110 interaction of c_i and c_s + starting of remining

diff --git a/posic/publications/defect_combos.tex b/posic/publications/defect_combos.tex
index 4ba520756a74ee80607d844e32a5c8ed57484fc5..16b9c049625e64ac6830d1a66980fcaa6433fcb2 100644 (file)
--- a/posic/publications/defect_combos.tex
+++ b/posic/publications/defect_combos.tex
@@ -350,9 +350,13 @@ However, since the total energy is lower for the magnetic result it is believed
 A low activation energy of \unit[0.1]{eV} is observed for the a$\rightarrow$b transition.\r
 Thus, configuration a is very unlikely to occur in favor of configuration b.\r
 \r
-% for 00-1 repulsive interaction in 110 direction, wich is in agreement with results of Mattoni. Tensile strain is the reason.\r
-\r
-% all other investigates results attractive interaction. stress compensation.\r
+% repulsive along 110\r
+A repulsive interaction is observed for C$_{\text{s}}$ at lattice sites along \hkl[1 1 0], i.e. positions 1 (configuration a) and 5.\r
+This is due to tensile strain originating from both, the C$_{\text{i}}$ DB and the C$_{\text{s}}$ atom residing within the \hkl[1 1 0] bond chain.\r
+This finding agrees well with results by Mattoni et~al.\cite{mattoni2002}.\r
+% all other investigated results: attractive interaction. stress compensation.\r
+In contrast, all other investigated configurations show attractive interactions.\r
+Explain all three remaining confs, from most fav to less fav conf ...\r
 \r
 % c agglomeration vs c clustering ... migs to b conf\r
 % 2 more migs: 051 -> 128 and 026! forgot why ... probably it's about probability of C clustering\r