Dear all,
sorry for the late response; the problem seems to be that I have specified
only one k-point. The system complains about gamma tricks but not about a
single k point (1 1 1 0 0 0), when I double the k points the files are
properly written!
Thanks for your help!
Chris
On Thu, Jan 25, 201
Dear all,
I was wondering which approach would be better suited to describe an efield
applied across a 2D system with surface normal in z direction. Judging from
the docs both can be used to apply a field but I am curious if one has an
advantage over the other. I further found the "gatefield" exam
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Christoph Wolf
wrote:
> sorry for the late response; the problem seems to be that I have specified
> only one k-point. The system complains about gamma tricks but not about a
> single k point (1 1 1 0 0 0), when I double the k points the files are
> properly writt
For graphene I would try first the sawtooth potential (option "tefield"):
it is simple and does the job (as long as you place it in the proper
position).
Paolo
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Christoph Wolf
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I was wondering which approach would be better suited to describ
Dear Dr. Mitsuaki Kawamura,
Thank you! How can I run lambda.x in optimized tetrahedron method? Since in
this method, no .inp_lambda.xx file is not generated. So how can I
calculate projected dos, as matdyn.x gives total dos?
On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 10:27 PM Mitsuaki Kawamura <
mkawam...@issp.u-t
