Hi,
It is not quite clear to me what you acutally want to do.
When you do photoemission, why do you want to occupy conduction band
states ?
Core hole calculations are for core-photoemission the proper choice.
For valence photoemission we usually neglect the hole in the valence
bands - although this can be a crude approximation for more localized
states.
In optical spectroscopy one would do what you describe: transfer a
valence electron into the conduction band.
The best approach would be to use the Bethe-Salpeter approach (the BSE
code is available on request for WIEN2k - see unsupported software).
This treats excitonic effects quite accurately, but is also quite
demanding (needs a large computer cluster).
If I understand your approach correctly, you reduced the number of
valence electrons and put the missing charge as background ??
In this way you excite only electrons at the VBM !!!
How many electrons would you remove ? If you remove 1 electron, you
remove it in every unit cell of your infinite crystal !! This is not
what happens in experiment.
You could create a supercell (eg. 2x2x2) and excite 1 e, but again,
usually this is "delocalized" and you will remove 1/8 of an electron in
each cell of the whole crystal.
PS: "Technically" it should still be possible to use a "2-window"
calculation (previously used for semicore states) in WIEN2k. You can run
lapw2 two (3) times, once with NE-1 electrons and once with NE+1
electrons and set an appropriate EMIN in lapw2 (x lapw2 -sc -emin xxx),
where xxx could be EF of the ground state). Mixer will then add the
clmval and clmsc files together. But you always have the problem: you do
this for the whole crystal).
Am 15.09.2020 um 22:26 schrieb Guoping Zhang:
Dear Professor Blaha and Wien users,
I am interested in states in conduction bands, but I am not interested
to get a Fermi energy (and I have no Fermi error in the ground state run).
I occupy some conduction states (removing some from valence bands) with
some electrons by changing the weight files. If I use the Tetrahedral
method, this leads to Fermi error in fermi.F at SOS. (TEMPS option in
case.in2 is not ideal for my case). So I calculate the electron
difference between NOS(1) and RNTOT in the NOS subroutine, and put this
difference into case.inm as a background charge. Wien2k runs without
an Fermi error message, but I wonder
(1) whether this is a sound approach.
(2) whether there is any other better method, besides creating a core
hole in case.inc file.
(3) whether this method can be used to treat photoemission, where
electrons are knocked out of the system.
Any comments and suggestions are welcome. If you need more information,
I will be happy to provide.
Thank you very much for your help and attention!
Best wishes,
Guoping
_______________________________________________
Wien mailing list
Wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter BLAHA, Inst.f. Materials Chemistry, TU Vienna, A-1060 Vienna
Phone: +43-1-58801-165300 FAX: +43-1-58801-165982
Email: bl...@theochem.tuwien.ac.at WIEN2k: http://www.wien2k.at
WWW:
http://www.imc.tuwien.ac.at/tc_blaha-------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wien mailing list
Wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html
