Timeline for Why are there direct bandgaps?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 20, 2013 at 17:31 | answer | added | BebopButUnsteady | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 20, 2013 at 16:37 | history | edited | MarcelineH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Aug 20, 2013 at 5:08 | answer | added | SunPowered | timeline score: -1 | |
| Aug 20, 2013 at 2:06 | comment | added | MarcelineH | Each material had the following input variables T, C, z1, z2, Zt. T is Type(0 for IV, 1 for III-V, 2 for II-VI), C is crystal type (0 for diamond-cubic, 1 for zinc blend, 2 for rock salt, etc.), z1, z2 are atomic numbers of elements; for example for GaAs, z1 = 31, z2 = 33; for Si, z1 = 14 , z = 0 and zt = z1 + z2. The output was D (0 for indirect bandgap and 1 for direct bandgap) I did Regression (I recall) for many combinations of zt, C, Z1, Z2, T against D as output. The highest R squared values where with those associated with z1,z2 the lesser significant variables were C, T & Zt. | |
| Aug 20, 2013 at 0:09 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/369612044548714496 | ||
| Aug 20, 2013 at 0:05 | comment | added | Selene Routley | "I collected some data ... and performed anova with crystal structure..." this is REALLY good stuff. Could you give some more details on the anova, in particular the statistical significance of any hypothesized influences? Just off the top of my head, 35 samples for a 3 way anova sounds a little bit thin for highly significant discoveries. But if you found the atomic number influence to be highly significant, then I would suggest that any answer would have to explain the link, either causal or identify the lurking variable. | |
| Aug 19, 2013 at 23:44 | history | edited | MarcelineH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 17 characters in body
|
| Aug 19, 2013 at 23:31 | history | asked | MarcelineH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |