Closed moyulyy closed 3 months ago
Hi lyy,
This must be a consequence of the atom-potential correction implemented in JDFTx:
R. Sundararaman and Y. Ping, “First-principles electrostatic potentials for reliable alignment at interfaces and defects”, J. Chem. Phys. 146, 104109 (2017) (Preprint: arXiv:1612.01671)
Note that the absolute magnitude of the potential at any spatial location is anyway meaningless in a pseudopotential calculation. All physical quantities are always potential differences, and this approach makes the differences much less sensitive to ionic relaxation, as shown in the paper.
If you do want the raw potential without this correction, you can turn it off by adding command potential-subtraction no to your input file.
Best, Shankar
Dear Shankar,
I plan to use jdftx to calculate the distribution of electrostatic potential on the surface of two-dimensional material TM@BN under neutral implicit solvation and applied potential U, in order to expect to obtain information about interfacial double layers deviating from PZC. But the problem is that I according to the tutorial: http://jdftx.org/OxideSurfaces.html, the electrostatic potential distribution of TM@BN is calculated and reported in the literature (Potential Effects on the Catalytic Mechanisms of OER and ORR, J. Phys. Chem. C 2023, 127, 16346−16356) of similar electrostatic potential distribution of the two-dimensional material has obvious different, and there is a positive electrostatic potential at the plane of TM@BN.![Electrostatic potentials](https://github.com/shankar1729/jdftx/assets/38726781/c9be600f-4727-4851-8fe2-d5804a61d356)
I was puzzled by this result, and I ended by attaching details of the calculation and result processing. Can you point out any errors in my calculation and processing? Attached is the calculation command I submitted according to the tutorial,
and plot the data with a script and the resulting picture, where TM@BN is located at z=0 angstroms.
Best, lyy