Comment on "Nernst effect in poor conductors and in the cuprate superconductors"

Abstract

In a recent letter, Alexandrov and Zavaritsky propose a model to explain the anomalous Nernst signal observed in the normal state of hole-doped cuprates. The aim of this comment is to recall that one of the main assumptions of the authors regarding the experimental data is false.

arXiv commentfinal published version

References in corpus (6)

• The onset of the vortex-like Nernst signal above Tc in La_{2-x}Sr_xCuO_4 and Bi_2Sr_{2-y}La_yCuO_6
• The high-field phase diagram of the cuprates derived from the Nernst effect
• Ambipolar Nernst effect in NbSe${}_2$
• Entropy of vortex cores on the border of the superconductor-to-insulator transition in an underdoped cuprate
• Nernst effect in poor conductors and the cuprate superconductors
• Anomalous dissipation in the mixed state of underdoped cuprates close to the superconductor-insulator boundary

Cited by in corpus (4)

• The Nernst effect and the boundaries of the Fermi liquid picture
• Bose-Einstein condensation of strongly correlated electrons and phonons in cuprate superconductors
• The diamagnetism above the superconducting transition in underdoped La(1.9)Sr(0.1)CuO(4) revisited: Chemical disorder or phase incoherent superconductivity?
• Reply to the comment by C. Capan and K. Behnia on "Nernst effect in poor conductors and in the cuprate superconductors" (cond-mat/0501288)