> response to all recommendations and criticisms.
We decided to follow yours and the referee's suggestion to merge the
-two manuscripts in a single comprehensive manuscript.
+two manuscripts in a single comprehensive manuscript. Also, according
+to the referee's suggestions, some points were clarified and explained
+in more detail.
Please find below the summary of changes and a detailed response to
the recommendations of the referee.
formation energies of single defects with respect to the size of the
supercell is assumed.
-A repsective statement was added (Change 3).
+A respective statement was added (Change 3).
> They appear to be separating defects by as large a distance as
> can be accommodated in the supercell to approximate the isolated
> that compare with taking the energies of each defect in a
> supercell.
-We would like to remind the referee that the properties of isolated,
-non-intertacting defects were modeled in separate simulation runs. It
-is not our purpose to separate defects by a large distance in order to
-approximate the situation of isolated defects. We are rather
-interested in interacting defects. However, we did find that for
-increasing defect distances, configurations appear, which converge to
-the energetics of two isolated defects. This is indicated by the
-(absolute value of the) binding energy, which is approaching zero with
-increasing distance. From this, we conclude a decrease in
-interaction, which is already observable for defect separation
-distances accessible in our simulations. Combinations of defects with
-similar distances were already successfully modeled in a supercell
-containing 216 atoms as described in PRB 66, 195214 (2002).
+The calculations criticized by the referee did not aim at the
+properties of isolated, non-intertacting defects, but rather at the
+defect-defect interaction. Single defects were modeled in separate
+simulation runs. However, we did find that for increasing defect
+distances, configurations appear, which converge to the energetics of
+two isolated defects. This is indicated by the (absolute value of the)
+binding energy, which is approaching zero with increasing distance.
+From this, we conclude a decrease in interaction, which is already
+observable for defect separation distances accessible in our
+simulations. Combinations of defects with similar distances were
+already successfully modeled in a supercell containing 216 atoms as
+described in PRB 66, 195214 (2002).
An explanation of the binding energy and the relation to the
interaction of defects was added (Change 8).
> are seen for constant volume calculations (on a few simple
> examples, say)?
-Differences are supposed to be negligible small since only small
-changes in volume are detected. However, in experiment, substrate
-swelling is observed. Thus, to allow for full relaxation, simulations
-were performed in the NpT ensemble. However, for the above-mentioned
-reason, no fundamental differences are expected for single defect
-configurations in the canonical and isothermal-isobaric ensemble with
-respect to energy.
+In experiment, substrate swelling is observed for high-dose carbon
+implantation into silicon. Indeed, for a single defect, the change in
+volume is less than 0.2% in simulation. Due to this, results of single
+defects within an isothermal-isobaric simulation are not expected to
+differ drastically to results of constant volume simulations. Based on
+the experimentally observed change in volume for high-dose carbon
+implantations, however, the respective relaxation is allowed for in
+simulation for both, single defect calulations as well as the high
+carbon concentration simulations.
A respective statement was added to the methodology section
(Change 4).
> authors aware of them? Have they used one of them?
The constrained relaxation technique is used to determine migration
-pathways. The method is named and a reference is given in the
+pathways. The method is specified and a reference is now given in the
methodology section. The method not necessarily unveils the lowest
energy migration path. The supposed saddle point structure needs to be
attested by investigating the vibrational modes. However, reasonable
> in the method do not introduce further uncertainties, and I would
> need a bit more convincing that the results are actually valid.
-We hope to be able to convince by responding to the following
-statement of the referee.
+See below for hopefully convincing arguments.
> The authors' circumvention of this is to do the simulations at
> much heightened temperatures. However, this only gives a good
> this case.
There is not necessarily a correlation of the cohesive and migration
-energies. You can always add a constant to the cohesive energies of
+energies. One can always add a constant to the cohesive energies of
respective structures. It is the difference in the cohesive energies
of structures within the migration path, which determines the
migration barrier.
appropriately consider the overestimated barrier heights for
diffusion.
-Indeed the cut-off effect increases if the system is driven away from
-the equilibrium (such as by modeling IBS). Since this is to some
+Indeed, the cut-off effect increases if the system is driven away from
+the equilibrium, such as it is the case in IBS. Since this is to some
extent cured by increasing the simulation temperature, the work-around
is particularly helpful for short range potentials.
+ = line added
- = line removed
-Change 1: added/merged parts of the Abstract of BA11443
+Change 1: added/merged parts of 'Abstract' of BA11443
from: These aime to clarify ...
until: Finally, results of the ...
-Change 2: added/merged parts of the Introduction of BA11443
+Change 2: added/merged parts of 'Introduction' of BA11443
from: A lot of theoretical work has been done ...
until: However, investigations are, first of all, ...
structures.
Change 8: added definition and explanation of the binding energy to
- the methodology section
+ the 'Methodology' section
from: The binding energy of a defect pair ...
until: The interaction strength, i.e. the ...
-Change 9: removed Results section
+Change 9: removed 'Results' section
Change 10: added 'Comparison of classical potential and
first-principles methods' section
content corresponds to 'Results' section of BC11912
-Change 20: 'Summary' section added containing parts of 'Discussion and
- summary' section of BC11912
+Change 20: 'Summary of classical potential calculations' section added
+ containing parts of 'Discussion and summary' section of BC11912
Change 21: 'Conclusions' section added containing parts of the
'Discussion' section of BA11443 and the 'Discussion and
projects / lectures / latex.git / blobdiff