2D Transport in Semiconductors Under Pressure
- 138 Downloads
Different regimes of conduction in 2D electron gas are examined, emphasizing effects of hydrostatic pressure and external magnetic field on GaAs/GaAlAs heterostructures with a spacer.
Hydrostatic pressure can be used to reach sufficiently low surface electron densities at which the ultra-quantum limit occurs at available magnetic fields. The binding energy of a magneto donor, composed of atoms and electrons separated each other by a spacer is measured for different surface electron densities controlled by the pressure. A metal non metal transition is observed
In the quantum limit, experiments performed under hydrostatic pressure allow us to analyze the behaviour of the conductivity σxx. Its dependence on the filling factor as well as the temperature shows evidence for the nearest neighbour hopping process in the zero resistance state.
In the weak localization regime, the relevant parameter kFlo is varied over two orders of magnitude by applying a pressure (kF is the Fermi wave vector, lo is the mean free path). As a result the weak localization is investigated on the same sample between the dirty and pure limits.
KeywordsImpurity State Conduction Band Minimum Thermal Activation Energy Space Thickness Fermi Wave Vector
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.R.L. Anderson-IBM — J.Res. Develop. 4-283 (1960).Google Scholar
- 2.R. Dingle, HJL. Stornier, A.C. Gossard, W. Wiegmann, Appl. Phvs.Lett. 33, 665 (1978).Google Scholar
- 3.HJL. Stornier, R. Dingle, A.C. Gossard, W. Wiegmann, M.D. Sturge, Solid State Communication, 29-705 (1979).Google Scholar
- 4.L. Esaki, R. Tsu, IBM, Res. Note R.C. 2418 (1969).Google Scholar
- 6.M. Konczykowski, S. Porowski, J. Chroboczek, Proceeding of the 1 lth Int Conf. Phys. Semicon.. Warsaw 708 (1972).Google Scholar
- 7.H.E. Lee, L.Y. Juravel, J.C. Wooley and AJ. Springthorpe. Phvs. Rev. B21.659 (1980).Google Scholar
- N. Lifshitz, A. Jarayaman, R.A. Logan and H.C. Card, Phvs. Rev. B21.670 (1980).Google Scholar
- P.M. Mooney, J. Appl. Phvs. 67(3) (1990).Google Scholar
- 9.G. Bastard, Private Communication.Google Scholar
- 10.J.L. Robert, A. Raymond, L. Konczewicz, C. Bousquet, W. Zawadzki, F. Alexandre, J.M. Masson, J. P. André, P.M. Frijlink, Phvs. Rev. B 36,9297 (1987).Google Scholar
- 12.R.B. Laughiin, Phvs. Rev. B 23, (1981).Google Scholar
- 16.K.Y. Hayden, P.N. Butcher, Phil. Mag. B38, 603 (1979).Google Scholar
- 17.N. Mikoshiba, Phvs. Rev. 127, 1961 (1962).Google Scholar
- 18.A. Hartstein, A.B. Fowler, M. Albert, InsiPhvs. Conf. Series Nb43, 1001–1004 (1979).Google Scholar
- 20.B.L. Altshuler, A.I. Khlem’nitzkii, A.I. Larkin and P.A. Lee, Phvs. Rev. B22, 5142 (1980).Google Scholar
- 24.B J.F. Lin, M.A. Paalanen, A.C. Gossard, D.C. Tsui, Phvs. Rev. B29 Nb.2, 927–934 (1984).Google Scholar
- 25.P.A. Lee, T.V. Ramakrishnan, Phvs. Rev. B26, 4009 (1982).Google Scholar
- 26.S. Ravanomanjato, “Thesis “ Montpellier (1990), unpublished.Google Scholar
- 27.S. Shapiro, E. Abrahams, Phvs. Rev. B24, 4025 (1981).Google Scholar