Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - pippin

Pages: [1]
1
Another way to ask is if the bias is applied between 1) the right side of the left electrode and the left side of the right electrode or 2) the left side of the left electrode and the right side of the right electrode...

2
Thanks!  One more small question, please.  If I have semiconductor electrodes and if I apply a bias between them, is the Fermi level within (not between) the electrodes assume to be constant?

3
O.K.  Suppose that the calculation with two semiconductor electrodes managed to converge.  Also, suppose that the subsequent transmission calculations also converged.  Are the resulting I-V (or conductance) characteristics not very well defined?  I guess I am a bit confused.  Could you clarify what I can and cannot draw from these transmission calculations if I have semiconductor (or insulator) electrodes as opposed to metal electrodes?  Thanks!

 

4
Thanks again for your response.  I'm interested in looking at the impact of introducing a small amount of defects (vacancies, self-doping, etc. but not foreign species) to my system.  Can the EHT, fitted to LDA+U of a perfect lattice, be used to predict creation of defect levels?  Or is it better to use LDA+U on the defect system?

5
Thanks, Nordland, for your comment.  The suggested steps make sense.  I have a question for you.  For my system, I get Eg from EHT that is pretty close to the experimental value.  This is good.  But if I sweep lattice perimeter length (a in SimpleTetragonal with constant a/c) and compute total energy (Etot) at each point, the perimeter length at minimum Etot is way off from the experimental data.  Is this common in EHT?  If I fit my EHT parameters for the relaxed structure, do I get reasonable simulation result (band gap, transmission, etc.) for structure other than the relaxed one?

6
Thanks for your response.  In my case, I have an LDA+U for a binary compound from another program that fits to experimental data well enough.  I'd like to use VNL to study transport property but am limited to LDA, which is widely known to underestimate the band gap energy.  So, I'm thinking that if I can fit the EHT parameters to my LDA+U (~= experimental data), I can better related my LDA+U study to VNL transport simulations.  It is O.K. for me if the fitted parameters do not transfer to any other compounds.  Does this make sense or am I totally off?  Thanks!  

7
I understand that LDA+U is still on the to-do list of VNL product development.  Meanwhile, is it possible to tune the extended Huckel Theory parameters in VNL to fit to LDA+U?  If it is possible, what are possible pitfalls?  Also, I followed the link in your Reference manual for J. Cerda's fitting program called "green".  But it took me to a web page of a start-up company and I cannot seem to find any reference to "green".  Is there an alternative tool available?  Thanks!

8
A real-world device almost always has metal electrode.  But if I am just interested in bulk transport, can I set my electrode material in DeviceConfiguration to be the same as my bulk material?  Or, must I have some kind of metal material for my electrodes?

9
General Questions and Answers / Re: 2010.2 on Ubuntu
« on: March 5, 2010, 04:00 »
Thanks!  Now it is using all cores.  Seems to run much faster than the Windows version.

10
General Questions and Answers / 2010.2 on Ubuntu
« on: March 4, 2010, 18:18 »
I've run 2010.2 on Ubuntu9.10.  It seems to work fine except that it is running on only one core.  Both Ubuntu and VNL are the 64-bit version and I have Linux 2.6.31-19-generic kernel.  How can I run it on multiple cores?

11
Thank you for your quick response.  Since I construct my structure in such a way that the left electrode atoms are always at the beginning of the central region and the right electrode atoms are always at the end of the central region (I think most people would do it this way), I wrote a wrapper function for OptimizeGeometry(), which takes a DeviceConfiguration as an argument.  The function is shown below.  This should work, shouldn't it? 

def OptimizeDeviceGeometry(device, maximum_forces = 0.01*eV/Ang,
                           constraints = [], trajectory_filename = None):

  # Obtain components of device
  central_region = device.centralRegion()
  electrodes = device.electrodes()
  nleft = len(electrodes[0].elements())
  nright = len(electrodes[1].elements())
  ncenter = len(central_region.elements())
  electrode_constraints = range(nleft) + range(ncenter)[-nright:]
  constraints += electrode_constraints

  # Construct an LCAO calculator based on a DeivceLCAO calculator
  device_calculator = device.calculator()
  central_region_caculator = LCAOCalculator(
    basis_set = device_calculator.basisSet(),
    numerical_accuracy_parameters = device_calculator.numericalAccuracyParameters(),
    iteration_control_parameters = device_calculator.iterationControlParameters(),
    poisson_solver = device_calculator.poissonSolver()
  )
  central_region.setCalculator(central_region_caculator)

  # Perform optimization
  print "Performing optimization..."
  opt = OptimizeGeometry(
    configuration = central_region,
    maximum_forces = maximum_forces,
    constraints = constraints,
    trajectory_filename = trajectory_filename
  )
  print "Optimization completed"

  # Re-construct a device
  device_opt = DeviceConfiguration(
    opt, [electrodes[0], electrodes[1]]
  )
  device_opt.setCalculator(device_calculator)
  return device_opt

12
General Questions and Answers / OptimizeGeometry() in 2010.2
« on: March 1, 2010, 03:34 »
It is not documented in the 2010.2 Reference Manual but the OptimizeGeometry() function only takes an object of MolecularConfiguration or BulkConfiguration.  If I want to optimize a DeviceConfiguration object, what is the recommended way?

My guess is that I can get a BulkConfiguration using the central_region() method of the DeviceConfiguration class and use that BulkConfiguration in OptimizeGeometry().  But in that case, I'd have to 'constraint' all atoms corresponding to the electrode atoms manually.  Otherwise, the optimization will probably move them and create mismatch when I bring the optimized BulkConfiguration back to DeviceConfiguration.  Is there a better way to handle this?

Thanks!

Pages: [1]