QuantumWise Forum
May 21, 2013, 09:14 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Confused on optimization  (Read 956 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
frsy
Regular ATK user
**

Reputation: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


View Profile
« on: April 22, 2009, 12:14 »

Hi all,
What's the difference between two-probe optimization and KohnSham optimization?
From manual I know one built a two-probe geometry and optimized the central region by two-probe method. Can I partially optimize the built two-probe geometry by the KohnSham method directly, then do the static (no optimization) two-probe method calculation on optimized geometry? Are the two ways equal?
I found the calculation of two-probe method costs more than KohnSham method.

Thank you!

Frsy
Logged
frsy
Regular ATK user
**

Reputation: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2009, 03:00 »

Manual said "The geometry optimization of a two-probe system is done by mapping the open two-probe system into a periodic atom configuration." "When optimizing the two-probe system, the electrode atoms are always constrained as well as the equivalent atoms"
Someone correct me if I'm wrong please.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2009, 08:24 by frsy » Logged
Nordland
QuantumWise Staff
Supreme ATK Wizard
*****

Reputation: 14
Offline Offline

Posts: 730



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2009, 08:34 »

It is correct! Smiley

It is quite good to optimize the system as a bulk system, as it is quite stable, however it will not take into effect the bias of the twoprobe.
Logged
Anders Blom
QuantumWise Staff
Supreme ATK Wizard
*****

Reputation: 36
Offline Offline

Denmark Denmark

Posts: 2805



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2009, 09:10 »

There are many approaches to optimizing systems, and two-probes are particularly tricky since they are made up of several parts.

The simplest, but also most time-consuming way is to make us of the equivalent bulk, as discussed above. Another is to pre-optimize the individual parts and then assume that nothing much happens when they are put together. For instance, if your problem is a nanotube with a defect, between metal electrodes, you may want to simplify the problem by optimizing the defect locally, in a smaller nanotube setting, and then assume the rest of the tube + the metal surfaces are perfect.

Or, if the contact properties of a nanotube with a metal surface are under investigation, you may assume that the tube and the surface are intact themselves, but their relative position may change. In this case you have to move the tube around on the surface in a clever, systematic way, to find the optimum. Or, as is probably more relevant, simply move it around more or less at random and do many calculations of the current, and then do a statistical analysis of the results (the current, for instance), since the real position of such a tube/metal interface will probably not be absolutely stable in an experimental setting anyway.

And so on Smiley
Logged
frsy
Regular ATK user
**

Reputation: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2009, 10:05 »

Thank you, Anders and Nordland!
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!