Dear Dr. Nick Papior Thanks for your effective help.
Wish you all the bests, Anita On 5 December 2016 at 11:52, Nick Papior <nickpap...@gmail.com> wrote: > The new transiesta version introduces many more checks regarding the setup > of the transiesta calculation. Indeed if the latest transiesta calculation > states that the electrodes is too short, then essentially the electrode > self-energy cannot be correctly calculated (i.e. the physics is wrong). One > really has to carefully examine the electronic structure of the electrode > if one wishes to use this electrode size anyway. You can, if you want, use > the electrode regardless of the error (look in the manual). However, if you > do this it is imperative that you check the electronic structure, carefully! > > For further information see: > http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2016.09.022 > and references therein. > > 2016-12-03 23:54 GMT+01:00 berna uyanık <bernauya...@gmail.com>: > >> Could you try with siesta 4.0? >> >> 2016-12-03 12:01 GMT+02:00 anita dameh <anita.da....@gmail.com>: >> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: anita dameh <anita.da....@gmail.com> >>> Date: 3 December 2016 at 10:52 >>> Subject: Transiesta error in electrode size >>> To: siesta-l@uam.es >>> >>> >>> Dear Transiesta users, >>> >>> In the new version of Transiesta when I use the zigzag graphene >>> nannoribbon (zGNR) as electrodes with the length 4.992 Å it represented >>> errors that imply the electrode length is small. While I noticed there is >>> no such error in siesta 3.2 and also this size of electrodes can describe >>> electronic properties of zigzag nanoriboons such as DOS pick in Fermi >>> energy levels. >>> >>> In your opinion this size of zGNR can be suitable for device set up >>> application or NOT? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Anita >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Kind regards Nick >
