1: 

2: \documentclass [12pt]{article}

3: \usepackage {graphicx}

4: 

5: 

6: \begin{document}

7: \begin{center}

8: \textbf{Peculiarities of electronic heat capacity of thulium cuprates}

9: 

10: \textbf{in pseudogap state}

11: \end{center}

12: 

13: 

14: 

15: 

16: \bigskip

17: 

18: \begin{center}

19: E.B. Amitin, K.R. Zhdanov, M.Y. Kameneva,

20: 

21: Yu.A. Kovalevskaya, L.P. Kozeeva, I.E. Paukov

22: 

23: \textit{Institute of Inorganic Chemistry, 630090, Novosibirsk, Russia}

24: 

25: A.G. Blinov

26: 

27: \textit{Novosibirsk State University, 630090, Novosibirsk, Russia}

28: 

29: E-mail:\underline {amitin@casper.che.nsk.su}

30: \end{center}

31: 

32: 

33: 

34: 

35: \bigskip

36: 

37: \paragraph{Abstract}

38: 

39: 

40: 

41: 

42: \bigskip

43: 

44: Precise calorimetric measurements have been carried out in the 7 - 300 K 

45: temperature range on two ceramic samples of thulium 123 cuprates 

46: TmBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6.92}$ and TmBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6.70}$. The 

47: temperature dependence of the heat capacity was analyzed in the region where 

48: the pseudogap state (PGS) takes place. The lattice contribution was 

49: subtracted from the experimental data. The PGS component has been obtained 

50: by comparing electronic heat capacities of two investigated samples because 

51: the PGS contribution for the 6.92 sample is negligible. The anomalous 

52: behavior of the electronic heat capacity near the temperature boundary of 

53: PGS was found. It is supposed that this anomaly is due to peculiarities in 

54: $N(E)$ function where $N$ is the density of electronic states and $E$ is the energy of 

55: carriers of charge. 

56: 

57: 

58: 

59: 

60: \bigskip

61: 

62: \textbf{PACS: 74.25.Bt, 74.72.Jt}

63: 

64: 

65: 

66: 

67: \bigskip

68: 

69: \textbf{Introduction}

70: 

71: 

72: 

73: 

74: \bigskip

75: 

76: Last years a number of articles devoted to research of features of various 

77: properties, connected with so called pseudogap state (PGS), have appeared in 

78: periodicals. The PGS arises in underdoped yttrium 1-2-3 and lanthanum 2-1-4 

79: superconductors in the temperature region above the line of superconducting 

80: transition ($T_{c} < $ $T < $ $T$*) and at concentrations of carriers of charge, 

81: smaller than the critical value $p_{c}$ appropriate to the point of optimal 

82: doping (POD) (Fig. 1).

83: 

84: Hundreds publications were devoted to studying of unusual manifestations of 

85: the PGS in various properties. The most convincing proofs of existence of 

86: the PGS were received by direct methods - photoemission with the angular 

87: resolution (ARPES) and methods of electronic tunneling [1-3]. These data 

88: make evident an appreciable decrease of the density of electronic states in 

89: the field of PGS. The density of electronic states near the Fermi level has 

90: V-shaped minimum. If temperature increases and gets over a boundary line 

91: $T$*$(p)$, this minimum disappears and the system goes out of the PGS. 

92: 

93: At first the line $T$*($p)$ was perceived as a boundary of the region where NMR 

94: spin-lattice relaxation deviates significantly from the Korringa rule [4, 

95: 5]. Later it has been shown that experimental investigations of different 

96: physical properties determine different standings of the boundary of this 

97: state [6]. The border derived from the NMR measurements of the Knight shift 

98: or from the measurements of spin-lattice relaxation is marked in Fig. 1 with 

99: $T_{cr}(p)$. It is situated at higher temperatures, than the border derived 

100: from thermodynamic and kinetic properties $T$*($p)$. Such a discrepancy allows 

101: several researchers to suggest that there are two regions on the phase 

102: diagram, corresponding to weak and strong PGS [6]. Discussing the problem, 

103: we use the notations of ref. [6] throughout the work. The upper temperature 

104: boundary denoted by $T_{cr}$, is defined as a border of crossover phenomena 

105: in NMR experiments. The lower boundary is denoted traditionally by 

106: $T^{\ast }(p)$.

107: 

108: Two probable mechanisms of the PGS formation are discussed in the 

109: literature:

110: 

111: 1. The Cooper pairs exist above the temperature of superconducting phase 

112: transition forming the incoherent paired states. The number of the pairs 

113: increases with decreasing temperature and at the temperature $T_{c}$ the 

114: incoherent pairing transforms into the correlated superconducting state [7, 

115: 8].

116: 

117: 2. The charge carriers interact with the fluctuations of magnetic or charge 

118: short-range order (spin or charge density waves) [9-11]. Such an interaction 

119: can yield the V-shaped minimum in the density of electron states near the 

120: Fermi level [12]. 

121: 

122: It is difficult to recognize what mechanism of PGS formation is actual. Many 

123: authors suppose the second mechanism to be more plausible, than first [13]. 

124: 

125: Along with direct examinations of features of electronic states in PGS of 

126: 1-2-3 and 2-1-4 cuprate HTSC by the methods of ARPES and electronic 

127: tunneling, the studying of thermodynamic properties of these substances can 

128: make a considerable contribution to the insight into the subject. The 

129: investigation of unusual peculiarities in thermodynamic properties of 1-2-3 

130: and 2-1-4 cuprate HTSC was started by Junod and co-workers in the early 90s 

131: [14, 15]. Main investigations were carried out by Loram and co-workers after 

132: the middle of 90s [16-20] and are prolonged now. Such investigations are of 

133: great interest because of many problems in the theoretical interpretation of 

134: the phenomena observed. Another problem is the separation of the electronic 

135: contribution to the heat capacity. For the normal state above $T_{c}$, the 

136: electronic contribution $C_{el}$ is not greater than 2 - 3 {\%} of total heat 

137: capacity. Change of $C_{el}$ connected with PGS formation is significantly 

138: less, namely 0.2 - 0.3 {\%} of total heat capacity. Thus, even minor error 

139: in the separation of lattice, electronic, and magnetic contributions can 

140: lead to a significant error in the values describing electronic properties 

141: of cuprate HTSC.

142: 

143: To determine the electronic contribution at the PGS in yttrium cuprates 

144: YBCO$_{6 + X}$, Loram and co-workers used the lattice heat capacity 

145: $C_{lat}$ of dielectric YBCO$_{6}$ as a reference value. Probable differences 

146: between the values for a reference substance and substance under 

147: investigation were corrected using the sum of Einstein functions. The 

148: parameters in the functions were derived from the fitting of experimental 

149: data at low temperatures. The extrapolation of these components into field 

150: of PGS has allowed authors to separate electronic heat capacity $C_{el}$ of 

151: the cuprates investigated. This way of calculation yields the value of 

152: $C_{el}$ containing also the differences in magnetic and anharmonic 

153: contributions. The approximation of the difference by Einstein functions and 

154: its extrapolation in the field of PGS can produce significant errors in the 

155: electronic contribution calculated.

156: 

157: The aim of this work is to use the experimental results for the sample close 

158: to the optimal doping as the reference data. We think that this way of 

159: calculation of electronic contribution in the PGS is more correct.

160: 

161: 

162: 

163: 

164: \bigskip

165: 

166: \textbf{Experimental}

167: 

168: 

169: 

170: 

171: \bigskip

172: 

173: The calorimetric measurements of TmBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6.92}$ and 

174: TmBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6.70}$ were carried out using automatic 

175: low-temperature vacuum adiabatic calorimetric system. The equipment was 

176: described elsewhere [21] but only one exception: the calorimeter we used was 

177: made of copper and covered with silver instead of that made of pure nickel 

178: [21]. Internal volume of the calorimeter was about 6 cm$^{3}$. Heat capacity 

179: of empty calorimeter was measured in the temperature range 6 - 310 K. The 

180: accuracy of the calorimetric results was tested using the standard reference 

181: sample - benzoic acid. Our results agree with reliable data for benzoic acid 

182: taken from the literature [22-24] within the limits of $\pm $2 {\%} over the 

183: temperature range 6 - 10 K, 0.5 {\%} for 10 - 30 K, 0.2 {\%} for 30 - 60 K, 

184: and 0.1 {\%} above 60 K. During the measurements, temperature increase at 

185: the heat pulse was 1 to 2 K at $T < $ 30 K and 3 - 5 K over the temperature 

186: range 30 - 300 K. The average deviation of the experimental values from the 

187: smoothed curve was about 0.02 {\%} at temperatures 100 -- 300 K. The 

188: deviation increased with decreasing temperature, growing up to 1 {\%} at 10 

189: K. A total of 300 - 400 experimental points were performed for each sample.

190: 

191: Ceramic TmBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{X}$ was synthesized in the solid-state 

192: reaction according to the standard procedure using high-purity oxides 

193: Tm$_{2}$O$_{3}$, BaO, and CuO. Before the synthesis, the oxides 

194: Tm$_{2}$O$_{3}$ and CuO were annealed at 750$^{o}$C and 700$^{o}$C, 

195: respectively, to remove volatile impurities. The synthesis was performed in 

196: a corundum crucible in the temperature range from 800 to 900$^{o}$C, step by 

197: step with an interval of 25$^{o}$C, for 25 hours each. Before each step, the 

198: sample was thoroughly ground in an agate mortar. To receive the sample with 

199: optimal oxygen content $X$ = 6.92, the heating was performed in an atmosphere 

200: with excess amount of oxygen. The sample with $X$ = 6.7 was prepared from the 

201: sample with $X$ = 6.92 which was annealed in air at $T$ = 590$^{o}$C, then 

202: quenched into liquid nitrogen and annealed at 100$^{o}$C for two days.

203: 

204: Thulium cuprates were chosen for the investigation instead of yttrium 

205: cuprates because aluminum impurity in thulium cuprate after the synthesis in 

206: a corundum crucible was several tens lower than in yttrium cuprate. $X$-ray 

207: powder diffraction showed ceramics TmBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{X}$ to be nearly 

208: monophase and to contain the impurities of Tm$_{2}$BaCuO$_{5}$ and 

209: BaCuO$_{2}$. Total amount of these phases was not greater than 2-3 {\%}. The 

210: analysis showed that the amount of impurities did not change when the oxygen 

211: content decreased from 6.92 to 6.70. The analysis of structural factors 

212: sensing to homogeneity of oxygen distribution (orthorhombicity and 

213: broadening of basal reflections) has shown a high degree of homogeneity both 

214: in the sample with $X$ = 6.92 and with $X$ = 6.70.

215: 

216: 

217: 

218: 

219: \bigskip

220: 

221: \textbf{Results and Discussion}

222: 

223: 

224: 

225: 

226: \bigskip

227: 

228: Heat capacity $C_{p}$ is the sum of several contributions

229: 

230: 

231: 

232: 

233: \bigskip

234: 

235: $C_{p}=C_{harm}+C_{anh}+C_{el}+C_{magn}$, (1)

236: 

237: 

238: 

239: 

240: \bigskip

241: 

242: \noindent

243: where $C_{harm}$ is the contribution from harmonic vibrations in a lattice, 

244: $C_{anh}$ is that from anharmonicity, $C_{el}$ and $C_{magn}$ are the 

245: electronic and magnetic contributions, respectively. $C_{el}$ contains the 

246: contribution from the heat capacity of ordinary Fermi particles ($C_{s})$ 

247: that constitutes the major portion of $C_{el}$ for the sample 1 with X = 

248: 6.92. Besides $C_{s}$, $C_{el}$ in the sample 2 with $X$ = 6.70 contains the 

249: contribution from the PGS ($C_{PGS})$. In the sample with $X$ = 6.92, a very 

250: small contribution of $C_{PGS}$ can also be, since the PGS in 1-2-3 cuprates 

251: disappears at $X \quad  \cong $ 6.97.

252: 

253: The lattice contribution $C_{harm}$ was calculated by fitting the 

254: experimental data to the sum of Debye and Einstein functions according to 

255: the procedure described in [25]. The fitting was performed at low 

256: temperatures. The sum of the electronic, magnetic, and anharmonic terms 

257: $\gamma _{anh + el + magn}$ = ($C_{anh}+C_{el}+C_{magn})$/T for the 

258: samples investigated is shown in Fig. 2 as a function of temperature over 

259: the temperature range 100 - 300 K. We suppose that the anharmonic and 

260: magnetic contributions to the heat capacity for both samples are nearly 

261: identical. At least, we state with certainty that the difference between 

262: those contributions is much greater for YBCO$_{6}$ and YBCO$_{6 + X}$, 

263: compared by Loram [16-20], than for TmBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6.7}$ and 

264: TmBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6.92}$. The reason is the difference in structure and 

265: in magnetic order between the compared yttrium cuprates. 

266: 

267: Our experimental data were treated in the following way. After substraction 

268: of lattice contribution from total heat capacity, the function $f(T)$ was derived:

269: 

270: 

271: 

272: 

273: \bigskip

274: 

275: $f(T)$ = {\{}$C_{anh}(X$=6.92) / $T+\gamma _{el}(X$=6.92) + 

276: $C_{magn}(X$=6.92)/$T${\}} -- 

277: 

278: 

279: 

280: 

281: \bigskip

282: 

283: {\{}$C_{anh}(X$=6.70)/ $T+\gamma _{el}(X$=6.70) + $C_{magn}(X$=6.70)/$T$ {\}}. 

284: (2) 

285: 

286: 

287: 

288: 

289: \bigskip

290: 

291: The function $f(T)$ is shown in Fig. 3. If the anharmonic and magnetic 

292: contributions are nearly the same, the difference is

293: 

294: 

295: 

296: 

297: \bigskip

298: 

299: $f(T)=\Delta \gamma _{s}-\gamma _{PGS}(X$=6.70). (3)

300: 

301: 

302: 

303: 

304: \bigskip

305: 

306: The first term is positive and increases slightly with increasing 

307: temperature [26]. Function $\Delta \gamma _{s}(T)$ has no extremum. 

308: Hence, the wavy anomalies in the Fig. 3 are caused by the second term in 

309: equation 3. The minimum of the $f(T)$ is the result of the maximum of the function 

310: $\gamma _{PGS}(X$ = 6.70) that exists in the temperature range 200 - 250 K. 

311: The $f(T)$ tends to zero as temperature increases up to 300 K indicating that the 

312: PGS transforms into other state.

313: 

314: Moca and Janko [26] have analyzed the experimental data on electronic heat 

315: capacity measured by Loram and co-workers. The analysis was based on the 

316: first point of view mentioned above: the incoherent Cooper pairs exist in 

317: the PGS. Moca and Janko supposed that $\gamma _{el}$ consists of two 

318: contributions:

319: 

320: 

321: 

322: 

323: \bigskip

324: 

325: $\gamma _{el}(T)=\gamma _{s}(T)+\gamma _{p}(T)$, (4)

326: 

327: \bigskip

328: 

329: 

330: \noindent

331: where $\gamma _{s}(T)$ is the single-particle contribution from Fermi 

332: particles. This contribution is similar to the first term in Eq. 3. It 

333: increases slightly and monotonically with increasing temperature. The second 

334: term in Eq.4, $\gamma _{p}(T)$ is the contribution from the formation of 

335: the incoherent Cooper pairs. According to Ref. [26], $\gamma _{p}(T)$ 

336: depends on temperature like ($T$*/$T)^{3}$exp(-2$T$*/$T)$ with a maximum near $T=T$*. 

337: According to analysis of the data reported by Loram et al., the authors [26] 

338: suppose the position of maximum of $\gamma _{el}(T)$ to shift to lower 

339: temperatures when the oxygen content increases. For the cuprate with $X$ = 6.7, 

340: the maximum of function $\gamma _{el}(T)$ was estimated to be within the 

341: temperature range 120 to 130 K [26]. The experimental results in Fig. 3 

342: clearly show that there is no maximum over the temperature range 120 - 130 

343: K.

344: 

345: If there is a systematic error in the separation of harmonic and anharmonic 

346: contributions, the error in the electronic contribution can be as high as 

347: tens percent. Such an error in the calculations is equivalent to the 

348: experimental error of 0.1 - 0.2 {\%} in the total heat capacity. It means 

349: that we analyze the function $C_{p}(T)$ in trying to recognize its 

350: peculiarities comparable with an accuracy of the experiments. This 

351: illustrates how complicate is to extract the electronic heat capacity and 

352: correctly determine its features. 

353: 

354: It is possible to assume, that observed anomalies are related to impurities 

355: in samples. In fact, copper oxide is a starting material for the synthesis 

356: and it undergoes two phase transitions, at $T$ = 212.6 K and $T$ = 229.5 K [28]. 

357: Nevertheless, to produce such an effect in heat capacity, the samples have 

358: to contain at least 4 or 5 {\%} of copper oxide. We carefully investigated 

359: the samples by means of X-ray powder diffraction with a limit of detection 

360: about 2 - 3 {\%} in searching for the copper oxide impurity. No traces of 

361: CuO were found. Besides, the effect observed in Fig. 3 is in the difference 

362: between heat capacities of two samples. The sample with $X$ = 6.70 was received 

363: after gentle heat treatment (at 590$^{o}$C) of the sample with $X$ = 6.92. 

364: Copper oxide starts to decompose at 1061$^{o}$C and it means that both of 

365: the samples contain the same amount of CuO. The probable effect of the phase 

366: transitions in copper oxide should be eliminated in the evaluation of the 

367: $f(T)$ function (Eq. 2). Thus, the copper oxide impurity cannot explain the 

368: anomalous behavior of the heat capacity. The amplitude of the anomalous heat 

369: capacity, by our data, decreases as the sample composition approaches the 

370: point of optimal doping. These facts lead us to the conclusion that the 

371: peculiarities observed are connected with the transformation of the samples 

372: into the PGS.

373: 

374: Recent theoretical investigations examined the electronic systems 

375: interacting with charge or spin short-range fluctuations [13, 29]. The 

376: interaction is shown to be responsible for the formation of pseudogap 

377: structure near the Fermi level. The evaluations based on the mean field 

378: approximation fail to describe correctly the properties of the system. At 

379: proper consideration of the fluctuations in the PGS it is found that, 

380: besides V-shaped minimum, the sharp peaks in the density of electronic 

381: states can form [13, 29]. It would appear reasonable that the effective 

382: value $N(E)$ near the Fermi level can be very complex and sensitive to the 

383: changes in the system near the PGS. In that case the transformation into the 

384: PGS can go with complex anomalous behavior of various physical properties. 

385: First of all, these are the properties connected with the density of states 

386: of charge carriers. We suppose that the observed anomalous behavior of the 

387: electronic heat capacity is the result of the transformation. Probably, the 

388: same phenomenon is responsible for unusual function $C_{p}(T)$ for lanthanum 

389: 2-1-4 cuprates described in [27]. We assume that our experimental data for 

390: thulium cuprates, together with the results on the heat capacity of 

391: lanthanum 2-1-4 cuprates [27], can be qualitative confirmation of the 

392: theoretical calculations of Sadovskiy et al.

393: 

394: The work was supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic 

395: Researches (grant N.00-02-17914), by Scientific Programs "High-temperature 

396: Superconductivity" (grant 98009) and "Universities of Russia" (grant 1785), 

397: and by the FAP "Integration" (grant 274).

398: 

399: 

400: 

401: 

402: \newpage 

403: 

404: 

405: 

406: \bigskip

407: 

408: \subsubsection*{REFERENCES}

409: 

410: 

411: 

412: 

413: \bigskip

414: 

415: 1. Randeria M, Campuzano J.C. cond-mat/9709107.

416: 

417: 2. Randeria M, cond-mat/9710223.

418: 

419: 3. Ding H. et al. Nature V. \textbf{382}, 51 (1996).

420: 

421: 4. Millis A., Monien H., Pines D. Phys.Rev. B, \textbf{42}, 1671 (1990).

422: 

423: 5. Gorny K. et al., Phys.Rev.Lett., \textbf{85}, 177 (1999).

424: 

425: 6. Schmalian J., Pines D., Stojkovich B., Phys.Rev.B, \textbf{60}, 667 (1999).

426: 

427: 7. Geshkenbein V.B., Ioffe L.B., Larkin A.I., Phys.Rev.B, \textbf{55}, 3173 

428: (1997).

429: 

430: 8. Gusynin V.P., Loktev V.M., Sharapov S.G., GETP, \textbf{115}, 1243 (1999).

431: 

432: 9. Schmalian J., Pines D., Stojkovich B., Phys.Rev.Lett., \textbf{80}, 3839 

433: (1998).

434: 

435: 10. Kuchinskiy E.Z., Sadovskiy M.V., GETP., \textbf{115}, 1765 (1999); E-prints 

436: archive, cond-mat/9808321 (1998).

437: 

438: 11. Posazgennikova A.I., Sadovskiy M.V., GETP, \textbf{115}, 632 (1999); 

439: E-prints archive, cond-mat/9806199 (1998).

440: 

441: 12. Sadovskiy M., Kuchinskiy E.Z., Physica C, \textbf{341}-\textbf{348}, 879 

442: (2000).

443: 

444: 13. Sadovskiy M.V., Uspehi Phys.Nauk, \textbf{171}, 539 (2001).

445: 

446: 14. Junod A., Graf T., Sanchez, et al. Physica B, \textbf{165}-\textbf{166}, 

447: 1335 (1990).

448: 

449: 15. Junod A., et al., Physica C, \textbf{168}, 47 (1990).

450: 

451: 16. Liang W.Y., Loram J.W., Mirza K.A., et al., Physica C, \textbf{263}, 277 

452: (1996).

453: 

454: 17. Loram J.W., Mirza K.A., Cooper J.R., et al., Physica C, 

455: \textbf{282}-\textbf{287}, 1405 (1997)

456: 

457: 18. Loram J.W.,et al., J. Supercond. \textbf{7}, 234 (1994).

458: 

459: 19. Loram J.W., Tallon J.L., Physica C, \textbf{349}, 53 (2001); 

460: cond-mat./0005063.

461: 

462: 20. Loram J.W., Tallon J.L., Williams G.V.M., Physica C, \textbf{338}, 9 (2000).

463: 

464: 21. Bessergenev V.G., Kovalevskaya Ju. A., Paukov I. E., Starikov M. I., 

465: Opperman N., Reichelt W., J. Chem.Therm., \textbf{24}, 85 (1992).

466: 

467: 22. Rybkin N.P., Orlova M.P, Baraniuk A.K. Izmeritelnaya tekhnika, No 7, 29 

468: (1974).

469: 

470: 23. Moriya K, Matsuo T, Suga H., J. Chem. Therm. \textbf{14}, 1143 (1982).

471: 

472: 24. Sorai M., Kayi K., KanekoY., J.Chem. Therm., \textbf{24}, 167 (1992).

473: 

474: 25. Zhdanov K.R., Rahmenkulov F.S., Fedorov V,E., Mischenko A.V. Phyzika 

475: Tverdogo Tela, \textbf{30}, 1119 (1988).

476: 

477: 26. Moca C.P., Janko B., E-prints arXiv: cond-mat/0105202 v1.

478: 

479: 27. Loram J.W., et al., J. Phys. Chem. Solids, \textbf{59}, 2091 (1998).

480: 

481: 28. Junod A., et al., J. Phys.: Condens. Mat., \textbf{1}, 8021 (1989).

482: 

483: 29. Sadovskiy M.V., Kuchinskiy,GETP , \textbf{117}, 613 (2000).

484: 

485: 

486: 

487: 

488: \newpage 

489: \begin{center}

490: \textbf{Figures}

491: \end{center}

492: 

493: \begin{center}

494: \begin{figure}[htbp]

495: \includegraphics*[bbllx=0.19in,bblly=0.18in,bburx=4.77in,bbury=4.75in,scale=1.00]{TM1.eps}

496: \label{fig1}

497: \end{figure}

498: 

499: \end{center}

500: 

501: 

502: \bigskip

503: 

504: \begin{center}

505: Fig. 1. Schematic phase diagram for the cuprates

506: \end{center}

507: 

508: 

509: 

510: 

511: \newpage 

512: \begin{center}

513: \begin{figure}[htbp]

514: \includegraphics*[bbllx=0.19in,bblly=0.18in,bburx=5.36in,bbury=4.31in,scale=1.00]{TM2.eps}

515: \label{fig2}

516: \end{figure}

517: 

518: \end{center}

519: 

520: 

521: \bigskip

522: 

523: \begin{center}

524: Fig. 2. Electronic, anharmonic, and magnetic contributions to the heat 

525: capacity of thulium cuprates

526: \end{center}

527: 

528: 

529: 

530: 

531: \newpage 

532: \begin{center}

533: \begin{figure}[htbp]

534: \includegraphics*[bbllx=0.19in,bblly=0.18in,bburx=5.59in,bbury=4.41in,scale=1.00]{TM3.eps}

535: \label{fig3}

536: \end{figure}

537: 

538: \end{center}

539: 

540: 

541: \bigskip

542: 

543: \begin{center}

544: Fig. 3. Function $f(T)$

545: \end{center}

546: 

547: 

548: 

549: 

550: 

551: \end{document}

552: