical pendu-
lum?
From the second Josephson equation, we get by inserting :
h̄ h̄C
Itot = IC sin(γ) + γ̇ + γ̈ (10)
2cRn 2e

10
 compared with the pendulum equation :

F = mg sin γ + β γ̇ + J γ̈ (11)

In this case, an analogy to the physical pendulum with friction can be

clearly established, in which the phase difference corresponds to the
deflection angle.

5. Show the transformation invariance of the second Josephson

equation

The phase difference γ is given by :

Z 2
2e ~ s
γ = φ2 − φ1 + Ad~ (12)
h̄c 1

~ one gets for some potential-

Making a gauge transformation on A,
function η :
~0 = A
A ~ + ∇η (13)
.
The gauge transformation has following consequence on the phase :
2e
Φ0 = Φ − η (14)
h̄c
.
And so one gets :
Z 2
0 2e 2e 2e ~ + ∇η )d~s
γ = Φ2 − η2 − Φ1 + η1 + (A (15)
h̄c h̄c h̄c 1

And for the time derivative :

Z 2 Z 2
0 d 2e d 2e d 2e
~ s+ | d 2e η |2 = Φ̇2 −Φ̇1 + d 2e ~ s = γ̇
γ̇ = Φ̇2 − η2 −Φ̇1 + η1 + Ad~ Ad~
dt h̄c dt h̄c 1 dt h̄c dt h̄c 1 dt h̄c 1
(16)
what shows that the first part of the second Josephson equation is
invariant under gauge transformation.

11
 For the second part let’s use the formula :
Z
U = Ed~ ~ s (17)

~ as :
Let’s also write E

~ = −∇Φ − 1 d A
E ~ (18)
c dt
Making again gauge transformations one obtains :
1 ∂η
Φ0 = Φ − (19)
c ∂t
and :

~ 0 = −∇Φ + 1 ∇ ∂η − 1 ∂ A
E ~ − 1 ∂ ∇η = −∇Φ − 1 ∂ A~ = E,
~ (20)
c ∂t c ∂t c ∂t c ∂t
what shows the invariance of the second part of the second Josephson
equation unter gauge transformation.

6 Appendix
[1] TU Munich, Lab Course Manual for "Josephson Effects in Superconduc-
tors"
https://www.ph.tum.de/academics/org/labs/fopra/docs/userguide-16.en.pdf

12