Tight-binding description of the STM image of molecular chains

Israel Journal of Chemistry

Volumn 44, Issue 1-3, 2004, Pages 133-143

  Calev, Yoel ^a   Cohen, Hezy ^b   Cuniberti, Gianaurelio ^c   Nitzan, Abraham ^a   Porath, Danny ^b  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

^c UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADSORPTION; ANALYTIC METHOD; CHEMICAL BINDING; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CONFERENCE PAPER; ELECTRONICS; IMAGE ANALYSIS; SCANNING TUNNELING MICROSCOPY; SURFACE PROPERTY;

EID: 15944411691     PISSN: 00212148     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1560/QC44-R70P-CEY9-X2PC     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Aviram, A.; Ratner, M.A. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1974, 29, 277.
2. Binnig, G.; Rohrer, H. Helv. Phys. Acta 1982, 55, 726.
3. Porath, D.; Bezryadin, A.; De Vries, S.; Dekker, C. Nature 2000, 403 (6770), p 635.
4. See, e.g., Nitzan, A.; Ratner, M. Science 2003, 300, 1384.
5. Landauer, R. IBM J. Res. Dev. 1957, 1, 223. Imry, Y. In Directions in Condensed Matter Physics; Grinstein, G.; Mazenko, G., Eds.; World Scientific: Singapore, 1986, p 101.
6. Landauer, R. IBM J. Res. Dev. 1957, 1, 223. Imry, Y. In Directions in Condensed Matter Physics; Grinstein, G.; Mazenko, G., Eds.; World Scientific: Singapore, 1986, p 101.
7. Datta, S. Electric Transport in Mesoscopic Systems; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1995.
8. (K)) = 0, for K = R, L.
9. It should be noted that a distribution of observed I/Φ behavior is obtained under these conditions.
10. Nitzan, A. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2001, 52, 681.
11. M because of the (small) level shifts Re(Σ). Again, in the present treatment these shifts will be disregarded.
12. Rodnik, M.; Salasnich, L.; Cranicar, M. Non-linear Phenomena in Complex Systems 1999, 2, 49.
13. Sumetskii, M. J. Phys.: Condensed Matter 1991, 3, 2651. Mujica, V.; Kemp, M.; Ratner, M.A. Chem. Phys. 1994, 101, 6849. Malov, V.V.; Iogansen, L.V. Opt. Spektrosk. (USSR) 1980 48, 146.
14. Sumetskii, M. J. Phys.: Condensed Matter 1991, 3, 2651. Mujica, V.; Kemp, M.; Ratner, M.A. Chem. Phys. 1994, 101, 6849. Malov, V.V.; Iogansen, L.V. Opt. Spektrosk. (USSR) 1980 48, 146.
15. Sumetskii, M. J. Phys.: Condensed Matter 1991, 3, 2651. Mujica, V.; Kemp, M.; Ratner, M.A. Chem. Phys. 1994, 101, 6849. Malov, V.V.; Iogansen, L.V. Opt. Spektrosk. (USSR) 1980 48, 146.
16. This simplifying assumption is not used in the numerical calculations of Section 4, which adopt the model that led to eq 13.
17. This corresponds to a picture of an oligomer viewed as a chain of identical, connected short segments, with the substrate-induced part of the inter-segment interaction disregarded.
18. Abramovitz, M.; Stegun, I.A. Handbook of Mathematical Functions, 9th ed.; Dover: New York, 1972.
19. v.
20. Redfield, A.C. IBM J. Res. Dev. 1957, 1, 19. Redfield, A.C. Adv. Magn. Reson. 1965, 1, 1.
21. Redfield, A.C. IBM J. Res. Dev. 1957, 1, 19. Redfield, A.G. Adv. Magn. Reson. 1965, 1, 1.
22. Pollard, W.T.; Felts, A.K.; Friesner, R.A. Adv. Chem. Phys. 1996, 93, 77.
23. Segal, D.; Nitzan, A. Chem. Phys. 2001, 268, 315.
24. Segal, D.; Nitzan, A. Chem. Phys. 2002, 281, 235.
25. Calev, Y.; Nitzan, A. Unpublished results.
26. Segal, D.; Nitzan, A.; Davis, W.B.; Wasilewski, M.R.; Ratner, M.A. J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, 3817.
27. Jortner, J.; Bixon, M.; Voityuk, A.A.; Rosch, N. J. Phys. Chem. A 2002, 106 (33), 7599. Bixon, M.; Jortner, J. Chem. Phys. 2002, 281, 393.
28. Jortner, J.; Bixon, M.; Voityuk, A.A.; Rosch, N. J. Phys. Chem. A 2002, 106 (33), 7599. Bixon, M.; Jortner, J. Chem. Phys. 2002, 281, 393.
29. Giese, B.; Amaudrut, J.; Kohler, A.-K.; Spormann, M.; Wessely, S. Nature 2001, 412, 318.
30. B..
31. Venema, L.C.; Wildoer, J.W.G.; Janssen, J.W.; Tans, S.J.; Tuinstra, H.L.J.T.; Kouwenhoven, L.P.; Dekker, C. Science 1999, 283, 52.
32. Galperin, M.; Nitzan, A. Unpublished results.
33. Kemp, M.; Roitberg, A.; Mujica, V.; Wanta, T.; Ratner, M.A. J. Phys. Chem. 1996, 100, 8349.
34. Disorder effect on molecular conduction within a similar tight-binding model in configuration A were discussed in ref 28.
35. Note that as far as site energies are concerned, the thermal model of Section 3 is essentially the fast modulation limit of a dynamic disorder model whose extreme opposite limit is the static disorder discussed with respect to Fig. 8.