Fig. 6(b) shows a plot ofln( T1/2) versus 1/(kBT) below the peak temperature Tp, fromwhich one can see that there are good linear relations betweenln( T1/2) and 1/(kBT) for all the composite specimens, indicatingthat our assumption is reasonable. By best (linear) tting of theexperimental data to formula (7), one obtains the barrier heightEb for all of the composite specimens, as shown in Fig. 5(d). Onecan see from Fig. 5(d) that Eb does not change obviously withchanging BT content, and an average value of Eb ¼ 15 meV isobtained here. Clearly, the relatively small barrier height Eb(equivalent to 1/10 of Eg for BTS) is crucial to both reducingcarrier scattering at the interfaces to retain a high mobility andcausing EDCS to happen to increase thermopower in thecomposite specimens. The inset in Fig. 6(b) shows schematicsof the potential barrier formed at the interfaces of the BT/BTScomposites.
Fig. 6(b) shows a plot of<br>ln( T1/2<br>) versus 1/(kBT) below the peak temperature Tp, from<br>which one can see that there are good linear relations between<br>ln( T1/2<br>) and 1/(kBT) for all the composite specimens, indicating<br>that our assumption is reasonable. By best (linear) tting of the<br>experimental data to formula (7), one obtains the barrier height<br>Eb for all of the composite specimens, as shown in Fig. 5(d). One<br>can see from Fig. 5(d) that Eb does not change obviously with<br>changing BT content, and an average value of Eb ¼ 15 meV is<br>obtained here. Clearly, the relatively small barrier height Eb<br>(equivalent to 1/10 of Eg for BTS) is crucial to both reducing<br>carrier scattering at the interfaces to retain a high mobility and<br>causing EDCS to happen to increase thermopower in the<br>composite specimens. The inset in Fig. 6(b) shows schematics<br>of the potential barrier formed at the interfaces of the BT/BTS<br>composites.
正在翻译中..