# A Comment on “Superconducting-Normal Phase Transition in (Ba1-xKx)BiO3, x = 0.40, 0.47” by B. F. Woodfield, D. A. Wright, R. A. Fisher, N. E. Phillips and H. Y. Tang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4622 (1999)

In a recent paper by Woodfield et al., comments have been made on our earlier paper , their reference . In this paper it is stated that: (a) that there is specific heat discontinuity at the superconducting phase transition in (Ba<sub>1-x</sub>K<sub>x</sub>)BiO<sub>3</sub> (for x = 0.4 and 0.47) of the order of a few mJ/mole-K, (b) that this is what is expected, and (c) that there is no reason to invoke a higher order transition, as we recently suggested.

The logical foundation of our paper, which suggests that the superconducting-normal transition in (Ba<sub>1-x</sub>K<sub>x</sub>)BiO<sub>3</sub> with x = 0.40 may be of order IV, rests on three independent observations. They are: (1) the lack of an observed discontinuity in magnetic susceptibility at the superconducting transition (T<sub>c</sub>), $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi `$ = 0, (2) near T<sub>c</sub>, the thermodynamic critical field, H<sub>0</sub>(T), obtained by the integration of the magnetization M(H) at different temperatures, depends on temperature as (1-T/T<sub>c</sub>)<sup>2-μ</sup>, where $`\mu `$ is small and $`<`$ 1 and, (3) the lower critical field near T<sub>c</sub> fits the expression H<sub>c1</sub>(T) $``$ (1-T/T<sub>c</sub>)<sup>3</sup>.

The fact that, in all of the samples we have measured, the M vs. H curves (1) never approach H<sub>c2</sub> linearly, as required for a second order transition from the Abrikosov state , and (2) the slope varies smoothly into the normal state, substantiates our first observation stated above. Contary to the statement by Woodfield et al., that a discontinuity was observed by Hundley et al., in their constant field temperature dependent suseptibility measurements, they did see a discontinuity at T<sub>c1</sub> where complete flux exclusion occurs but no discontinuity at T<sub>c2</sub>, the normal to superconducting transition. Thus, observation (1) is consistent with a vanishing specific heat discontinuity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C = 0 and implies that the transition *cannot be second order*. The assertion for a IV order transition comes from observation (2). In the end, observation (3) is a verification of a model for a IV order phase transition. *All three of the experimental observations are inconsistent with a second order phase transition.* If the transition were II order, then the exponents in (2) and (3) would be, respectively 1-$`\alpha `$, and 1 where $`\alpha `$ is the small specific heat exponent.

In addition, there had not been a finite value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C at T<sub>c</sub> measured in the published data of Hundley et al. and Stupp et al. even though their results indicate that, in the normal state $`\gamma `$ = 150 mJ/moleK<sup>2</sup>. This large value of $`\gamma `$ made the problem look acute in that the difference between the expected size of the discontinuity and the experimental uncertainty was large. In Woodfield et al., there is no mention of the volume fraction of the samples that become superconducting, making the magnititude of their estimates of $`\gamma `$ 1 mJK<sup>-2</sup> of unknown accruacy even if the transition were second order.

The expectation that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C $``$ 1 mJK<sup>-2</sup> is based on a BCS expression which is to assume that the transition is second order. For example, if we put the observed temperature dependence of H<sub>0</sub>(T) in the expression used by Batlogg et al., we get $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C = 0. Similarly, the expressions described in Ref.  are also suspect because they assume a value for $`\kappa `$ which in light of its temperature dependence leads to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C = 0.

Interpreting the data of Woodfield et al. is problematic because of apparent temperature independence of the anomaly. For the highest T<sub>c</sub>, x = 0.4, samples the magnitude of the specific heat anomaly changes with field, but the temperature location of the anomaly changes very little. There is a large amount of scatter in the data presented, but one can argue that the peak in C for H = 1 T is actually higher in temperature than the one for H = 0.5 T. In addition, there appears to be no anomaly at any temperature for fields $`>`$ 3 T even though H<sub>c2</sub> is only reduced in all other measurements to about 22 K at 5 T, and exceeding 20 T at 4 K. For the x = 0.47 sample, no peak is observed for fields $`>`$ 0.5 T, and we point out that the temperature of the observation of the peaks is in the range, 12 - 17 K, where we previously noted anomalies in the critical field vs. temperature curves. *We must conclude that whatever this data may represent, it may not be the onset of superconductivity.*

A portion of this work was perfomed at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, which is supported by NSF Cooperative Agreement No. DMR-9527035 and by the State of Florida.