minor changes

[lectures/latex.git] / posic / thesis / defects.tex

diff --git a/posic/thesis/defects.tex b/posic/thesis/defects.tex
index 9cf9f56..8dd42a5 100644 (file)
--- a/posic/thesis/defects.tex
+++ b/posic/thesis/defects.tex
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ There are differences between the various results of the quantum-mechanical calc
 This is nicely reproduced by the DFT calculations performed in this work.
 
 It has turned out to be very difficult to capture the results of quantum-mechanical calculations in analytical potential models.
 This is nicely reproduced by the DFT calculations performed in this work.
 
 It has turned out to be very difficult to capture the results of quantum-mechanical calculations in analytical potential models.

-Among the established analytical potentials only the EDIP \cite{bazant97,justo98} and Stillinger-Weber \cite{stillinger85} potential reproduce the correct order in energy of the defects.
+Among the established analytical potentials only the environment-dependent interatomic potential (EDIP) \cite{bazant97,justo98} and Stillinger-Weber \cite{stillinger85} potential reproduce the correct order in energy of the defects.

 However, these potentials show shortcomings concerning the description of other physical properties and are unable to describe the C-C and C-Si interaction.
 In fact the EA potential calculations favor the tetrahedral defect configuration.
 This limitation is assumed to arise due to the cut-off.
 However, these potentials show shortcomings concerning the description of other physical properties and are unable to describe the C-C and C-Si interaction.
 In fact the EA potential calculations favor the tetrahedral defect configuration.
 This limitation is assumed to arise due to the cut-off.