QuantumWise Forum
September 7, 2010, 07:32 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Which Linux distribution do you use?
Please participate in our poll. Your answers will help make the product better Smiley
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Does the Theory Objects non-Metallic Electrodes ?  (Read 266 times)
Hasan Sahin
Rookie
**

Reputation: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 44



View Profile
« on: December 30, 2009, 17:41 »

Do we have to use metallic electrodes during ATK calculations? Does the theory used by ATK have objection to semiconducting electrodes ? Thanks to shifts in levels due to changing bias, can't we calculate any current throught the molecular device at some voltage values.
Logged
zh
QuantumWise Support
Wizard
*****

Reputation: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 259


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2009, 07:38 »

If you take a look at the book "Quantum transport: atom to transistor" entitled by S. Datta, you will see that the electron flux from source to drain depends on the relative positions of the chemical potentials (i.e., the Fermi level) of source and drain as well as the  energy level of channel.  For example, please see the some pages of this book here:
http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=Yj50EJoS224C&lpg=PP1&dq=Quantum%20transport%3A%20atom%20to%20transistor%20googlebook&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q=&f=false
The methodology implemented in ATK to handle the electron transport does not take care of the conductivity of electrodes.

Quote
Thanks to shifts in levels due to changing bias, can't we calculate any current throught the molecular device at some voltage values.

More properly speaking, the obtained current (I) may be zero, in other words, no electron flux from source to drain.  Of course, the methodology in code is still valid.
Logged
Nordland
Wizard
****

Reputation: +9/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 458



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2009, 12:09 »

Yes, it is perfectly sane and with good agreement to have a semi-conductor electrode instead of metallic one,
however one has to be carefull as the band gap is underestimated by LDA, so therefore the location of peaks etc might be shifted compared to experiments.
Logged
Anders Blom
QuantumWise Staff
Wizard
*****

Reputation: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1032



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 2, 2010, 22:50 »

From a formal perspective you can certainly use semiconducting electrodes. The question is however, what relevance it has. Unless the electrode is conducting, there will be no injection and hence no current.

In some situations involving semiconducting materials, like gate stacks etc, it's more realistic to have a metallic injection part, then a semiconducting buffer layer, and then perhaps the scattering region.

Another type of system, studied in experiments, might have (heavily) doped semiconductor regions as electrodes, but then again we have conducting electrodes. Still, at the "end" they are probably connected to metal electrodes anyway (connection to external circuitry, for instance).

So, if we are interested in the pure properties of a semiconducting scattering region, it's best to use as transparent and broad band injection as possible, i.e. some metal like gold or even just lithium.

However, thinking about it, perhaps your question is rather, what happens when the bias overcomes the band gap of the semiconductor. That is, if the system is so aligned that the valence band of one electrode overlaps the conduction band of the other. In this case, as Nordland writes, in principle all works out fine - except for the trouble with the band gap in DFT, of course...

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!