+%\r
+% should possibly be transfered to discussion section\r
+Since thermally activated C clustering is, thus, only possible by traversing energetically unfavored configurations, mass C clustering is not expected.\r
+Furthermore, the migration barrier is still higher than the activation energy observed for a single C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0> DB in c-Si.\r
+The migration barrier of a C$_{\text{i}}$ DB in a complex system is assumed to approximate the barrier in a separated system with increasing defect separation distance.\r
+Thus, lower migration barriers are expected for separating C$_{\text{i}}$ DBs.\r
+% calculate?!?\r
+However, low binding energies ... and the difference needs to be overcome too.\r
+It is bound to precapture state and only \r
+However if the activation energy is $>>$ than the difference in energy of the two configurations both states are equally occupied.\r
+And at increased temperatures that enable such diffusion processes the entropy comes into play.\r
+A promising configuration ... -2.25, and the amoun tof equivalent configurations is twice as high.\r
+Thus, C agglomeration indeed is expected but only a low probability is assumed for C clustering by thermally activated processes with regard to the considered period of time.\r
+% ?!?\r
+% look for precapture mechnism (local minimum in energy curve)\r
+% also: plot energy all confs with respect to C-C distance\r
+% maybe a pathway exists traversing low energy confs ?!?\r
+\r
+% point out that configurations along 110 were extended up to the 6th NN in that direction\r
+The binding energies of the energetically most favorable configurations with the seocnd DB located along the \hkl[1 1 0] direction and resulting C-C distances of the relaxed structures are summarized in Table~\ref{table:dc_110}.\r
+\begin{table}\r
+\begin{ruledtabular}\r
+\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c }\r
+ & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 \\\r
+\hline\r
+ $E_{\text{b}}$ [eV] & -2.39 & -1.88 & -0.59 & -0.31 & -0.24 & -0.21 \\\r
+C-C distance [nm] & 0.14 & 0.46 & 0.65 & 0.86 & 1.05 & 1.08 \r
+\end{tabular}\r
+\end{ruledtabular}\r
+\caption{Binding energies $E_{\text{b}}$ and C-C distance of energetically most favorable C$_{\text{i}}$ \hkl<1 0 0>-type defect pairs separated along bonds in \hkl[1 1 0] direction.}\r
+\label{table:dc_110}\r
+\end{table}\r
+The binding energy of these configurations with respect to the C-C distance is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:dc_110}\r
+\begin{figure}\r
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{db_along_110_cc_n.ps}\r
+\caption{Minimum binding energy of dumbbell combinations separated along \hkl[1 1 0] with respect to the C-C distance. The blue line is a guide for the eye and the green curve corresponds to the most suitable fit function consisting of all but the first data point.}\r
+\label{fig:dc_110}\r
+\end{figure}\r
+The interaction is found to be proportional to the reciprocal cube of the C-C distance for extended separations of the C$_{\text{i}}$ and saturates for the smallest possible separation, i.e. the ground state configuration.\r