text:
# Teleparallel origin of the Fierz picture for spin-2 particle

## I Introduction

A consistent description of higher (greater than 1) spin fields interacting with external classical (electromagnetic and gravitational) fields represents a nontrivial problem which is not completely solved until now. Earlier analyses of this problem can be found in FP ; ara , and a more recent discussion, as well as a list of basic references, is given in buch . Recently, a new approach based on the so called Fierz theory of the spin 2 particle in flat and curved spacetime has been developed by Novello and Neves novello . In this work, using Fierz variables, the consistency problem of a massive spin 2 field in a curved spacetime has been studied, with the results indicating that the Fierz representation seems to be more appropriate to deal with the coupling of a spin-2 field to gravity.

Now, as is well known, curvature and torsion are able to provide each one equivalent descriptions of the gravitational interaction. In fact, according to general relativity, curvature is used to geometrize spacetime, and in this way successfully describe the gravitational interaction. Teleparallelism, on the other hand, attributes gravitation to torsion, but in this case torsion accounts for gravitation not by geometrizing the interaction, but by acting as a force. This means that, in the teleparallel equivalent of general relativity, there are no geodesics, but force equations quite analogous to the Lorentz force equation of electrodynamics sp1 . Gravitational interaction, thus, can be described alternatively in terms of curvature, as is usually done in general relativity, or in terms of torsion, in which case we have the so called teleparallel gravity.

An important point of teleparallel gravity is that it corresponds to a gauge theory for the translation group. Due to the peculiar character of translations, any gauge theory including these transformations will differ from the usual internal gauge models in many ways, the most significant being the presence of a tetrad field. On the other hand, a tetrad field can naturally be used to define a linear Weitzenböck connection, which is a connection presenting torsion, but no curvature. A tetrad field can also be used to define a Riemannian metric, in terms of which a Levi-Civita connection is constructed. As is well known, it is a connection presenting curvature, but no torsion. It is important to keep in mind that torsion and curvature are properties of a connection livro , and many different connections can be defined on the same manifold. Therefore one can say that the presence of a nontrivial tetrad induces both a teleparallel and a Riemannian structures in spacetime. The first is related to the Weitzenböck, and the second to the Levi-Civita connection.

The reason for gravitation to present two equivalent descriptions is related to a quite peculiar property of gravitation, the so called universality. Let us explore this point in more details. Like any other interaction, gravitation presents a description in terms of a gauge theory. In fact, as mentioned above, teleparallel gravity is a gauge theory for the translation group, with contortion playing the role of force. On the other hand, universality of gravitation means that all particles feel gravity the same. In other words, particles with different masses feel a different gravitational force in such a way that all these particles acquire the same acceleration. As a consequence of this property, it turns out to be possible to describe gravitation not as a force, but as a deformation of spacetime. More precisely, according to this view, a gravitational field is supposed to produce a curvature in spacetime, the gravitational interaction being achieved in this case by letting test particles to follow the geodesics of spacetime. This is the approach used by the general relativity description of gravitation. It is important to notice that only an interaction presenting the universality property can be described by a geometrization of spacetime.

Instead of using the general relativity approach, the basic purpose of this paper will be to use the teleparallel approach to analyze the problem of a spin-2 field coupled to gravity. The teleparallel approach will be used to describe both the spin-2 field, and the gravitational background field. The basic conclusion will be that the Fierz picture constructed in novello  is naturally present in the teleparallel construction. In this sense, we can say that the teleparallel equivalent of general relativity appears to be a natural framework to deal with the spin-2 theory. In fact, the small perturbations of the tetrad field are shown to reproduce correctly the behavior of the spin-2 field on the flat Minkowski spacetime. The antisymmetric piece of the tetrad turns out to be redundant, although taking into account its explicit contribution makes the underlying gauge symmetry more transparent. The generalization for the presence of gravitation is straightforward, and it represents an alternative way to describe the spin-2 particle interacting with an external gravitational field.

## II Teleparallel gravity: basic facts

The general structure of teleparallel gravity is presented in detail in sp1 ; HS ; sp2 ; sp3 ; PR . In this section we summarize the fundamentals of this theory. In short, teleparallel approach can be understood as a gauge theory of the spacetime translation group. Using the Greek alphabet to denote spacetime indices, and the Latin alphabet to denote the local frame components, the corresponding gauge potential is represented by the nontrivial part of the tetrad field $`h^a_\mu `$. This tetrad gives rise to the so called Weitzenböck connection,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=h_a{}_{}{}^{\rho }_{\nu }^{}h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{},$$
(1)
which introduces the distant parallelism on a four-dimensional spacetime manifold. It is a connection that presents torsion, but not curvature. Its torsion,

$$T^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho {}_{\nu \mu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{},$$
(2)
plays the role of the translational gauge field strength. The Weitzenböck connection can be conveniently decomposed into the Riemannian and the post-Riemannian pieces,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}+K^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{},$$
(3)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\rho \sigma }(_\mu g_{\nu \sigma }+_\nu g_{\mu \sigma }_\sigma g_{\mu \nu })$$

is the Christoffel symbol constructed from the spacetime metric $`g_{\mu \nu }=h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}h_{}^{b}{}_{\nu }{}^{}\eta _{ab}^{}`$, and

$$K^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}(T_\mu {}_{}{}^{\rho }{}_{\nu }{}^{}+T_\nu {}_{}{}^{\rho }{}_{\mu }{}^{}T^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{})$$
(4)
is the contortion tensor. Correspondingly, all other geometrical and physical objects and operations constructed with the help of the Riemannian connection $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\rho _{\mu \nu }`$ will be denote with a tilde.

The gauge gravitational field Lagrangian reads

$$_G=\frac{c^4}{16\pi G}hS^{\rho \mu \nu }T_{\rho \mu \nu },$$
(5)
where $`h=\mathrm{det}(h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{})`$, and

$$S^{\rho \mu \nu }=S^{\rho \nu \mu }:=\frac{1}{2}[K^{\mu \nu \rho }g^{\rho \nu }T^{\sigma \mu }{}_{\sigma }{}^{}+g^{\rho \mu }T^{\sigma \nu }{}_{\sigma }{}^{}]$$
(6)
is a tensor written in terms of the Weitzenböck connection only. Inverting this equation, we obtain torsion in terms of the above tensor:

$$T^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=2(S_\mu {}_{}{}^{\rho }{}_{\nu }{}^{}S_\nu {}_{}{}^{\rho }{}_{\mu }{}^{})+\delta _\mu ^\rho S^\sigma {}_{\nu \sigma }{}^{}\delta _\nu ^\rho S^\sigma {}_{\mu \sigma }{}^{}.$$
(7)
The Lagrangian (5) describes what is commonly known as the teleparallel equivalent of Einstein’s general relativity theory. Performing a variation with respect to the tetrad, we find the teleparallel version of the gravitational field equation,

$$_\sigma (hS_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\sigma \rho })\frac{4\pi G}{c^4}(ht_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\rho })=0,$$
(8)
where

$$ht_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\rho }=\frac{c^4h}{4\pi G}S_\mu {}_{}{}^{\nu \rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu \lambda }{}^{}\delta _\lambda {}_{}{}^{\rho }_{G}^{}$$
(9)
is the energy-momentum (pseudo) tensor of the gravitational field. This equation is known to be equivalent to the Einstein’s equation of general relativity. It is important to notice that the left-hand side of the field equation (8) can be rewritten as the usual left-hand side of Einstein equations

$$_\sigma (hS_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\sigma \rho })\frac{4\pi G}{c^4}(ht_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\rho })\frac{h}{2}\left(\stackrel{~}{R}_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\rho }\frac{1}{2}\delta _\lambda ^\rho \stackrel{~}{R}\right),$$
(10)
which then provides an easy proof of the Lemma 2 of novello . As the source of both field equations is the symmetric energy-momentum tensor, the equivalence alluded to above holds also in the presence of matter blago . It is worth noticing that the teleparallel field equation has the same structure of the Yang-Mills equation, which is consistent with the fact that teleparallel gravity corresponds to a gauge theory. We see in this way that the teleparallel approach to gravitation is more closely related to field theory than the general relativity approach.

## III Linearized theory

The trivial tetrad $`h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}=\delta ^a_\mu `$ describes the flat geometry, for which the metric has the diagonal Minkowski form, $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(+1,1,1,1)`$. Let us then expand the tetrad field around the flat background as follows,

$$h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}=\delta ^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}+u^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}.$$
(11)
The Weitzenböck connection reads, correspondingly,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=_\nu u^\rho {}_{\mu }{}^{},$$
(12)
where $`u^\rho {}_{\mu }{}^{}=\delta _a{}_{}{}^{\rho }u_{}^{a}_\mu `$. As a result, the torsion and its trace are, respectively,

$$T^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=_\mu u^\rho {}_{\nu }{}^{}_\nu u^\rho {}_{\mu }{}^{},T^\rho {}_{\mu \rho }{}^{}=_\mu u_\rho u^\rho {}_{\mu }{}^{},$$
(13)
with $`u=u^\rho _\rho `$. Decomposing the perturbation tensor $`u_{\mu \nu }`$ into the symmetric and antisymmetric pieces,

$$u_{\mu \nu }=\varphi _{\mu \nu }+a_{\mu \nu },$$
(14)
with

$$\varphi _{\mu \nu }:=u_{(\mu \nu )}\mathrm{and}a_{\mu \nu }:=u_{[\mu \nu ]},$$
(15)
we compute immediately the contortion tensor:

$$K^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=^\rho \varphi _{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi ^\rho {}_{\nu }{}^{}+_\nu a^\rho {}_{\mu }{}^{}.$$
(16)
Substituting now the above expressions into (6), we obtain

$`S^{\rho \mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ $`[`$ $`^\mu \varphi ^{\nu \rho }^\nu \varphi ^{\mu \rho }g^{\rho \nu }\left(^\mu \varphi _\sigma \varphi ^{\sigma \mu }\right)`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`g^{\rho \mu }\left(^\nu \varphi _\sigma \varphi ^{\sigma \nu }\right)+^\rho a^{\mu \nu }`$
$`+`$ $`g^{\rho \nu }_\sigma a^{\sigma \mu }g^{\rho \mu }_\sigma a^{\sigma \nu }].`$
Comparison with novello  shows that the first line is nothing but the Fierz tensor $`F^{\mu \nu \rho }=F^{\nu \mu \rho }`$ introduced by Novello and Neves. More specifically:

$$S^{\rho \mu \nu }=F^{\mu \nu \rho }+\frac{1}{2}\left(^\rho a^{\mu \nu }+g^{\rho \nu }_\sigma a^{\sigma \mu }g^{\rho \mu }_\sigma a^{\sigma \nu }\right).$$
(18)
Since we have identically

$$_\mu \left(^\rho a^{\mu \nu }+g^{\rho \nu }_\sigma a^{\sigma \mu }g^{\rho \mu }_\sigma a^{\sigma \nu }\right)0,$$

the last term drops out completely from the linearized gravitational field equations (8), which then reads:

$$_\sigma S_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\sigma \rho }=0.$$
(19)
This equation yields the correct dynamics of the spin 2 particle in flat spacetime, as it is easily seen from the identity (10). Indeed, substituting the expansion (11) into it, we find that

$$_\sigma S_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\sigma \rho }\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{G}^\mathrm{L}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\rho },$$
(20)
where the left-hand side represents the linearized Einstein tensor:

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{L}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }\varphi \varphi _{\mu \nu }\right)_\mu _\nu \varphi `$ (21)
$``$ $`\eta _{\mu \nu }_\alpha _\beta \varphi ^{\alpha \beta }+_\mu _\lambda \varphi ^\lambda {}_{\nu }{}^{}+_\nu _\lambda \varphi ^\lambda {}_{\mu }{}^{}.`$
The identity (10) plays the fundamental role in the teleparallel theory, since it underlies the proof of the equivalence of Einstein’s gravity and the teleparallel gravity. Now, as a by-product of this identity we have straightforwardly derived the Lemma 2 of novello .

It is interesting to notice that the teleparallel Lagrangian (5) can be rewritten as

$$_G=\frac{c^4}{8\pi G}h(S^{\rho \mu \nu }S_{\rho \mu \nu }S^{\sigma \mu }{}_{\sigma }{}^{}S_{}^{\rho }{}_{\mu \rho }{}^{}3S^{\rho \mu \nu }S_{[\rho \mu \nu ]}).$$
(22)
Inserting here (17), we can verify that the antisymmetric field $`a_{\mu \nu }`$ drops out completely, in accordance with the analysis of the linearized field equations. This observation shows that, as a matter of fact, the antisymmetric field does not have physical importance. Indeed, one can show quite generally that, by means of a local Lorentz transformation, it is always possible to choose a frame in which the tetrad matrix is symmetric dewitt ; ogi ; ruben . In such a frame, the field $`a_{\mu \nu }`$ vanishes, and as a result the tensor $`S^{\rho \mu \nu }`$ coincides (up to a sign) with the Fierz tensor introduced in novello .

However, there is a certain reason to keep $`a_{\mu \nu }`$ nontrivial. In particular, we can verify the covariance of the linearized formalism with respect to “general coordinate” spacetime transformations. The demonstration of this property in novello  is rather long and not very transparent. In contrast, here it is sufficient to notice that the tensor (17) is explicitly invariant under the gauge transformations:

$`\varphi _{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`\varphi _{\mu \nu }+_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu +_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ,`$ (23)
$`a_{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`a_{\mu \nu }_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu +_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu .`$ (24)
The proof is straightforward: One just needs to substitute these formulas into Eq. (17). The original perturbation field (14) transforms as $`u^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}u^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}+2_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu `$, in complete agreement with the geometrical meaning of the tetrad.

## IV Spin-2 field in the presence of gravitation

In order to construct the theory for a spin-2 particle on a curved spacetime, instead of the expansion (11), we consider the tetrad expansion

$$h^a{}_{\mu }{}^{}=\overline{h}{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{\mu }{}^{}+u^a_\mu $$
(25)
around the nontrivial classical background $`\overline{h}{}_{}{}^{a}_\mu `$. Such an approach is analogous to the treatment of a consistent spin-2 model as a first order perturbation of the general relativity theory ara . We will denote with an overline every other background objects and operations. In order to simplify the computations, in contrast to the above described flat-space discussion, we will choose the symmetric gauge dewitt ; ogi ; ruben  from the very beginning. Then, we have the symmetric tensor field

$$\varphi ^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}:=\overline{h}_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }u_{}^{a}{}_{\nu }{}^{};\varphi _{\mu \nu }=\varphi _{\nu \mu },$$
(26)
where $`\overline{h}_a^\mu `$ is the inverse background tetrad: $`\overline{h}_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }\overline{h}{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{\nu }{}^{}=\delta _\nu ^\mu `$. From now on, the Greek indices will be raised and lowered with the help of the background metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=\overline{h}{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{\mu }{}^{}\overline{h}{}_{}{}^{b}{}_{\nu }{}^{}\eta _{ab}^{}`$.

Substituting the expansion (25) into the Weitzenböck connection (1), up to first order in $`\varphi ^\rho _\mu `$, we find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}+\overline{}_\nu \varphi ^\rho {}_{\mu }{}^{},$$
(27)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\overline{h}_a{}_{}{}^{\rho }_{\nu }^{}\overline{h}{}_{}{}^{a}_\mu `$ is the background teleparallel connection, and $`\overline{}_\nu `$ is the covariant derivative in the connection $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\rho _{\mu \nu }`$. As a result, we obtain for the torsion

$$T^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\overline{T}^\rho {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}+\overline{}_\mu \varphi ^\rho {}_{\nu }{}^{}\overline{}_\nu \varphi ^\rho {}_{\mu }{}^{}.$$
(28)
Using this expression in Eqs. (6) and (22), we straightforwardly obtain the kinetic term for the spin 2 field Lagrangian in the presence of gravitation,

$`_G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^4}{8\pi G}}\overline{h}(F^{\rho \mu \nu }F_{\rho \mu \nu }F^{\sigma \mu }{}_{\sigma }{}^{}F_{}^{\rho }{}_{\mu \rho }{}^{})`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^4}{8\pi G}}\overline{h}F^{\rho \mu \nu }\overline{}_\nu \varphi _{\mu \rho }.`$
Here, $`F^{\rho \mu \nu }`$ is the covariant generalization of the Fierz tensor:

$`F^{\rho \mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\overline{}^\nu \varphi ^{\mu \rho }`$ $``$ $`\overline{}^\mu \varphi ^{\nu \rho }+g^{\rho \nu }\left(\overline{}^\mu \varphi \overline{}_\sigma \varphi ^{\sigma \mu }\right)`$ (30)
$``$ $`g^{\rho \mu }(\overline{}^\nu \varphi \overline{}_\sigma \varphi ^{\sigma \nu })].`$
The main difference of the spin-2 model (29) from the theory studied in novello  is that the covariant derivatives in (30) are defined with the help of the teleparallel connection, and not with the help of the Riemannian (Christoffel) connection. We thus obtain an alternative way to describe a spin 2 particle in the presence of gravitation. The resulting theory is obviously generally covariant.

As it is well known FP ; ara ; buch ; novello , the higher spin theories are generally inconsistent in the presence of the electromagnetic and/or gravitational field. Technically, this amounts to the non-vanishing covariant divergence of the corresponding field operator which, in turn, is related to the fact that the covariant derivative has a nontrivial commutator proportional to the curvature. The consistency conditions, derived for the higher spin fields, place strong restrictions on the spacetime curvature which are not fulfilled, in general.

In the teleparallel gravity, the spacetime curvature is zero, whereas the commutator of the covariant derivatives reads

$$[_\mu ,_\nu ]=T^\lambda {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}_{\lambda }^{}.$$
(31)
Accordingly, the consistency condition for the theory (29) will be not algebraic, as in the usual formulation, but differential instead: $`\overline{T}^\lambda {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\overline{}_{\lambda }^{}F^{\rho \mu \nu }=0`$.

If we demand that the consistency conditions should be satisfied for all field configurations, we then have to conclude that the torsion should vanish. This observation agrees with the general analysis of the higher spin theories on the Riemann-Cartan spacetime high . A possible way to avoid the consistency problem is to include non-minimal coupling terms in the Lagrangian ara ; buch . Since the curvature is zero, the non-minimal terms may involve only the torsion tensor. The latter, being of the 3rd rank, necessarily involves the derivative for the construction of the invariant contractions. It is straightforward to see that, adding the non-minimal interaction Lagrangian

$`_{non}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^4}{8\pi G}}\overline{h}[\varphi _{\alpha \lambda }(K^\lambda {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}T^\lambda {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{})\stackrel{~}{}^\nu \varphi ^{\mu \alpha }`$ (32)
$``$ $`\varphi ^{\alpha \mu }T_{\lambda \mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{}_\alpha \varphi ^{\lambda \nu }\varphi ^{\lambda \nu }T_{\lambda \mu \nu }\left(\stackrel{~}{}^\mu \varphi \stackrel{~}{}_\alpha \varphi ^{\alpha \mu }\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\varphi ^{\mu \nu }T^\lambda {}_{\mu \lambda }{}^{}(\stackrel{~}{}_\nu \varphi \stackrel{~}{}^\alpha \varphi _{\alpha \nu })]`$
to the Lagrangian (29) yields the Riemannian Fierz Lagrangian of novello . This allows then to solve the consistency problem.

The theory of massive spin-2 particle ara ; buch  was satisfactorily formulated within the framework of the Fierz approach novello . Our results also admit a direct generalization to the nontrivial mass which we though do not discuss here since it follows along the same lines as in novello .

## V Discussion and conclusions

Novello and Neves novello  have demonstrated that the Fierz representation for the spin 2 theory has a number of advantages as compared to the alternative approaches (such as the non-ambiguity of the order of derivatives and the equivalence to the non-minimal curvature Einstein representation with the fixed coefficients of additional terms ara ). Here, we have shown that the Fierz representation can be naturally understood on the basis of the teleparallel gravity. In particular, we find that (i) the structure of the Fierz tensor defined in novello  through an ad hoc procedure is unambiguously fixed by the teleparallel theory; (ii) the gauge symmetry (23)-(24) underlying the corresponding spin 2 freedom, is manifested straightforwardly; (iii) the linearized Einstein operator arises immediately as a consequence of the fundamental identity (10) of the teleparallel theory. It is worthwhile to note that the antisymmetric piece of the tetrad field, while being dynamically redundant, plays a significant role in the formal derivations. A certain disadvantage of our approach is the need of the non-minimal coupling of the type (32) to solve the consistency problem on the curved spacetime. This is similar to the observations made within the Riemannian approach ara .

Summarizing, in this paper we have developed a new approach to the description of spin 2 in flat and curved spacetime on the basis of the teleparallel gravity theory. This approach appears to be a true origin for the Fierz representation proposed recently in novello .

###### Acknowledgements.

The work of YNO was supported by FAPESP. JGP thanks FAPESP and CNPq for partial financial support. We are grateful to Friedrich Hehl for valuable advices.


format: text

text:
# Inter- and intragrain currents in bulk melt-grown YBaCuO rings

## I  Introduction

Unique feature of thin superconducting rings has to be well-known to everybody who ever tried to investigate the intergrain currents flowing across weak links in polycrystalline YBa2Cu3O$`_{7\delta }`$(YBCO) ceramics and/or thin films Leiderer88 ; Mohamed91 ; Jung93 ; Darhmaoui96 . By changing the outer $`R_o`$ and the inner $`R_i`$ radii of the ring, one may essentially enlarge a difference between the length scales, $`R_o+R_i`$ and $`R_oR_i`$, over which, respectively, the inter- and the intragrain currents flow. Provided that the ring is thin enough $`(R_oR_i)(R_o+R_i)`$, one may reliably register the magnetic flux density $`B`$ induced by the intergrain, shielding current even if the intragrain currents much exceed it.

The melt-textured (MT) growing process Jin88  has generally allowed to escape an appearance of the large-angle grain boundaries (GBs) and, thereby, the current localization inside the grains. For this reason, a worldwide interest to the ring-like geometry was fading away until an idea to weld Salama92  MT blocks gained a respectable reputation Shi95 ; Philip98 ; Zheng99 ; Delamare00 ; Zheng01 ; Prikhna01 ; Noudem01 ; Harnois01 ; Puig01 ; Walter01 ; Yoshioka02 ; Kord01 ; Claus01 ; Kambara02 . Briefly, the joining procedures consist in welding of single MT domains during a liquid-assisted process which either releases residual BaCuO-oxide trapped in the MT material Philip98  or uses corresponding REBCO (RE=Tm Zheng99 ; Zheng01 ; Prikhna01 , Yb Delamare00 ; Noudem01 , Er Walter01 ; Yoshioka02 , Y Shi95 ; Kambara02  or Y+Ag Harnois01 ; Puig01 ; Claus01 ) compounds melting at lower temperatures. Since these techniques were shown to produce the joints capable to carry high currents, such artificial joining opens new perspectives for fabrication of large-scale superconducting devices (e.g., magnetic bearings, electromotors and generators, energy storage systems, etc. Murakami00 ). Their performance, though, crucially depends on the density $`j_w`$ of the critical current which the weld may transmit.

Despite of an obvious necessity to compare the joints obtained under different welding conditions, surprisingly few authors reported numerical values $`j_w`$. Besides, most of these estimates was obtained by the resistive measurements which, because of the ohmic losses in the current pads, are severely limited by the maximum admissible current $`I_w=j_wS10^3A`$. Thus, these measurements are restricted both by the surface $`S`$ of the weld and by its quality $`j_w`$ which, in turn, imposes the lowest temperature margin. On the other hand, prevalent contactless methods (e.g., levitation force technique Zheng99 ; Kord01 , magneto-optical image analysis Zheng99 ; Walter01 ; Pannetier01 , the scanning Hall-sensor magnetometry Philip98 ; Zheng99 ; Delamare00 ; Zheng01 ; Prikhna01 ; Harnois01 ; Puig01 ; Yoshioka02  and magnetization loop studies Philip98 ; Zheng99 ; Claus01 ) are not free of ambiguities in processing of experimental data unless, as mentioned above, the welded sample has a shape of thin ring. In this case, the circular current throughout a ring is limited by the weakest link which is, in turn, usually associated with a joint.

Among the mentioned above experimental techniques, the scanning Hall sensor magnetometry looks preferable. The main reason is that, having no restrictions for a size of joints, this method is quite suitable for characterization of large-scale welds required for practical applications. The same feature seems also useful for other tasks to be eventually resolved. In particular, one has to study a degradation of the critical current densities from a center of large MT domains to their rims Dewhurst98  and its relation to a content of the precursor mixture, the growth temperature, etc. Aside from a knowledge of the best growth conditions, such studies will allow to determine the optimum size of welded parts. The last, but not the least argument is a widespread use of the scanning Hall sensor systems Philip98 ; Zheng99 ; Delamare00 ; Zheng01 ; Prikhna01 ; Harnois01 ; Puig01 ; Yoshioka02 .

For this technique to give reliable results, the experimental data have to be properly processed. Meanwhile, most of the authors prefer to simplify the genuine distribution of currents and to consider their rings as *homogeneous* (one-turn) solenoids carrying the transport current $`I_w`$. In other words, they neglect the intragrain currents, i.e. those which do not cross the joint. We shall hereafter demonstrate that such simplification is applicable only for rough estimates. More accurate method, i.e. a scan of the flux trapped by a ring with its subsequent computer fit Zheng01 , is also far from perfect. The problem is that a necessity to move the Hall sensor makes this technique hard to exploit at different temperatures and/or external magnetic fields. Moreover, the scanning duration $`t_{sc}`$ of, typically, a few minutes during which the currents may noticeably dissipate, assents to start the measurements only after a long-continued dwell $`t_{dw}t_{sc}`$. So, an important information about the current losses appears unavailable.

Section II of this manuscript represents simple analytical equations constituting a backbone of the novel experimental approach which combines the advantages of both methods and is free of their faults. We show that to find out the densities of the inter- and the intragrain currents one does not need to waste a time on the magnetic flux scan. Actually, these densities may, with a proper accuracy, be estimated from two experimental points $`B(r,z)`$ measured at certain distances $`z`$ above/below the ring center. In Section IV we apply this method to study the current distribution in the large-scale MT YBCO rings. The results are summarized in Section V.

## II  Model and its solution

Let us consider a homogeneous ring (see Fig. 1) made of superconducting material with the critical current density $`j_m`$ and introduce therein a weak link transmitting a current up to

$$I_w=j_w(R_oR_i)2L=j_mf(R_oR_i)2L$$
(1)
where $`f=j_w/j_m<1`$. It is worth of mentioning that the weak link makes this ring *inhomogeneous* with respect to a rotation around its axis, $`z`$. Let the ring was completely magnetized in strong magnetic fields applied along the $`z`$-direction. The subject of our interest will be the currents flowing in the ring as well as the radial profiles $`B(z=Const,r)`$ of the vertical component of the magnetic flux density which these currents produce.

Assuming the Bean’s critical state model in the simplest form of infinitely high ($`L\mathrm{}`$) sample to be valid, one can readily outline the profile passing through the point $`r=0`$ and the ring area which is far enough from the weak link. Fig. 2a shows this profile in the remanent state ($`H=0`$). Of necessity, this situation can readily be expanded to the case of arbitrary fields by adding a constant background $`\mu _0H`$. For this reason, we shall thenceforward take into account only two components of the magnetic flux, $`B_w`$ and $`B_m`$. These are induced by the inter- ($`I_w`$) and the intragrain ($`I_m`$) currents which, respectively, crosses and does not cross the weak link. When $`L\mathrm{}`$, the former results to the triangle profile truncated in the ring bore by a plateau $`B_0=j_w(R_oR_i)`$ (Fig. 2b), whereas the latter responds for the difference $`B_m=BB_w`$ (see Fig. 2c). The radius $`R_c`$ wherein the intragrain current alters its direction from the clockwise (CW) to the counterclockwise (CCW) is known

$$R_c(f)=\left[R_o+R_if(R_oR_i)\right]/2$$
(2)
to change between $`(R_i+R_o)/2`$ at $`f=0`$ and $`R_i`$ when $`f=1`$ Zheng01 . Using Eq. (2), one can calculate the amplitude

$$I_m=j_m(R_oR_i)L(1f^2)$$
(3)
and demonstrate that the CW and CCW intragrain currents compensate each another, i.e. the current loop $`I_m`$ does appear closed inside the superconducting grain.

In the case $`L\mathrm{}`$ illustrated in Fig. 2, $`B_m(r<R_i)0`$, i.e. any point inside the ring bore is suitable to estimate the density $`j_w=B_0/(R_oR_i)`$. This comfortable situation is, though, too far from reality. Since the finite-size rings are not free of demagnetizing effects, the term $`B_m(r<R_i)`$ is actually non-zero. Thus, in order to estimate the current $`I_w`$ and/or its density $`j_w`$, one has to calculate and to remove the component $`B_m`$ from the experimentally accessible value $`B(z,r)`$. In this paper we solve this problem in a bit another way. We show and gladly exploit that $`B_m(z,r)`$ is an alternating function: it is negative inside a certain region surrounding the ring center ($`z=0,r=0`$) and positive outside it (see, for example, Fig. 4a). Thus, positioning the Hall sensor somewhere at the border $`B_m(z_0,r_0)=0`$, one can directly measure the intergrain flux component $`B_w(z_0,r_0)`$ and use this value to restore a “pure” circular current $`I_w`$ flowing throughout a ring.

One could, certainly, search for a whole surface which satisfy the condition $`B_m(z_0,r_0)=0`$. But let, for simplicity, restrict our search by the points along the ring axis, $`r_0=0`$. The magnetic flux density of thin ($`r_i=r_o=R`$), one-turn solenoid at $`r=0`$ is well-known

$`B={\displaystyle \frac{I}{4L}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{Lz}{\sqrt{R^2+(Lz)^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{L+z}{\sqrt{R^2+(L+z)^2}}}\right].`$ (4)
For finite-size rings, one requires to average the function (4) over the range between their outer $`r_o`$ and the inner $`r_i`$ radii. Using a formal procedure $`B=B(r)𝑑r/𝑑r`$, one has a general solution

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`j\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z,r_o,r_i).`$ (5)
Here $`j`$ denotes the current density $`j=I/[2L(r_or_i)]`$ and the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ gives the effective size depending on four distances

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z,r_o,r_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Lz,r_o,r_i)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(L+z,r_o,r_i),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,r_o,r_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_o+\sqrt{r_o^2+x^2}}{r_i+\sqrt{r_i^2+x^2}}}\right).`$ (6)
Using these equations, one can obtain the magnetic flux densities, $`B_w`$, $`B_m`$ and $`B=B_w+B_m`$, produced by each of three magnetic systems shown in Fig. 2 for the case of finite sizes. For example, the coil (Fig. 2b), which carries a current $`I_w`$ of a density $`j_w`$, yields

$`B_w=j_w\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z,R_o,R_i).`$ (7)
The intragrain flux component $`B_m`$ is created by by a pair of coils (see Fig. 2c) having the same height $`2L`$ and the common radius $`R_c`$ given by Eq. (2). Since these coils carry a current $`I_m`$ of densities $`j_m(1f)`$ and $`j_m(1+f)`$, one has

$`B_m`$ $`=`$ $`Kj_m[(1f)\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z,R_o,R_c(f))`$ (8)
$``$ $`(1+f)\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z,R_c(f),R_i)]`$
where $`K`$ is a geometrical factor which origin is illustrated in Fig. 3. One can see that a weak link is surrounded by the diamond-shaped area (marked by bright color) where the intragrain current $`I_m`$ flows no more in the circular direction (as Eq. (5) assumes), but either toward or outward the ring center. Owing to such an arrangement, $`I_m`$ within this “diamond” gives a negligible contribution to $`B(z,r=0)`$. Then, the flux density $`B_m`$ of a full intragrain loop has to be corrected onto a factor $`K1\delta /2\pi R_c`$ (see Fig. 3) where the half-width $`\delta `$ may be estimated as the length necessary to transmit a whole current $`I_m`$ given by Eq. (3). Since the radial current density $`j_r`$ can not exceed $`\sqrt{j_m^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}j_w^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}`$ (see vector diagrams in Fig. 3), one can obtain

$`\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(R_oR_i)\sqrt{1f^2}.`$ (9)
and, then, calculate the parameter

$`K=1N{\displaystyle \frac{R_oR_i}{4\pi R_c(f)}}\sqrt{1f^2}`$ (10)
for the case of several weak links, $`N`$. This approximation is no longer valid at $`N\delta >\pi R_c`$, i.e. when the diamonds start to overlap each other.

In order to imagine how the flux densities vary along the ring axis, we inserted parameters of the real ring reported in Ref. Zheng01,  to Eqs.(7) and (8) and presented these curves in Fig. 4a. These data once more convince us that the one-turn approximation (7) may properly be applied to experimental values $`B(z)`$ only when $`B_m=0`$, i.e. at the points $`z_0\pm 5.4mm`$ on the given axis ($`r=0`$). Otherwise, such method may considerably underestimate ($`|z|<z_0`$) or overestimate ($`|z|>z_0`$) the current density $`j_w`$. For the parameter $`f=0.5`$ in Fig. 4a, the $`j_w`$ value, respectively of the Hall sensor position $`0|z|10mm`$, changes in the wide range ($`77\mathrm{}120\%`$) around the genuine density $`j_w=11kA/cm^2`$. This error essentially increases when $`f0`$ (see Fig. 4b).

In order to escape such situation, one has to know $`z_0`$. The main problem, which will encounter everybody trying to do it, is that the expression inside the brackets in Eq. (8) depends on the unknown factor $`f=j_w/j_m`$ and so, certainly, does $`z_0`$ which satisfies

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z_0,R_o,R_c(f))}{\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z_0,R_c(f),R_i)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1+f}{1f}}.`$ (11)
If one could ignore this dependence, $`z_0`$ would be defined only by the ring geometry and, hence, readily calculated.

Upon a closer view at Fig. 4b, one can really note that $`z_0`$ tends to the ring center as $`f`$ increases. However, the effect seems so weak that we did not resist a temptation to know in which rings its disregard still gives an acceptable error. We studied the $`z_0`$ vs $`f`$ curves at various parameters $`R_o`$, $`R_i`$ and $`2L`$ and revealed almost no deviation from the initial value $`z_0(f=0)`$ in thin ($`R_iR_o`$) and/or high ($`L\mathrm{}`$) rings (see Fig. 5a,b), i.e. in those which are close to a form of ideal solenoid. As the largest deviation is, therefore, expected in thick, flat rings ($`R_oR_i`$, $`LR_i`$), it is the case to be inspected. So, we calculated for such rings the amendment $`B_m/B_w|_{z_0}`$ which has, by the definition, to be a zero unless the $`z_0`$ vs $`f`$ dependence is ignored. The points $`z_0(R_i,R_o,L)=Const`$, wherein this ratio was estimated, were taken from Eq. (11) reduced by the substitution $`f=0`$ to rather comfortable form 111Numerical methods (e.g., the bisectional search) determine the roots $`\pm z_0`$ of Eq. (12) to any desired accuracy. For this reason, we desisted from attempts to reduce Eq. (12) into an absolute form $`z_0=f(R_i,R_o,L)`$ which can be obtained by introducing further restrictions for the ring geometry.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z_0,R_o,R_c(0))=\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z_0,R_c(0),R_i),`$ (12)
where $`R_c(0)=(R_o+R_i)/2`$. Accepting the admissible error to be 2.5% and restricting, thereby (see Fig. 5c), the studied rings by not too stringent condition 222Owing to a finite height of real rings, a requirement for the ratio $`R_o/R_i`$ is actually yet less stringent. $`R_o/R_i2`$, we are qualified to use the above simplification, $`z_0(f)=z_0(0)`$, in practice.

Thus, knowing the ring sizes ($`R_o`$, $`R_i`$ and $`2L`$) only, one may, on the one hand, pre-determine $`z_0`$ from Eq. (12) by numerical methods. Such solutions (normalized, for the sake of convenience, to the ring half-height $`L`$) are shown in Fig. 6. On the other hand, this numerical procedure (at least, in the case of welded rings) may *optionally* be avoided. Before joining, these rings inevitably contain one or more slits which prevent a circular current to flow ($`f=0`$). So, the points $`\pm z_0`$, wherein the remanent flux density of the *cut* ring changes its sign (see Fig. 4a), are available for direct measurements. Then, registering $`B(\pm z_0)`$ above or below the center of the *welded* sample, one may readily calculate the joint quality

$`j_w=B(z_0)/\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z_0,R_o,R_i).`$ (13)
Since $`z_0`$ depends only on the ring geometry, there is no matter whether the welded ring has the same $`j_m`$ as that in the original material or not. This feature does look important because heating of the MT samples up to temperatures close to their melting points, which actually is the joining procedure, often results to the oxygen losses and requires to re-oxygenate the samples.

## III  Experimental details

The initial MT YBCO samples, from which we cut the rings, were grown by the top-seeding method which is described in details elsewhere Doris . Briefly, commercially purchased powders of YBa2Cu3O7-δ and Y2O3 were thoroughly mixed in proportions providing the final phase composition Y:Ba:Cu=1.5:2:3 and diluted by 1 wt.% CeO2. This mixture was uniaxially pressed into cylindrical pellets which sizes were selected to exceed the sizes of future rings. Then, the self-made SmBa2Cu3OX seed was installed in the center of each pellet and oriented so that its crystallographic axis $`c`$, , was parallel to the axis of cylinder. On the morrow of isothermal melt-growth ($`T=988^{}`$C) the samples were cooled down to the room temperature and then post-annealed in flowing oxygen.

The rings were carved (by using the aluminium oxide grindstones) so that the $`z`$-axis of each ring was parallel to the $`c`$-axis of the initial MT crystal.

The larger half of experiments was in scanning of the *remanent* flux distribution. These scans were performed with the 3D-positioning system Klupsch  allowing to move the Hall sensor stepwise with a pitch of 100 $`\mu m`$ in the horizontal plane and of 75 $`\mu m`$ along the vertical direction. The standard procedure was the following. The rings were mounted inside a small vessel and field-cooled (FC) in magnetic fields $`\mu _0H1T`$ to the liquid nitrogen temperature $`T=77.3K`$. Then, the field was switched off (with a sweep rate $`0.5T/min`$) and a ring (still inside a vessel with a liquid nitrogen) was moved to an area available for a scan. To eliminate the undesirable scatter because of a dissipation of the remanent flux during the scanning time (typically, of a few minutes), a scan was always run after a long-continued dwell ($`t_{dw}=30min`$). Both the axial $`B(r=0,z)`$ and the radial $`B(r,z=Const)`$ profiles were studied.

To measure the hysteresis loops $`B(H)`$ as well as the flux dissipation $`B(t)`$, we mounted the Hall sensor directly on the studied ring. The Hall sensor positioning error did not exceed $`50\mu m`$.

The magnetic moment, $`m`$, was registered by the commercial VSM (Model No. 3001, Oxford Instriments Ltd). Owing to a relatively large distance between the vibrating ring and the pick-up coils, this value may roughly be associated with $`B(z=\mathrm{})`$.

The radial flux distribution at the ring edges $`z=\pm L`$ in small magnetic fields ($`H<3kOe`$) was also visualized by using a high-resolution magneto-optical imaging technique Uspenskaya97 ; Uspenskaya03 .

## IV  Results and discussion

In this section we report extensive experimental studies of the inter- and the intragrain currents for the ring-like geometry. At first, we investigate the current distribution in the remanent state and compare our results with those obtained by conventional methods. Then, we study a behavior of rings containing natural weak links (i.e. the boundaries between the $`a`$-twisted grains) in external magnetic fields. Finally, we explore the flux creep effects.

### IV.1  Cut rings in the remanent state

It is obvious that the fewer fitting parameters are included in an equation, the more trustworthy one can test whether it fits an experiment or not. For this reason, we start our studies from the cut rings wherein relevant is the only parameter, $`j_m`$.

When a ring contains $`N`$ slits and transmits, hence, no intergranular current $`I_w`$ , the magnetic flux density along the ring axis ($`r=0`$) is given by Eq. (8) at $`f=0`$

$`B=Kj_m[\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z,R_o,R_c(0))\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z,R_c(0),R_i)],`$ (14)
where $`R_c(0)`$ is the average radius, $`(R_o+R_i)/2`$, and

$`K=1{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{R_oR_i}{R_o+R_i}}`$ (15)
One has to note that the term in brackets totally defines the shape of the $`B`$ vs $`z`$ curve, i.e. $`j_m`$ may change only its amplitude. Thus, estimating a disagreement between theoretical and experimental profiles $`B(r=0,z)`$, one can readily check to what extent may our approach be relied on. In particular, one can put the solutions $`z_0`$ of Eq. (12) to the experimental proof. By changing the ring sizes, we can also test how $`j_m`$ varies with a distance from the seeding point both in the axial and in the radial directions.

For these studies we used the ring (see Table 1) which was cut from the central part of the MT crystal, i.e. the ring center ($`r=0`$) coincided with the seeding point. The inner diameter, $`2R_i=5.90mm`$, was selected to exceed the size ($`5mm`$) of the Hall sensor holder and to make, therefore, the ring suitable for the $`z`$-scan along the whole axis $`r=0`$. At first, we cut this ring onto two 180-arcs and glued them together by using an epoxy resin. A toughness of such mechanical contact was good enough for a succeeding treatment of the ring by grindstones. Then, grinding, step-by-step, the ring bottom (i.e. reducing the ring height), we measured at each stage the axial profile $`B(r=0,z)`$ of the remanent flux density. During the measurements we exactly followed the procedure described in Section III. Some of these data are presented in Fig. 7 (open symbols). To calculate $`j_m`$ and to recover from Eq. (14) theoretical approximations (solid curves), we used the $`B`$-points near the ring center, $`z=0`$, wherein the flux density has the maximum amplitude. Fig. 7 shows that Eq. (14) well fits the experimental data. However, more careful look (see Table 1) reveals a certain difference. One can notice that the genuine value $`z_0`$ (estimated as the half-distance between the points wherein the experimental curve intersects the $`X`$-axis) in high rings is usually a bit smaller than $`z_0`$ predicted by Eq. (12). This feature is accompanied by the obvious tendency for $`j_m`$ to decrease (from the top surface to the bottom one) and may readily be explained by the growth-related inhomogeneities of the MT material Diko00 ; Surzhenko02b .

*In particular, the top-seeded MT crystal grows due to a motion of five habitus planes, viz., (100), ($`\overline{1}00`$), (010), (0$`\overline{1}`$0) and (00$`\overline{1}`$) which form, respectively, four $`a`$-growth sectors (GS) and the $`c`$-GS. The latter usually has a shape of a regular pyramid with a vertex in the seeding point (see Fig. 8). During a growth the interface energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _0`$ between the (00$`\overline{1}`$)-plane and the Y2BaCuO5 (Y211) inclusions appreciably differs from that for the former four habits Diko00 . Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _0`$ determines whether the Y211-particle with a certain size will be expelled or embraced by the solid-liquid front pushing , the volume fraction $`V_{211}`$ of inclusions trapped inside the $`c`$-GS *always* appears much smaller than $`V_{211}`$ in the $`a`$-GSs Diko00 . Meanwhile, these inclusions are well-known Y211  to behave as effective pinning centers. Thus, the intragrain current density $`j_m`$ inside the $`c`$-GS has also to be less than $`j_m`$ in $`a`$-GSs, i.e. near the crystal surface (see Fig. 8). At our growth temperature ($`T=988^{}`$C) the height of the $`c`$-GS is approximately a half of its base Surzhenko02b . So, high rings ($`2LR_i`$) seem to consist* of the superconducting material with different $`j_m`$. Grinding the ring bottom, we gradually deleted a part with a worse $`j_m`$ and, thereby, made the ring more homogeneous. One has also to mention that the $`j_m`$ values in Table 1 are averaged over the whole height $`2L`$. A genuine ratio of the current density in the $`a`$-GSs and that in the $`c`$-GS may roughly be estimated as a factor of $`2.0\pm 0.2`$ which is in a good agreement with this obtained by magnetooptical method (see, for example, Ref. Uspenskaya03, ).

We also tried to estimate the radial inhomogeneities $`j_m(r)`$ near the top surface of the MT crystals. For this purpose, we removed a certain portion of superconducting material from the outer periphery of the cut ring CR7 (see Table 1) and revealed a vague tendency for $`j_m`$ to decrease as $`r0`$.

This brief survey to the growth-induced structure of MT crystals scarcely seems redundant. At first, it confirms a validity of our results. It also gives a better understanding of why we used for further studies only homogeneous rings, i.e. those carved from the same, $`a`$-growth sector (see Table 2). Meantime, it should not eclipse the main, to our opinion, conclusion of this section: the proposed method well predicts the “magic position”, $`z_0`$, where the magnetic flux is free of the intragrain contribution, $`B_m`$.

### IV.2  Entire rings in the remanent state

In this section we shall report experimental data for entire rings which consist of the $`a`$-twisted subgrains. Such subgrains are formed due to mechanical stresses which the YBCO skeleton undergoes when the growth front engulfes the Y2BaCuO5 inclusions. These stresses result in dislocations which, unfortunately, have a destructive tendency to amalgamate into the GBs Diko00 . As these stresses accrue during the growth, the mis-orientation angle between the neighboring subgrains (which are usually elongated along the growth direction, i.e. along either the $`a`$\- or the $`c`$-axis) gradually increases with a distance from the seeding point Diko00 . This angle, for large enough samples, can exceed the critical limit when the GB turns into the weak link Dimos ; Chisholm ; channel\_evidence . Having an opportunity to determine whether this limit is approached or not, we grew few extra-large ($`52\times 52\times 25mm`$) MT crystals and cut entire rings from their various parts. So, aside from standard ring parameters (i.e. the inner $`R_i`$ and the outer $`R_o`$ radii as well as the full-height, $`2L`$), we shall hereafter introduce one more, viz., the distance $`X`$ between the seed and the center of the ring (see Table 2).

When prepared, each ring was carefully inspected with a view to avoid the cracks which could reduce the effective cross-section $`S=(R_oR_i)2L`$ and influence, thereby, on the current distribution inside a ring.

In order to estimate a distribution of the currents flowing in entire rings at the remanent state, we duplicated the procedure described in Section III. Fig. 9a presents the profile $`B(r=0,z)`$ measured along the axis of the ring ER1 (see Table 2). One can, certainly, fit the whole profile $`B(r=0,z)`$ by selecting appropriate parameters $`j_m`$ and $`f`$. The best fit is obtained at $`j_m=21.43kA/cm^2`$ and $`j_w=14.08kA/cm^2`$ (solid line in Fig. 9a). There exists, though, an opportunity to determine the inter- and intragrain currents separately. By substituting the flux densities $`B(r=0,\pm z_0)`$ into Eq. (13), one obtains quite similar results, $`j_w=14.0`$ and $`13.9kA/cm^2`$ for the points $`+z_0`$ and $`z_0`$, respectively. Estimation of the intragrain current density $`j_m`$ seems a bit more complicated. Accepting $`j_w`$ to be the average value $`13.95kA/cm^2`$, one can use Eq. (7) to restore the flux density $`B_w(r=0,z)`$ at arbitrary distance $`z`$ (say, in the ring center, $`z=0`$). Then, by deducting this value $`B_w(0,0)`$ from the experimental one $`B(0,0)`$, one can extract the intragrain flux component, $`B_m(0,0)`$. Finally, one has to adjust the parameter $`f`$ (or $`j_m=j_w/f`$) in Eq. (8) so to approach the same remainder, $`B_m(0,0)`$. Following this procedure, we obtained $`f=0.645`$ and $`j_m=j_w/f=21.63kA/cm^2`$. The latter is in a reasonable agreement both with the previous estimate ($`21.43kA/cm^2`$) and with the values ($`22.7kA/cm^2`$) reported for the cut rings which also were carved from the central part of MT YBCO sample (see Table 1). Similar procedure was applied to the other rings, the results are included in Table 2. Let us, though, postpone their discussion till the next chapter.

Since any innovation assuredly needs in a careful comparison with the conventional methods, we paid a special attention to this task. At first, we considered those techniques (see, for example, Refs. Zheng99, ; Zheng01, ; Puig01, )

$`B=\{\begin{array}{cc}I_w/[2R],\hfill & \text{Approx.\hspace{0.17em}1}\hfill \\ I_w/[2(R^2+z^2)^{1.5}],\hfill & \text{Approx.\hspace{0.17em}2}\hfill \\ j_w\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z,R_o,R_i),\hfill & \text{Approx.\hspace{0.17em}3}\hfill \end{array}`$ (19)
which neglect the intragrain flux component $`B_m`$. Using each of the mentioned approximations, we calculated the intergrain current densities $`j_w=I_w/[2L(R_oR_i)]`$ from the same experimental profile $`B(r=0,z)`$ and plotted these data in Fig. 9b. It is worth to underline an evident similarity of the curves obtained within the Approx. 2 and 3 with those presented in Fig. 4b. Their deviation from nearly constant value $`j_w`$, which corresponds to the case when the intragrain currents are taken into account (Approx. 4 in Fig. 9b), make these methods suitable only for rough estimates even for relatively homogeneous rings like ER1 ($`f0.65`$).

Then, we studied the same ring by the approach which is kin to that described in Ref. Zheng01, . Briefly, the radial profile $`B(r,z=Const)`$ in the remanent state ($`T=77.3K`$, $`t_{dw}=30min`$) was measured and fitted by adjusting two parameters, $`j_w`$ and $`j_m`$. The obtained data and their fit well agree one with another (see Fig. 10). One has also to mention that a shape of the intergrain flux component $`B_w(r)`$ noticeably differs from a shape of the experimental curve, $`B(r)`$. This example once more demonstrates how important is the flux correction due to the intragrain currents. However, yet more important, at the moment, is a good agreement between the best fit parameters, $`j_w=14.05kA/cm^2`$ and $`j_m=22.3kA/cm^2`$ ($`f=0.63`$), and and their values estimated by the “two-point” method.

Concluding this section, we would like to emphasize the following. In order to know $`j_w`$ and $`j_m`$, one no longer requires to scan the magnetic flux. Both values may, with a proper accuracy, be determined from *two* experimental data, e.g., $`B(z_0)`$ and $`B(0)`$. In contrast to any scanning techniques, this “two-point” method is quite applicable in a wide range of magnetic fields and/or temperatures. This also has no evident restrictions for a time to start the measurements. Realizing these benefits, we used this approach for further studies.

### IV.3 Rings in external magnetic fields

Heretofore, we acquiesced to the Bean model which presumes that the critical current density remains independent of the external magnetic field, $`H`$. Meantime, $`H`$ is well-known to reduce $`j_w`$. This reduction, in turn, can essentially worsen, say, a performance of superconducting devices constructed from the welded grains. It is, therefore, vitally important to control the intergrain current $`I_w`$ which flow through the weak link immersed in strong magnetic fields. Another task on which we are going to focus an attention is a penetration of a magnetic flux into the rings. This process was recently shown Pannetier01  to be accompanied by a highly non-uniform current distribution. Although our approach describes mostly rings in the full-magnetized state, this allowed to shed some light onto this phenomenon.

Since a behaviour of the rings enumerated in Table 2 *gradually* changed from the most homogeneous case, ER3 ($`f0.73`$), to the most inhomogeneous one, ER4 ($`f0.41`$), these were the samples which we selected for an illustration.

Fig. 11 presents the $`B`$ vs $`H`$ dependencies obtained at various heights, $`z=0`$ and $`z=3.3mmz_0`$, above the center of the ring ER3 a) before and b) after we introduced therein the radial slit. Let us primarily discuss the flux penetration into a bore ($`z=0`$) of the zero-field-cooled (zfc) ring in the non-magnetized, virgin state (open symbols).

Fig. 11a shows that the entire ring shields ($`B=0`$) its bore Buckel  by generating the circular current $`I_w`$ which, at first, exactly compensates $`\mu _0H`$. However, $`I_w`$ is limited by its critical value. Thus, the field $`H_p`$, when the currents are no longer enough for full screening ($`B>0`$), may be used to estimate the critical current density $`j_w`$.

Penetration of the magnetic flux into a bore ($`z=0`$) of the cut rings seems absolutely different. Since there are no circular currents ($`I_w=B_w=0`$), the flux density is defined merely by the intragrain flux component, $`B_m`$. For this reason, the initial curve $`B(z=0)`$ in Fig. 11b deviates from zero as soon as $`H>0`$. One can also observe that the initial slope $`dB/\mu _0dH`$ exceeds unity. In other words, the $`B(z=0)`$ loop in the cut rings and that in the entire rings have opposite widths $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=B\mu _0H`$(Fig. 11). This behavior is reminiscent of the opposite components, $`B_m(z=0)<0`$ and $`B_w(z=0)>0`$, of the remanent flux presented in Fig. 4. The $`B_m`$ vs $`z`$ dependencies on Figs. 4 and 7 also explain why the loop $`B(H)`$ in the cut rings shrinks into the straight line $`B=\mu _0H`$ as $`z`$ increases up to $`z_0`$ (see the respective curve in Fig. 11b) and, then, expands again with the negative width, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B(z>z_0)<0`$.

Extremely interesting anomalies (see Fig. 12) accompany the flux penetration into a bore ($`z=0`$) of the ring ER4, where the weakest link is really weak ($`f0.41`$) as compared with the rest of the ring material. In particular, the curve of the magnetic flux density $`B(z=0)`$ at the initial field branch (open squares) approaches the full-magnetized loop (solid squares) from outside, i.e. there exist the field range ($`0.08T\mu _0H0.5T`$) wherein the partially magnetized ring more effectively screens its bore than that in the full-magnetized state. Similar anomalies are also observed near the field reversal. Fig. 12 shows these effects at $`\mu _0H=1.25T`$, solid lines on the right side of Fig. 12 correspond to the loop reversed at a bit higher magnetic field, $`\mu _0H=1.5T`$. Since these anomalies almost disappear at the height $`z=z_0`$ (circles), one can preliminary conclude that these are induced by changes in a distribution of the *intragrain* currents which correspond to the concentric, counterrotating current loops mentioned in Ref. Pannetier01, .

To test this suggestion, we realized the following experiments. The samples were zfc-cooled down to $`T=77.3K`$ and magnetized at this temperature in a certain field, $`H`$. When a field was switched off, the remanent flux density was registered (after $`t_{dw}=10s`$) at various heights above the ring center, $`z=0`$, $`z_0`$ and $`z>z_0`$. We repeated this procedure at gradually increasing $`H`$ until the remanent flux density $`B`$ approached its saturation. The obtained $`B`$ vs $`\mu _0H`$ dependencies (normalized to the $`B`$ values at $`\mu _0H=2T`$ which well exceeds the full-penetration field) are presented in Fig. 13. One can see that the flux density in the center of the weakly coupled ring ER4 (open circles) does exhibit a well-discernible maximum at $`\mu _0H=0.18T`$. Similar maximum was already observed in polycrystalline YBCO rings by Darhmaoui and JungDarhmaoui96 . However, the concept of the Josephson vortex flow, which they invoked to unravel this phenomenon, can scarcely explain why the maximum totally disappears at larger distances, $`z=z_0`$ and $`z>z_0`$ (respectively, squares and up triangles in Fig. 13).

To our opinion, both the maximum $`B(z=0)`$ in Fig. 13 and the $`B(z=0)`$ anomalies in Fig. 12 are of the same origin. Their reason becomes nearly obvious owing to the normalization trick used in Fig. 13. These phenomena occur since the full-penetration field $`\mu _0H_p0.5T`$ (which is necessary to induce the whole currents) in the weakly coupled ring ER4 is much larger than the field $`\mu _0H_w0.2T`$ wherein the intergrain current reaches its critical limit, $`j_w2L(R_oR_i)`$ (squares in Fig. 12). So, a further growth of magnetic field ($`H_wHH_p`$) can generate merely the intragrain currents. Since the intragrain flux component $`B_m`$ reverses its sign at the height $`z=z_0`$ (see, for example, Figs. 4, 7 or 11b), the increase of its amplitude has to result in an additional increment of the net flux density $`B`$ measured at $`z>z_0`$ and, what we are going to prove, in its reduction when $`z<z_0`$. In other words, we believe that these anomalies become visible owing to demagnetizing effects. One more argument in favor of this scenario is that the ratio $`H_w/H_p0.4`$ does appear very close to the parameter $`f0.41`$. The same scenario is quite relevant for explication of the flux anomaly after the field reversal.

Generally, a certain decrease of the remanent flux could also be explained by the sample heating due to viscous forces that exert on moving flux lines. Yet, to attain the difference of $`65\%`$ shown in Fig. 13, one usually needs in the pulsed fields when the sweep rate is in a few orders of magnitude faster Surzhenko01  than that ($`0.5T/min`$) used in our experiments. Another argument, which completely rejects a hypothesis of the sample heating, is an absence of *any* $`B(z=0)`$ anomalies for more homogeneous ring ER3 ($`f0.73`$) which was measured at the same experimental conditions (Fig. 13). This absence may readily be explained by the following reasons. At first, the critical value of the intergrain current $`I_wf`$ linearly grows with $`f`$ and so is the flux component $`B_w`$ which $`I_w`$ produces. Since the intragrain current $`I_m(1f^2)`$ has an opposite tendency, the ratio $`B_m/B_w`$ rapidly decreases as $`f1`$. Finally, the larger is $`f`$, the closer become the fields $`H_w`$ and $`H_p`$ where, respectively, the the inter- and the intragrain currents are saturated. Hence, the larger half ($`f`$) of the intragrain flux component $`B_m`$ appears *simultaneously* with the intergrain one ($`H<H_w`$) and only a small portion, $`(1f)`$, does in the range $`H_wHH_p`$ where the $`B_m`$ changes are not compensated by the $`B_w`$ growth.

Thus, the closer is $`f`$ to unity, the less pronounced have to be the $`B(z=0)`$ anomalies during the flux penetration. The studies of other rings (enumerated in Table 2) confirm this statement. In particular, a difference between the maximum of the remanent flux $`B(z=0)`$ and its saturation value for the ring ER2 was registered to be $`3.6\%`$ ($`H_w/H_p=0.60.52=f`$). For the rings ER1 and ER3 with $`f0.65`$ and $`f0.73`$, respectively, this value did not exceed the experimental error ($`0.3\%`$). On the other hand, one can conclude, be the conclusion ever so amazing, that the remanent flux density $`B(z<z_0)`$ of weakly coupled rings ($`f0`$) may totally vanish or even become negative (note, for example, a negative remanence of $`0.1T`$ in the center of the cut ring ER3 shown in Fig. 11b) as the magnetizing field ascends.

Let us yet come back to an estimation of the intergrain and the intragrain current densities in external magnetic fields. As mentioned above, our approach requires removing the constant background $`\mu _0H`$ from the experimental data, $`B(z=0)`$ and $`B(z=z_0)`$, in the full-magnetized state (full points in Figs. 11a and 12). This task may conveniently be resolved by calculating the half-difference between the descending, $`B_{}`$, and the ascending, $`B_{}`$, field branches

$$\mathrm{\Delta }B(H)=[B_{}(H)B_{}(H)]/2.$$
(20)
Then, by applying the “two-point” method to each pair of the points, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B(H)|_{z=0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B(H)|_{z=z_0}`$ presented in Fig. 14a, we restored the sought $`j_w(H)`$ and $`j_m(H)`$ dependencies as well as their ratio $`f(H)`$ which also was found to depend on $`H`$. Moreover, the weaker is the link, the more sensitive this appeared to external magnetic fields (see Fig. 14c). In particular, in contrast to the sample ER3 which values $`f`$ cluster around 0.8, the curve $`f(H)`$ in the ring ER4 exhibits two well-defined maxima. Their origin may be attributed to the strongly coupled channels in GBs with a low misorientation angle Dimos ; Chisholm ; channel\_evidence . It is suggested Dimos ; Chisholm  that small magnetic fields *partially* decouple a weak link, i.e. there exists a secondary, non-weak-linked component of the intergrain conduction. Such channels of relatively undisturbed crystal lattice (i.e. microbridges of the intrinsic, intragranular material which occupy only a small area of the GB surface) were directly confirmed by the transmission electron microscopy of the $`10^{}`$-bicrystal YBCO film channel\_evidence . Following this multifilamentary model, one can identify the saddle point between two mentioned maxima as the field which decouples the weakest link, but still does not influence onto the other weak links restricting the intragrain current $`I_m`$ given by Eq. (3). So, a further increase of field reduces mostly the intragrain current density, $`j_m(H)`$, and, hence, results in the second peak of the $`f(H)`$ dependence. More interesting is that the same sequence seems valid for high fields $`H_{irr}`$ which totally decouples weak links by breaking their strongly coupled channels. Fig. 14c shows that this decoupling first happens with the weakest link $`\mu _0H_{irr}3.3T`$ and, then, with the rest of weak links ($`4.6T`$) in the ring ER4. In other words, within the range $`3.3T\mu _0H4.6T`$ there is already no circular current ($`f=0`$), but the intragrain currents, which result in $`B_m<0`$, still continue to flow. It is the reason why the half-width $`\mathrm{\Delta }B(H)|_{z=0}`$ (open squares in Fig. 14a) alters its sign. To our knowledge, only this type of measurements opens up an opportunity to see this high-field phenomenon.

Finalizing this section, one has to mention some discrepancies between the parameters $`f(H=0)`$ extracted from the magnetization cycle data (Fig. 14c) and those which were registered after a long dwell (see Table 2). Comparing these values, we took cognizance of a weak tendency for $`f`$ to decrease with a time. This question, though, is worthy of a separate discussion.

### IV.4 Dissipation of the magnetic flux

It is well known that the thermoactivated vortices ($`T>0`$) can leave the pinning centers under the Lorentz force creep

$$F_L=V\frac{B}{\mu _0}\frac{dB}{dr}.$$
(21)
Such motion of the vortex lines is equivalent to a resistance to a current and responsible for the power dissipation. For this reason, we were not surprised that the absolute values of the inter- and the intragrain current densities were found to decrease during a dwell. Meanwhile, their ratio $`f`$ was also suspected to depend on a time. If this tendency does exist, the flux depinning processes may noticeably falsify a genuine ability $`f`$ of weak links to transmit the current. It is therefore very important to know to which extent can we rely on the previous data obtained by the scanning Hall-sensor magnetometry Philip98 ; Zheng99 ; Delamare00 ; Zheng01 ; Prikhna01 ; Harnois01 ; Puig01 ; Yoshioka02  which *a-priori* requires a long-continued dwell.

At first, we more carefully explored the inter- and the intragrain flux losses and their influence on the current distribution. Fig. 15a shows the time dependencies of the remanent flux density measured at various heights, $`z=0,z_0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ above the center of the ring ER2. These curves (normalized, for convenience, to their values $`B_0=B(t=1s)`$) neatly indicate that the relative dissipation rate

$$S=\frac{1}{B_0}\frac{dB(t)}{d\mathrm{log}t}$$

gradually decreases with a distance $`z`$ from the sample. This decrease does prove that the intergrain current $`I_w`$ is dissipated faster than the intragrain one, $`I_m`$. Using the “two-point” procedure, we confirmed this qualitative conclusion by the numerical values $`I_w`$ and $`I_m`$ (Fig. 15b). The intergrain current decay $`S`$ was determined to be 8.2% per the time decade, whereas $`S`$ for the intragrain current did not exceed 2%. Consequently, each sequent time decade reduced the parameter $`f`$ on 0.021.

There may be several reasons which explain this phenomenon. The most evident one is that the intragrain current loop does not cross the weakest link where the largest losses are expected. One can also attribute this effect to the Lorentz force (21) which, in accordance to the radial distribution $`B(r)`$ (see Fig. 2a), more effectively stimulates a motion of the flux vortices trapped near the inner periphery ($`R_c<r<R_i`$) of the ring. This question will be the subject of next studies.

Whatever are the genuine reasons, these do result in the spatial re-distribution ($`fConst`$) of the currents during a dwell. This re-distribution passes the faster, the faster is the flux creep itself. One can conclude that at low temperatures and small magnetic fields, slow experimental methods still may give a reasonable approximation for the parameter $`f`$ describing the current limiting properties of the weak link. Otherwise, the long-continued dwell is absolutely inadmissible and so, unfortunately, is the *scanning* Hall-sensor method, which provides another way to discern between the inter- and the intragrain currents Zheng01 . In order to visualize how appallingly large may become an error just after a few seconds of dwell, we investigated the remanent flux creep in same ring ER2 at higher temperature, $`T=81K`$. In view of extremely sharp decay, we were caused to use the magneto-optical image technique Uspenskaya97  which allowed to register the flux changes much faster than other methods. So, the ring was cooled down to $`81K`$, isothermally magnetized and, then, a magnetic field was rapidly (during a delay $`0.04s`$ between neighboring image frames) switched off. Fig. 16 clearly shows that the flux inside the ring bore $`|r|<2.15mm`$ (dashed lines), i.e. that which is induced by the intergrain (circular) current $`I_w`$, rapidly decreases with a time and so does the parameter $`f`$.

## V  Summary

We explored the inter- and the intragrain currents flowing in bulk MT YBCO samples containing weak links.

To perform these studies, we developed a simple, reliable and non-destructive method which allows to discern between these types of current. In particular, we showed that, if a sample has a shape of a ring with finite sizes, the intragrain current (because of demagnetizing effects) gives an alternating-sign contribution $`B_m`$ to the net flux density $`B`$, viz., $`B_m`$ is negative near the ring center and positive at large distances. We also considered the points $`z=\pm z_0`$, wherein the ring axis ($`r=0`$) intersects the border ($`B_m=0`$) between these areas, and demonstrated that the distance $`z_0`$ appears almost independent of the current distribution. Hence, positioning the Hall sensor at the height $`\pm z_0`$ above (or below) the ring center, one can measure the “pure” intergrain flux component, $`B_w`$, and estimate the intergrain (circular) current which produces $`B_w`$. This, the so-called “one-point” method seems very promising for characterization of a quality of superconducting welds. In this case, the numerical calculations of the distance $`z_0`$ may optionally be replaced by its direct measurement preceding to the welding procedure. The same idea may, in future, be extended for less exotic sample shapes, for example, for the finite-size slabs.

By measuring the flux density $`B(r=0,z)`$ in one more point $`zz_0`$, one can also restore the intragrain current, $`I_m`$. We showed that it is the current which is responsible for very unusual phenomena registered near the center $`(r=0,z=0)`$ of weakly coupled rings ($`f<0.5`$). In particular, we observed (see Figs. 12 and 13) that, being in partially penetrated state, such rings screen their bores more effectively than those after the full-flux-penetration. Similar situation was registered after the field reversal at relatively high fields (Fig. 12). We also revealed, to the first blush, absolutely irregular situation when, owing to a destruction of the strongly coupled channels Dimos ; Chisholm ; channel\_evidence  in the weakest link, magnetic fields $`HH_{irr}`$ result in a negative screening of the ring bore (Fig. 14a). The dependence of the flux dissipation rate $`S`$ on a distance $`z`$ from the ring (Fig. 15a) could also be scarcely explicable unless the intragrain current $`I_m`$ is taken into account. These effects are merely the first items in a large list of somewhat “strange” effects (both already published and still waiting for publication) in the finite-size superconducting rings and/or hollow cylinders. We believe that, by presenting the method which allows to estimate $`I_w`$ and $`I_m`$, this work opens new perspectives to reveal and to explain other items.

Concluding the paper, we would like to touch on the superconducting welding again. Unless the welding techniques give totally reproducible quality of joints, one has to minimize their number by welding the bulk MT crystals which are as large as possible. Their sizes, though, are severely restricted because of a degradation of the superconducting properties from the seeding point toward the crystal rims (see Fig. 17). There exist, therefore, an optimum welding size, i.e. the size at which the rims of welded parts may transmit the same density of the current as that which can flow across their joint. Since, at present, the best joints are reported to carry the currents with a density of $`10kA/cm^2`$, we believe that the welding technology should be developed mostly for joining of relatively large, $`25\times 25mm`$ MT YBCO blocks.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the German BMBF under the Project 13N6854A3, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Project 02–02–17062) and INTAS (Project 02–2282). One of the authors (A.B.S.) would like to thank R. Hiergeist for useful discussions.