User Tools
qcl:faq
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
qcl:faq [2018/04/19 14:33] thomas.grange |
qcl:faq [2022/10/12 09:27] (current) thomas.grange |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| We recommend 16 GB RAM. 8 GB is sufficient for some input files. The code becomes incredibly slow if there is not sufficient memory is available. | We recommend 16 GB RAM. 8 GB is sufficient for some input files. The code becomes incredibly slow if there is not sufficient memory is available. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === I get an error message when I launch a simulation === | ||
| + | |||
| + | Check that .NET framework version 4.6 or later is installed on your system. | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| Line 45: | Line 49: | ||
| $\Delta_{\rm so}$ is the spin-orbit split-off energy. | $\Delta_{\rm so}$ is the spin-orbit split-off energy. | ||
| - | * Option a) Specify conduction band offset (CBO) $E_{\rm c}$\\ ''<UseConductionBandOffset>true</UseConductionBandOffset>'' | + | These two different options have different consequences in how the temperature dependence of the bandgap is accounted. Indeed: |
| + | |||
| + | * Option a) Specify conduction band offset (CBO) $E_{\rm c}$\\ ''<UseConductionBandOffset>yes</UseConductionBandOffset>'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | As a consequence, the band offset of the light hole becomes temperature dependent: | ||
| $$E_{\rm hh}(T) = E_{\rm c} - E_{\rm gap}(T)$$ | $$E_{\rm hh}(T) = E_{\rm c} - E_{\rm gap}(T)$$ | ||
| - | * Option b) Specify valence band offset (VBO) $E_{\rm v,av}$\\ The conduction band edge $E_{\rm c}$ is calculated and depends on temperature.\\ ''<UseConductionBandOffset>false</UseConductionBandOffset>'' (default) | + | |
| + | * Option b) Specify valence band offset (VBO) $E_{\rm v,av}$\\ The conduction band edge $E_{\rm c}$ is calculated and depends on temperature.\\ ''<UseConductionBandOffset>no</UseConductionBandOffset>'' (default) | ||
| \begin{align*} | \begin{align*} | ||
| E_{\rm hh} & = E_{\rm v,av}+\frac{1}{3}\Delta_{\rm so}\\ | E_{\rm hh} & = E_{\rm v,av}+\frac{1}{3}\Delta_{\rm so}\\ | ||
| Line 166: | Line 175: | ||
| The output file ''Wannier-Stark_levels.dat'' gives the usual eigenstates of the conduction band profile for the periodic heterostructure, by solving the single-band Schrödinger equation (with/without nonparabolicity). The output file ''RealSpaceModes.dat'' gives the position eigenstates within the subspace obtained after applying the axial cut-off energy. These position eigenstates are used as a basis in the NEGF calculation. Note that these states depend on the axial cut-off energy: the larger the axial energy cut-off is, the more localized they are. | The output file ''Wannier-Stark_levels.dat'' gives the usual eigenstates of the conduction band profile for the periodic heterostructure, by solving the single-band Schrödinger equation (with/without nonparabolicity). The output file ''RealSpaceModes.dat'' gives the position eigenstates within the subspace obtained after applying the axial cut-off energy. These position eigenstates are used as a basis in the NEGF calculation. Note that these states depend on the axial cut-off energy: the larger the axial energy cut-off is, the more localized they are. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === The self-consistent gain and semi-classical gain show maximum at different photon energies. Which one to trust more? === | ||
| + | |||
| + | The semi-classical calculation is made in the Wannier-Stark states, so it is expected to give maximum photon energy around the same energy as the Wannier-Stark transition energies (though it can be slightly offset as in general multiple peaks are added). | ||
| + | |||
| + | On the other hand, the self-consistent (fully quantum) simulation does not consider any preferred basis and accounts more accurately on broadening. If the broadening (induced by scattering processes are small), semi-classical and self-consistent calcualtions should give the same result. | ||
| + | However, as broadening becomes important, there will be a red shift with respect to the bare transition energies. This shift will depend on the scattering processes. So then the question of which one to trust more is also related to the question whether the parameters for scattering (interface roughness, Coulomb scattering...) matches the reality. And it should be kept in mind there are some underlying assumptions in the NEGF model (in particular the self-consistent Born approximation) which could lead to deviation with respect to reality (such as an overestimate of the is red-shifting effect of transition energy with broadening). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | === At zero bias, when the current asymptotically approaches 0, the current convergence factor does not converge to zero. Is this ok? === | ||
| + | |||
| + | When the current approaches 0, it is indeed normal that the current convergence factor does not goes to 0. In this case, the convergence should be checked accordingly to the other convergence factor which is based on the lesser Green’s function. | ||
qcl/faq.1524148391.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/04/19 14:33 by thomas.grange
