In general, g L/R can be numerically solved with the iteration me

In general, g L/R can be numerically solved with the iteration method. In this work, we would like to analytically solve them by projecting the semi-infinite AGNR in the Green Bromosporine function space into a semi-infinite one-dimensional double-atom chain [43].

By derivation, we get the coefficients of the Green function, i.e., , , and [W e ] = t 0 I (N) are the onsite energy, the coupling between the two atoms in each primitive cell, and the coupling between the neighboring two primitive cells of the chain, respectively. If the AGNR width M is odd, and [Ξ] j l =2δ j l  + δ j,l + 1 + δ j,l − 1. Otherwise, and [Ξ] j l  = 2δ j l − δ 11 + δ j,l + 1 + δ j,l−1. By diagonalizing matrix [Ξ], the double-atom chain can be transformed into its molecular orbit representation, and the surface state Green function can be expressed. After this, we can obtain CB-839 price the surface state Green function of the semi-infinite AGNR by representation transformation. Results and discussion In this section, we aim to investigate the transport properties of this structure. Prior to calculation, we consider t 0 to be the energy unit. When the graphene with line defect is tailored into an AGNR, one would find its various configurations. If one edge of the AGNR is perpendicular to the growth direction

of the line defect and its profile is assumed to be unchanged, we will possess four different configurations, AG-120 as shown in Figure 1a,b and Figure 2a,b. In Figure 1a,b, the AGNR widths

are M = 12n−7 Angiogenesis inhibitor and M = 12n − 1, respectively. For the other configurations in Figure 2a,b, there will be M=12n−4 and M = 12n + 2. For convenience, we name the configurations illustrated in Figure 1a,b as model A and model B and those in Figure 2a,b as model C and model D, respectively. We first plot the linear conductance spectra of model A and model B in Figure 1c,d. The structure parameters are taken to be ε c  = ε d  = 0 and t T  = t D  = t 0. It is obvious that independent of the configurations, the line defect suppresses the electron transport apparently. This is certainly attributed to the defect-contributed electron scattering. Moveover, one can find that the influence of the line defect is tightly determined by the AGNR configurations. In model A where M=12n−7, the first conductance plateau is suppressed, and the conductance magnitude deduces more obviously where ε F >0. However, the conductance plateau is still observed. With respect to the other conductance plateaus, they are destroyed seriously by the presence of line defect. For instance, when the AGNR width increases to M=29, conductance dips emerge in the vicinity of ε F  = 0.25t 0 and ε F  = −0.3t 0, respectively. For model B in which M = 12n − 1, in Figure 1d, one readily observes that the line defect modifies the electron transport in a different way. Namely, there always exists Fano antiresonance in the positive-energy region of the first conductance plateau, irrelevant to the width of the AGNR.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>