English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We posit that there exist deep and fundamental relationships between the above seemingly very different materials. The carrier concentration‐dependences of the electronic behavior in the conducting organic charge‐transfer solids and layered cobaltates are very similar. These dependences can be explained within a single theoretical model, the extended Hubbard Hamiltonian with significant nearest neighbor Coulomb repulsion. Interestingly, superconductivity in the cobaltates seems to be restricted to bandfilling exactly or close to one‐quarter, as in the organics. We show that dynamic Jahn–Teller effects and the resultant orbital ordering can lead to 1/4‐filled band descriptions for both superconducting spinels and fullerides, which show evidence for both strong electron–electron and electron–phonon interactions. The orbital orderings in antiferromagnetic lattice‐expanded bcc M 3 C 60  and the superconductor are different in our model. Strong correlations, quarter‐filled band and lattice frustration are the common characteristics shared by these unusual superconductors.

Is there a common theme behind the correlated‐electron superconductivity in organic charge‐transfer solids, cobaltates, spinels, and fullerides?