forum@abinit.org
Subject: The ABINIT Users Mailing List ( CLOSED )
List archive
- From: Nicola Marzari <marzari@mit.edu>
- To: forum@abinit.org
- Subject: Re: [abinit-forum] 5.4.3 - better at static dielectric constant?
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:57:43 -0400
- Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
One side comment - it can become more efficient if the unit cell contains many inequivalent atoms.
Suppose you have 100 atoms - usually, you would need to displace each of them, one by one, in the three crystallographic directions, and
calculate the resulting polarization (this can be done either with
linear-response theory, i.e. as the response to an infinitesimal displacement, or with the Berry phase, as the response to a finite one).
Instead, you can apply a small electric field three times (in 3 non equivalent directions), and you have right away the effective charges for all the 100 atoms. Similar considerations apply, say, if you wanted
to calculate Raman couplings.
nicola
Xinjie Wang wrote:
Hi David,
This feature (B.10) does not give more efficient/accurate calculations
of the static dielectric properties. It allows the calculation of
electric-field-dependence of Born effective charges and dielectric tensor. You can read this paper, Phys. Rev. B 75, 115116 (2007),
for details.
Regards,
Xinjie
david.hendry@mandmd.com.au wrote:
Dear Abinitors,
I'm interested in the static dielectric constant of ceramics/insulators. I notice the latest release notes of Abinit: "B.10 Born effective charges and dielectric tensor calculations can now be computed in a finite electric field." Does this feature or any other new feature (from 5.3.4) allow a more efficient/accurate calculation of the static dielectric properties?
Sincerely,
David.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Nicola Marzari Department of Materials Science and Engineering
13-5066 MIT 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge MA 02139-4307 USA
tel 617.4522758 fax 2586534 marzari@mit.edu http://quasiamore.mit.edu
- 5.4.3 - better at static dielectric constant?, david . hendry, 09/05/2007
- Re: [abinit-forum] 5.4.3 - better at static dielectric constant?, Xinjie Wang, 09/05/2007
- Re: [abinit-forum] 5.4.3 - better at static dielectric constant?, Nicola Marzari, 09/05/2007
- Re: [abinit-forum] 5.4.3 - better at static dielectric constant?, Xinjie Wang, 09/05/2007
- Re: [abinit-forum] 5.4.3 - better at static dielectric constant?, Philippe Ghosez, 09/05/2007
- RE: [abinit-forum] 5.4.3 - better at static dielectric constant?, David Hendry, 09/06/2007
- Re: [abinit-forum] 5.4.3 - better at static dielectric constant?, Philippe Ghosez, 09/06/2007
- Re: [abinit-forum] 5.4.3 - better at static dielectric constant?, Xavier Gonze, 09/06/2007
- Re: [abinit-forum] 5.4.3 - better at static dielectric constant?, Philippe Ghosez, 09/06/2007
- RE: [abinit-forum] 5.4.3 - better at static dielectric constant?, David Hendry, 09/06/2007
- Re: [abinit-forum] 5.4.3 - better at static dielectric constant?, Nicola Marzari, 09/05/2007
- Re: [abinit-forum] 5.4.3 - better at static dielectric constant?, Xinjie Wang, 09/05/2007
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.