-Several geometries have been calculated to be stable for the carbon interstitial. Fig.\ref{fig:interstitials} shows all these \r
-structures. However, there are some discrepancies between the results from classical potential calculations and those obtained \r
-from first principles. \r
-Table \ref{table:formation} summarizes the formation energies of the interstitial geometries for both methods used in this work \r
-and compares the results to literature values. (...check references for more data, ..) \r
-\r
-% Tables: like in the talk, but add further literature data and give the references/citations (also to bibliography \r
-% at the end!) \r
-%\begin{figure}\r
-%\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{models.eps}\r
-%\caption{\label{fig:interstitials} Molecular model of the possible carbon interstitials. }\r
-%\end{figure} \r
-\r
-While the Albe potential predicts ... as stable, DFT does not. ...(further comparisons, trend "too high/low" E-formation,...)... \r
- Nevertheless, both methods predict the (110) dumb bell configuration to be the most stable... (?) \r
+Table~\ref{tab:defects} summarizes the formation energies of the interstitial configurations for the Erhart/Albe and VASP calculations performed in this work as well as further results from literature.\r
+The formation energies are defined in the same way as in the articles used for comparison\cite{tersoff90,dal_pino93} chosing SiC as a reservoir for the carbon impurity.\r
+Relaxed geometries are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:defects}.\r
+\begin{table}[th]\r
+\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c}\r
+\hline\r
+\hline\r
+ & T & H & \hkl<1 0 0> DB & \hkl<1 1 0> DB & S & B \\\r
+\hline\r
+ Erhart/Albe & 6.09 & 9.05$^*$ & 3.88 & 5.18 & 0.75 & 5.59$^*$ \\\r
+ %VASP & unstable & unstable & 3.15 & 3.60 & 1.39 & 4.10 \\\r
+ VASP & unstable & unstable & 3.72 & 4.16 & 1.95 & 4.66 \\\r
+ Tersoff\cite{tersoff90} & 3.8 & 6.7 & 4.6 & 5.9 & 1.6 & 5.3 \\\r
+ ab initio & - & - & x & - & 1.89 \cite{dal_pino93} & x+2.1 \cite{capaz94} \\\r
+ more! & - & & & & & \\\r
+\hline\r
+\hline\r
+\end{tabular}\r
+\caption{Formation energies of carbon point defects in crystalline silicon determined by classical potential and ab initio methods. The formation energies are given in eV. T denotes the tetrahedral, H the hexagonal, B the bond-centered and S the substitutional interstitial configuration. The dumbbell configurations are abbreviated by DB. Formation energies for unstable configurations are marked by an asterisk and determined by using the low kinetic energy configuration shortly before the relaxation into the more favorable configuration starts.}\r
+\label{tab:defects}\r
+\end{table}\r
+\begin{figure}\r
+\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\columnwidth}\r
+\underline{Tetrahedral}\\\r
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{01.eps}\r
+\end{minipage}\r
+\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\columnwidth}\r
+\underline{Hexagonal}\\\r
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{02.eps}\r
+\end{minipage}\r
+\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\columnwidth}\r
+\underline{\hkl<1 0 0> dumbbell}\\\r
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{03.eps}\r
+\end{minipage}\\\r
+\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\columnwidth}\r
+\underline{\hkl<1 1 0> dumbbell}\\\r
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{04.eps}\r
+\end{minipage}\r
+\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\columnwidth}\r
+\underline{Substitutional}\\[0.05cm]\r
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{05.eps}\r
+\end{minipage}\r
+\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\columnwidth}\r
+\underline{Bond-centered}\\\r
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{06.eps}\r
+\end{minipage}\r
+\caption{Configurations of carbon point defects in silicon. The silicon/carbon atoms and the bonds (only for the interstitial atom) are illustrated by yellow/grey spheres and blue lines. Bonds are drawn for atoms located within a certain distance and do not necessarily correspond to chemical bonds.}\r
+\label{fig:defects}\r
+\end{figure} \r
+\r
+However, there are some discrepancies between the results from classical potential calculations and those obtained from first principles.\r
+\r
+While the Erhart/Albe potential predicts ... as stable, DFT does not. ...(further comparisons, trend "too high/low" E-formation,...)... \r
+\r
+Nevertheless, both methods predict the \hkl<1 0 0> dumbbell configuration to be most stable.\r