First-principles phase-coherent transport in metallic nanotubes with realistic contacts

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 90, Issue 10, 2003, Pages

  Palacios, J J ^a   Perez Jimenez A J ^a   Louis, E ^a   San Fabian E ^a   Verges J A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALICANTE   (Spain)

^b INSTITUTO DE CIENCIA DE MATERIALES DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALUMINUM; CARBON NANOTUBES; CHARGE TRANSFER; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CRYSTAL ATOMIC STRUCTURE; ELECTRODES; FERMI LEVEL; GOLD; GREEN'S FUNCTION; MATRIX ALGEBRA; PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION; TITANIUM;

ARCHETYPAL CONTACT GEOMETRY; FIRST-PRINCIPLES PHASE-COHERENT TRANSPORT; METALLIC NANOTUBES;

ELECTRON TRANSPORT PROPERTIES;

EID: 0037965958     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. S. Frank et al., Science 280, 1744 (1998)
2. A. Bachtold et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 6082 (2000)
3. J. Nygard, D. H. Cobden, and P. E. Lindelof, Nature (London) 408, 342 (2000).
4. H. T. Soh et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 75, 627 (1999)
5. C. Zhou, J. Kong, and H. Dai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5604 (2000)
6. J. Appenzeller et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 78, 3313 (2001)
7. A. Kanda, Y. Ootuka, K. Tsukagoshi, and Y. Aoyagi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 1354 (2001)
8. V. Derycke et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 2773 (2002)
9. W. Liang, M. Bockrath, and H. Park, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 126801 (2002).
10. J. Kong et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 106801 (2001).
11. A. N. Andriotis, M. Menon, and G. E. Froudakis, Appl. Phys. Lett. 76, 3890 (2000).
12. C. K. Yang, J. Zhao, and J. P. Lu, Phys. Rev. B 66, 041403 (2002).
13. H. J. Choi et al., Phys. Rev. B 60, R14009 (1999).
14. M. P. Anantram, Appl. Phys. Lett. 78, 2055 (2001).
15. J. Taylor, H. Guo, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 63, 245407 (2001).
16. N. D. Lang, Phys. Rev. B 52, 5335 (1995)
17. M. A. Ratner, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 5036 (1998)
18. P. S. Damle, A. W. Ghosh, and S. Datta, Phys. Rev. B 64, 201403 (2001).
19. J. J. Palacios et al., Phys. Rev. B 64, 115411 (2001)
20. J. J. Palacios et al., ibid. 66, 035322 (2002).
21. M. Brandyge et al., Phys. Rev. B 65, 165401 (2002).
22. Y. Xue and S. Datta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4844 (1999).
23. A. Rubio et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3520 (1999).
24. S. Datta, Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).
25. M. J. Frisch et al., Gaussian98, Revision A.7, Gaussian, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1998.
26. We describe the bulk electrode with a Bethe lattice tight-binding model with the coordination and parameters appropriate for the electrodes. Details on these parameters, the density functional, and the basis set used in our calculations can be found in Ref. [10].
27. F) has a strict meaning. In order to obtain G(E), one must perform the self-consistent calculation for a varying Fermi energy. We have found that our conclusions are not modified significantly as the charge in the system varies. This partially justifies plotting G(E) for neutral systems. This problem deserves, however, further consideration when bound or quasibound degenerate states are present in the CNT (see text below).
28. D. Orlikowski et al., Phys. Rev. B 63, 155412 (2001).
29. 2/h. For the neutral [see Fig. 3(b)] system this degeneracy is partially removed and the conductance drops. The spin degeneracy removal due to Coulomb blockade requires technically challenging open shell calculations and is currently under study.
30. M. B. Nardelli, J. L. Fattebert, and J. Bernholc, Phys. Rev. B 64, 245423 (2001).
31. The optimal contact distance is similar to that of Al but the charge transfers ≈ 0.4 electrons per C atom at the end layers. There seems to be a correlation between charge transfer and contact transparency if we compare Al and Ti, but this is no longer the case when comparing Al and Au. We cannot draw a clear correlation between these two quantities at this point.