From: hackbard Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:48:13 +0000 (+0200) Subject: 110 interaction of c_i and c_s + starting of remining X-Git-Url: https://hackdaworld.org/gitweb/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=a883833c3dbf4e44f5cb36bc8301bce410e98407;p=lectures%2Flatex.git 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 4ba5207..16b9c04 100644 --- 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. Thus, configuration a is very unlikely to occur in favor of configuration b. -% for 00-1 repulsive interaction in 110 direction, wich is in agreement with results of Mattoni. Tensile strain is the reason. - -% all other investigates results attractive interaction. stress compensation. +% repulsive along 110 +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. +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. +This finding agrees well with results by Mattoni et~al.\cite{mattoni2002}. +% all other investigated results: attractive interaction. stress compensation. +In contrast, all other investigated configurations show attractive interactions. +Explain all three remaining confs, from most fav to less fav conf ... % c agglomeration vs c clustering ... migs to b conf % 2 more migs: 051 -> 128 and 026! forgot why ... probably it's about probability of C clustering