Support

Support Options

Submit a Support Ticket

 

Questions and Answers

Status: Closed

Anonymous

compare a tight binding calculation to the analytical expansion methodin this tool

The tool solves the analytical expansions through transfer matrices to compute transmission coefficients. The RTD tool for example solves the similar problem in a single effective mass approach. It would be great if one could switch easily between these two methods and compare the resulting bands.

The improved version should have: 1) a switch that allows selection of the 2 methods 2) an option to enter different effective masses for wells and barriers (in the tight binding approach) 3) an option to enter a lattice constant – only the tight binding approach depends on its numerics on this, the other approach only in the plotting of the bands.

Report abuse

Chosen Answer

  1. 0 Dislike

    Samarth Agarwal

    A comparison with Tight binding has been implemented and should be visible from version 1.1.4 of the tool.

    Reply Report abuse

    Please login to answer the question.

    1. 0 Like 0 Dislike

      Anonymous

      thank you very much. The comparison is quite insightful, as it shows the narrower bands in tight binding, due to the non-parabolic intrinsic bands.

      Reply Report abuse

      Please login to answer the question.

2 Responses

  1. 1 Dislike

    Benjamin P Haley

    Hi, The pcpbt developers have taken your list of suggestions as a guide, and they are working on a new version implementing these improvements. Please keep an eye on this answer space for an update when the new version is released.

    Reply Report abuse

    Please login to answer the question.

    1. 0 Like 0 Dislike

      Anonymous

      Thank you very much. I will formally accept the response and award the 100 points when the tool indeed has been update.

      Reply Report abuse

      Please login to answer the question.

nanoHUB.org, a resource for nanoscience and nanotechnology, is supported by the National Science Foundation and other funding agencies. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.