Modelling of Electron Transport in Self-Assembled Nanowires

Laboratory of Biosensors
and Bioelectronics
Institute for Biomedical Engineering
Diploma Thesis
Modelling of Electron Transport in

Self-Assembled Nanowires
Thomas Kathriner
June 25, 2008
Academic Supervisors: Prof. Janos Vrs

Prof. Peter Bsiger
Project Supervisor: Robert MacKenzie

Contents
1 Introduction 3
2 Theory 5
2.1 Physical Domain of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1 Sommerfeld Model of an Individual Colloid . . . . . . 5
2.1.2 Quantum Dots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.3 Shuttle Mechanism for Charge Transfer . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Coulomb Blockade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Potential Between Two Metal Spheres . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.1 Bare Potential Between Two Colloids Using Image
Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.2 Image Potential due to the Tunneling Electron . . . . 13
2.3.3 Resulting Tunnel Barrier Height . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Tunnel Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4.1 WKB Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4.2 Tunneling Current in the WKB Approximation . . . . 16
2.4.3 Approximation for Faster Computing . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5 Tunneling Current Between Two Colloids . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6 Capacitance of Two Colloids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.7 One-Dimensional Distribution of Colloids . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3 Methods 24
3.1 Numerical Calculation of Tunnel Resistance . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.1.1 Potential at a Specific Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.2 Finding Potential Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.1.3 Finding Tunneling Boundaries s1 and s2 . . . . . . . . 27
3.1.4 Tunneling Current . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2 Analyzation of Tunnel Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4 Results 29
4.1 Range of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2 Coulomb Blockade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.3 Effective Potential Between Two Colloids . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.3.1 Number of Image Charges Needed . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.3.2 Barrier Height without Image Potential . . . . . . . . 31
4.3.3 Barrier Height with Image Potential Included . . . . . 31
4.4 Resistivity of the Tunnel Junction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.4.1 Dependency on Gap Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.4.2 Dependency on Colloid Radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.4.3 Permittivity Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.4.4 Measurable Permittivity Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.4.5 Rough Estimate of General Tunneling Resistance . . . 42
5 Conclusions 45
6 Outlook 46
References 49
Appendix
A Description of Matlab Programs 50

A.1 Resistancemodel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
A.2 Analyzeresistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
B Matlab Source Files 54

B.1 colloidpotential.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
B.2 peakdet.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
B.3 tunnelcurrent.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
B.4 resistancemodel.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
B.5 randomdistr.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
B.6 gapdistr.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
1 INTRODUCTION
Figure 1: SEM image of a nanowire array. How can charge carrier

transport through such a structure be modeled?
1 Introduction
Medical doctors and patients are in dire need of information on insulin con-
centration or the existence of HIV antibodies in a droplet of blood. The food
industrys survival depends on their ability to detect any E. Coli bacteria in
their products. Governments demand ways to detect toxic waste near rural
areas. Governments, the food and medical industry are but a few examples
of actors requiring biosensors a device that detects the presence of some
biological or chemical species.
Numerous techniques for biosensing exist. Today, most detection sys-
tems use some kind of label to tag the species of interest, e.g. a fluorescent
marker to identify bacteria. Possible future label-free biosensors, which are
currently under development, utilize nanogap (Dong et al. , 2007) or Local-
ized Surface Plasmon Resonances (LSPR) sensing (Xu & Kall, 2002).
Nanogap sensing seems a very promising area of research. Electrons
tunnel through the gap once a bias is applied. The tunneling current
can then be used to investigate the electrical properties of the gap and
changes thereof. For example if a macromolecule is caught between
electrodes, induced resistance or capacitance changes could be
monitored. Gaps can be fabricated using traditional lithographical
techniques. Gaps also typically occur in self-assembling systems of
nanoparticles.
Bioelectronics offers a bottom-up approach to biosensors whereas litho-
graphy is a top-down method. Nanoparticles are biologically functionalized
to enable them to attach to a substrate (MacKenzie et al. , 2008). It is
possible to form patterns on the carrier where nanoparticles can or cannot
stick to. Almost arbitrarily complex, self-assembling structures can thus be
built. The particles themselves may be conducting or semiconducting and
can, therefore, be utilized to construct self-assembling electrical circuits.
3
1 INTRODUCTION
4
1 INTRODUCTION
Many methods exist to fabricate these self-
assembling structures. Self-assembled nanowires
can be fabricated using the technique of
Stadler (2007): First, a Nb2 O5 coated substrate
is functionalized with PLL-g-PEG/PEGbiotin.
Neutra- vidin and bDNA complexes are then
adsorbed onto the surface by biotin/avidin
linkage. Finally, gold colloids tagged with the
complementary DNA are hybridized onto the
surface (see Figure 2). The gold colloids can be
selectively placed with a precision of about 10
nm using Extreme UV Interference Lithography
(EUV-IL) to form dot- and wire-structures
Figure 2: One way of (Stadler et al. , 2007). This method has
attaching gold colloids potential for mass production since the colloids
to a substrate can be dehybridized and transferred onto
(Stadler, another substrate.
2007). Self-assembled nanostructures produced using
this or a similar method could be used as biosen-
sors in the future. Gaps naturally occurring in
nanowires could be functionalized to adsorb certain specimen. Changes
in the current flowing through the structure are potentially usable to
detect or even quantify this adsorption. Yet before nanogap biosensing can
be ac- complished, charge carrier transport in self-assembled nanostructures
needs to be modeled and understood.
Gold colloids assembled in nanowires or nanowire-arrays seem a reason-
able starting point for this theoretical challenge (see Figure 1 and Figure 3).
Gold colloids are easily functionalized using Thiol and one-dimensional wires
form a relatively simple system. It is thus the goal of this thesis to find an
appropriate one-dimensional model that allows predictions on electron cur-
rent through such gold nanowires.
Figure 3: Gold colloids forming nanowires with small gaps below 1 nm (Blech
et al. , 2007).
5
2 THEORY
2 Theory
First it is shown that a single colloid may be described classically and not
quantum mechanically. On the other hand charge transport between indi-
vidual colloids will be modeled using the quantum mechanical tunnel effect.
Possible Coulomb blockade effects for nanowires are studied.
In order to calculate the electrical properties of a gold nanowire, one
needs to look at two colloids first. An expression for the potential between
two arbitrary metal colloids submerged in a homogeneous infinite medium
with a certain permittivity is derived.
The tunneling mechanism is looked at in detail. Simmons formulas for
a current per area between two electrodes are simply integrated using the
derived potential to yield an overall current between two arbitrary
colloids.
For the sake of completeness, the capacitance between two metal
colloids is revised. The problem of the distribution of colloids in a self-
assembled, one-dimensional nanowire is also addressed.
2.1 Physical Domain of the Problem

The colloids have radii ranging from 5 to 90 nm (Stadler, 2007). Self
assembled nano structures consist of thousands of such colloids. On these
length scales, one is in the regime of mesoscopic physics. How can carrier
transport between the colloids in such a structure be modeled, must one
use a purely quantum mechanical description of an individual colloid?
Finally, colloids are found to be too large to show quantum dot behavior.
2.1.1 Sommerfeld Model of an Individual Colloid

The Sommerfeld Model of metals assumes that negatively charged valence
electrons form an electron gas in which the positive ions rest. Valence elec-
trons are subject to the quantum mechanical Pauli exclusion principle and,
therefore, have a probability (Ashcroft & Mermin, 1976)
2 THEORY
E 1
f (E) = exp (1)
kB T +1
to have a total energy E. The function f (E) is known as the Fermi

distribution. The value kB is Boltzmanns constant, T the temperature
of the system in Kelvin and the chemical potential which can be
approximated by the Fermi energy EF .
Only a tiny fraction of electrons have higher energies than EF even at
room temperature. Hence, one can take the Fermi
velocity
p
vF = 2EF /m (2)
as an upper limit for the electron velocity within the colloids.

2.1 Physical Domain of the Problem 2 THEORY
How does an applied bias change these velocities within the electrodes?
One can show that the drift velocity vD due to an electromagnetical field E
is negligible to the Fermi velocity vF . The electron drift velocity vD due
to an electric field E can be approximated using Drudes model. It states
that (Ashcroft & Mermin, 1976)
1
vD = E, (3)
en
where e > 0 is the elementary charge, n the charge carrier density and
the electrical resistivity. Taking EF = 5.5 eV (Ashcroft & Mermin,
1976), = 2 108 m (Kaye & Laby, 1966), n = 6 1028 m3 (Wyckoff,
1963) for gold and a strong field |E| = 100 kVm1 :
2.1 Physical Domain of the Problem 2 THEORY
|vD |
4 104 1. (4)
vF
The electrons movement due to the electromagnetic field in the colloids
is negligible.
Valence electrons are accelerated by an electromagnetical field until they
collide after a relaxation time . The value can be calculated
using
(Ashcroft & Mermin, 1976)
m
= . (5)
ne2
For gold, the mean free path of an electron between collisions is,
therefore, (Ashcroft & Mermin, 1976)
= vF 41 nm. (6)
The length is of the same order of magnitude as the colloids size.

Charge carriers will, on average, traverse the colloids without experiencing
much interference. We can thus model the colloids as perfectly conducting
metal spheres.
2.1.2 Quantum Dots

On the other hand, a small colloid could localize electronic wave functions to
such a degree that one would observe quantum dots. The colloid would
not be perfectly conducting, but insulating. Nevertheless, Imry (2002)
showed that a device larger than 5 nm is not expected to show such a
behavior even at absolute zero.
Since the tiniest colloids we are dealing with have a radius of about 5 nm
and we are working at room temperature, quantum dot phenomena are
of no concern at this point. Blech et al. (2007) measured currents
through
5-12 colloids. The colloids were found to be conducting.
2.1.3 Shuttle Mechanism for Charge
Transfer
A colloid embedded between two electrodes may act as a electromechanical
charge shuttle if it is connected by soft molecular links that are elastically
deformable (Gorelik et al. , 1998). An applied high bias leads to a strong
electric field which accelerates the colloid first towards one, then towards
the other electrode. Electrons will be loaded onto the colloid at the
negatively charged side, shuttled to the positive electrode where they are
released again.
Current would thus be transferred discretely at a colloid vibration fre-
quency of about 10-100 GHz (Isacsson et al. , 1998). For charge shuttling in
tunnel junctions having a high resistance, a current-voltage plot is expected
to show hysteresis as shown in Figure 4.
However, shuttle mechanism phenomena are beyond the scope of this
paper. It remains to be seen whether functionalized colloids are sufficiently
flexible to act as shuttles. Future current-voltage measurements that would
yield plots showing hysteresis as in Figure 4 would strongly imply shuttling.
400
200
Current [nA]
-200
-400
-20 -10 0 10 20
Bias [V]
Figure 4: Typical current-voltage plot showing hysteresis due to the shuttle

mechanism (image taken from Braun et al. (1998)). Here, a self-assembled
silver nanowire shows current-dependence on the voltage scan direction.
2.2 Coulomb 2 THEORY
Blockade
Figure 5: A single colloid of radius a separated from its neighbors by suffi-

ciently large gaps.
2.2 Coulomb Blockade

Suppose a charged colloid of radius a in a one dimensional nanowire is
separated from its neighbors by two gaps (see Figure 5). In order to observe
a Coulomb blockade, the gaps should have resistances well above the
quantum resistance RQ (Simon, 1998),
h
Rgap RQ = 25.8 k. (7)
e2
Ignoring the rest of the nanowire, the electric potential (r) of the isolated
charged sphere at some point r in space can also be generated by a point
charge Q residing at the center of the colloid, where (Jackson, 1999)
2.2 Coulomb 2 THEORY
Blockade Q
(r) = (r) = . (8)
40 r
0 is the permittivity of free space, the permittivity of the surrounding
medium. Putting a small additional charge Q onto the colloid, the poten-
tial on its surface is changed by
Q
= . (9)
40 a
The isolated colloid thus has a self-capacitance of
dQ
C := = 40 a. (10)
d
Suppose an electron tunnels from a neighboring sphere through the gap
onto the isolated colloid. This will increase the potential of the metallic
island by
e e
= = . (11)
C 40 a
A second tunneling electron may have an insufficient total energy to
reach that higher potential of the island even if a bias V is applied over
the gap (see Figure 6). Both potential energy eV and thermal energy kB T
need to be considered. Since kB T is only a measure of the average
thermal energy of an electron, the electrons average total energy should be
much below the
Epot
Coulomb blockade
e2
2C
2 1
kB T e2
eV 2C
0
left colloids isolated colloid right colloids
Figure 6: Diagram of potential energy Epot . Electrons also have a

thermal energy of kB T . If C is small enough, the potential of the
isolated colloid might be raised high enough that a second tunneling
electron has insufficient energy.
threshold to avoid effects from thermal fluctuations. Hence if the

applied bias V is much below a threshold bias VT , one is in the regime of
Coulomb blockade (Maheshwari et al. , 2008; Simon, 1998):
e2
eV + kB T eVT = . (12)
2C
Charge carrier transport is completely blocked until the metallic island has
lost its additional electron. As a consequence, electrons tunnel one by one.
An isolated colloid showing this behavior acts as a single electron transistor.
The sequential tunneling is referred to as Single Electron Tunneling (SET).
One may observe a Coulomb blockade if the electrons total energy is
notably below the isolated islands potential barrier e2 /2C . Since
thermal electrons have an average energy of kB T , colloids of size
e2
a (13)
80 (eV + kB T )
demonstrate a Coulomb blockade if a bias V is applied over the gap.
Islands consisting of two, three or more colloids may also exhibit
Coulomb blockade behavior if the temperature drops. Assuming that a
metallic island of m colloids has a self-capacitance of mC , blocks of
e2
m. (14)
C (eV + kB T )
2.3 Potential Between Two Metal 2 THEORY
Spheres
colloids can act as single electron transistors.

If only islands of single colloids act as Coulomb barriers, a nanowire hav-
ing n such isolated colloids shows an overall self-capacitance of
(Maheshwari et al. , 2008)
10
10
2.3 Potential Between Two 1Metal n n 2 THEORY
Spheres = = . (15)
Ctotal C 40 a
Suppose that all the metallic islands have approximately the same potential
difference to their nearest neighbors. The threshold bias VT to be applied to
the chain to observe Coulomb blockade effects is then given by
(Maheshwari
et al. , 2008)
e e n
VT = = . (16)
2Ctotal 80 a
The effective radius to observe a Coulomb blockade in a nanowire is
reduced by a factor 1/n.
2.3 Potential Between Two Metal

Spheres
To model the current between two colloids, the electric potential in
the vicinity of the colloids, in which the tunneling electron moves,
must be calculated. The bare potential between the two metallic
bodies will be modified by the tunneling electron itself as it introduces
image charges in both spheres.
2.3.1 Bare Potential Between Two Colloids Using Image

Charges
Suppose a small colloid of radius a and a larger colloid of radius b are
separated by a gap of size s (see Figure 7). What is the bare potential
between the two spheres if a bias V is applied?
Let us place the origin at the center of the left sphere. This smaller
sphere shall have a potential of = V whereas the right colloid is at =
0. The metallic colloids are equipotentials. The charged sphere can be
replaced by a single charge Q at the center. This will give rise to a potential
(Jackson,
1999)
Q
(r) = (r) = . (17)
40 r
where 0 is the free space permittivity and is the permittivity of the
medium in which the colloids lie. If the first sphere is to be held at = V ,
then
Q = 40 aV.
(18) This charge at the origin destroys the equipotential = 0 of the
larger
right sphere. To obtain = 0 on the second colloids surface, one can
put a charge Q1 a distance d1 away from the second spheres center (see
Figure 8). The combined potential of both charges Q and Q1 then put the
11
11
x
b
a z
s
Figure 7: Definition of coordinate system. The smaller colloids

midpoint lies in the origin.
second colloids surface at = 0. Using the method of images, Q1 and d1

can be calculated to (Jackson, 1999)
b
Q1 = Q, d1 = b 2
R, (19)
R
R
where R points from the origin to the second colloids center.

However, Q1 disturbs the equipotential of the first sphere. A third
charge Q2 a distance d2 away from the left colloids center establishes
yet again = V if (see Figure 8)
a R + d1
Q2 = Q , d2 = a2 . (20)
|R + d1 | 1 |R + d1 |2
This process must be iterated infinitely many times. Even charges Q2n
come to lie within the first colloid, odd charges Q2n+1 within the second.
The magnitude of the image charges Qm decreases rapidly to zero. If
the radii are equal, a = b and the colloids touch each other, then
1 (1)m
Qm = Qm1 = m Q. (21)
2 2
If one defines c as the ratio b = ca (c 1 since b a) and the colloids
touch, then (
cn+1
(1+c) 2n+1 Q, m = 2n + 1
Qm = n (22)
+ (1+c)2n Q, m = 2n
c
x
Q Q2 Q1
z
d2 d1
Figure 8: A charge Q at the center of the left sphere induces a first image
charge Q1 in the right colloid. Q1 in turn causes a second image charge Q2
in the first colloid, add infinitum. R is the vector pointing from the origin
to the right colloids center.
If m and c are large, this can be approximated by
cm/2
Qm (1)m Q (1)m cm/2 Q. (23)
(1 + c)m
In any case, one finds a rapid convergence
lim Qm = 0. (24)
m
If the colloids are separated by a gap of length s, convergence is even faster

since the denominator increases.
There is no explicit formula to find the charges Qm if the colloids do not
touch. They must be calculated using the following recursive formulas:
b
m = 2n + 1 : Qm = Q ,
|R dm1 | m1
(25)
a
m = 2n : Qm = Q .
|R + dm1 | m1
The vectors dm must also be calculated recursively with
R dm1
m = 2n + 1 : dm = b2 ,
|R dm1 |2
(26)
R + dm1
m = 2n : dm = a2 .
|R + dm1 |2
Each image charge Qm located at ~ym gives rise to a potential m (r)
at the point r in space,
1 Qm
m (r) = . (27)
40 |r
~ym |
Using all the formulas above, one obtains
1 Qm
m = 2n + 1 : m (r) =
0 |r R dm |
(28)
4
1 Qm
m = 2n : m (r) =
40 | r dm |
The starting values for the iteration process are
Q0 = Q, d0 = 0. (29)
This is just the original charge Q at the origin. The overall, bare potential
(b) (r) of two metallic colloids is thus

X
(b)
(r) = m (r). (30)
m=0
2.3.2 Image Potential due to the Tunneling

Electron
An electron that is in the process of tunneling causes an image potential in
both colloids since the two colloids surfaces are to be kept at equipotential.
This additional image potential reduces the potential encountered by the
electron. The overall effect is a higher tunneling probability per electron as
the barrier is lowered and thus a higher tunneling current.
The additional image potential can be calculated using the methods
of the last section. Lets suppose that the electron with charge e is at
point r in space. We are only interested in the potential at the electrons
location, ignoring all the other electrons that may tunnel at the same
instant. The electron causes an image charge on the left sphere as well as
on the right sphere to show up.
On the smaller left colloid of radius a, a charge Q1 appears a distance d1
from the origin. Again using the method of images one obtains
(Jackson,
1999)
a a2
Q1 = e, d1 = 2 r. (31)
r r
This ensures that the surface of the smaller colloid is still at potential = V
if we add the bare potential of the last section. However, this additional
image charge Q1 destroys the equipotential on the other colloid. A second
image charge Q2 a distance d2 away from the second colloids center is
needed:
b R d1
Q2 = Q1 , d2 = b2 . (32)
|R d1 | |R d1 |2
Again, infinitely many image charges are necessary. No closed
expression seems to exist, but one may use the recursive formulas
() a ()
m = 2n + 1 : Qm = Q m1 ,
()
|R + dm1 |
()
d() 2 R + dm1 .
m = a ()
|R + dm1 |2
(33)
() b ()
m = 2n : Qm = () Q m1 ,
| R m1 |
d ()
()
d = b2 R d m1
m ()
.
|R dm1 |2
An index has been introduced to indicate that these image charges result
from a first image charge on the left colloid. The recursion starts with
() () ()
Q0 = e and d0 = r R. The potentials m (r) at the tunneling electrons
()
location generated by each image charge Qm are
1 Q()
m = 2n + 1 : () (r) = ,
m
m ()
40 |r m |
d (34)
() 1 Q()
m
m = 2n : m (r) = .
40 |r R d() m|
The tunneling electron also directly causes an image charge on the right
colloid. This first image charge again induces a second image charge on the
first colloid and so forth. The formulas for the image charges beginning on
the right colloid are
(r) b (r)
m = 2n + 1 : Qm = (r) Qm1 ,
|R m1 |
d (r)
d(r) = b2 R dm1 .
m (r) 2
|R dm1 |
(35)
a (r)
m = 2n : Qm(r) = Qm1 ,
(r)
|R + dm1 |
(r)
d(r) R + dm1
m = a2 .
|R + d(r)
m1 |
2
(r) (r)
The recursion relations must start with Q0 = e and d0 = r. The
(r)
potentials m (r) amount to
m = 2n + 1 : (r) (r) = Q(r)
m
1 (r)
,
m
40 |r R dm |
(36)
(r) 1 Q(r)
m
m = 2n : m (r)
= .
40 |r m(r)
|
d
The tunneling electron is, therefore, subject to an additional image po-
tential (i) (r) of

X (r)
(i)
(r) =
h
i
() (r) + m (r) . (37)
m
m=1
Due to the linearity of Maxwells equations, this (i) (r) is simply added to
the bare potential (b) (r) of the last section. The resulting total electromag-
netical potential em (r) for the tunneling electron is
em (r) = (b) (r) + (i) (r). (38)
2.3.3 Resulting Tunnel Barrier

Height
The electron tunnels from within one metal colloid to the other. In
order to free an individual electron from a colloid, which we assume to show
bulk material properties, energy is needed. One takes the bulk metals
work function to be the work required to free the tunneling electron. In
case of gold, the work function is = 4.83 0.02 eV (Anderson, 1959).
Especially for small specimen of metal, the work function can be highly
dependent on surface topology and differ from measured bulk values (Lang
& Kohn (1971) and Wood (1981)). Nevertheless, since one deals with col-
loids of quite perfect spherical geometry of roughly the same size, the work
functions of all the different colloids of a system are taken to be equal. A
possibly altered work function due to the fact that the colloids are
indeed very small does not change the fundamental physical properties of
the system. Rather, the absolute value of the tunnel resistance is modified,
overall rendering tunneling more or less likely.
The resulting barrier height (r) for a tunneling electron is its work
function plus the electromagnetical potential em (r):
(r) = + (b) (r) + (i) (r). (39)

2.4 Tunnel Effect 2 THEORY
2.4 Tunnel Effect

If two colloids are separated by a small gap, current can still flow
from one to the other by means of the quantum mechanical tunneling
effect. In this work, Simmons formulas for the tunneling current between
two metal electrodes are used and modified.
2.4.1 WKB Approximation

Simmons uses the Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin approximation, commonly
known as the WKB approximation, as the starting point of his analysis. In
quantum mechanics, the dynamics of a single electron is given by the
Schrodinger equation (Cohen-Tannoudji et al. , 1999)
2
2.4 Tunnel Effect 2 THEORY
p
i~t (r, t) = H (r, t), where H + (r). (40)
2m
=
(r, t) is the wave function of the electron, H the Hamiltonian of the
system, p the electrons impulse and (r) the potential the electron is
subject to. In this context one is not interested in the wave function (r,
t) itself, but in the probability that an electron tunnels through a certain
barrier (r). In one dimension and using the WKB approximation, this
chance is given by the transmission probability P (Ez ) (Blatter, 2005):
Z
2 s2 p
P (Ez ) = exp 2m((z) Ez ) dz . (41)
~ s1
The electron has a kinetic energy Ez = 2m vz2 in z-direction along which it

tunnels. It hits the barrier at z = s1 , where (s1 ) = Ez and
propagates
freely after z = s2 , where again (s2 ) = Ez
.
2.4.2 Tunneling Current in the WKB

Approximation
In this section, we closely follow Simmons derivation. Suppose that two
metal plates are separated by a small gap of size s. Let the gap have a
permittivity of . If a voltage V is applied over the gap which extends
perpendicular to the z-direction, there is a bare potential of
eV
(b) (z) = z (42)
s
between the plates. Electrons tunneling from one plate to the other
are also subject to some image potential (i) (z). As described above,
electrons must tunnel through a resulting potential (r) given by equation
(39). The probability that one electron tunnels from one electrode to the
other is then given by the WKB approximation (41).

(z)
s1 s2
eV
EF
left electrode insulating gap right electrode

z
zstart zstop
Figure 9: Electrons tunnel from the left to the right electrode (plate or
colloid) through an insulating layer with permittivity due to an applied
voltage V . All energy bands up to the Fermi energy EF are filled. is
the metals work function to free the electrons. The tunneling electron
induces an image potential, thus effectively reducing the barrier height (z).
Tunneling takes place only between s1 and s2 .
The number N1 of electrons tunneling from the left electrode to the right
electrode is (Simmons, 1963)
Z vmax
Z Emax
1
N1 = vz n(vz )P (Ez )dvz = n(vz )P (Ez )dEz . (43)
0 m 0
Figure 9 depicts the situation. The variable n(vz ) is the electron density of
electrons in the velocity range [vz , vz + dvz ]. Emax = m can taken to be
v2 2 max
the Fermi energy EF .
It was shown in section 2.1.1 that the electron drift velocity vD due
to an applied bias can be neglected compared to the Fermi velocity vF .
The electrons velocity distribution is, therefore, isotropic.
Also, temperature effects need not to be taken into account. Fermi
energies are in the range of a couple of electron volts, whereas a room tem-
perature of T = 300 K contributes a small kB T = 25.8 meV.
Assuming isotropic velocity distribution, using the relationship

2m4
n(v)dv = f (E)dv (44)
h3
m 2
and writing vr2 := vx2 + vy2 , Er = 2 vr one obtains (Simmons, 1963)
ZZ
2m4
n(vz ) = f (E)dvx dvy
h3 R 2
Z (45)
4m3
= f (E)dEr .
h3 0
Hence, the number of electrons N1 tunneling from the left electrode to the
right is (Simmons, 1963)
Z Z
4m2 EF
N1 = P (Ez )dEz f (E)dEr . (46)
h3 0 0
On the other hand, N2 electrons tunnel from the right to the left
metal plate. The tunneling probability P (Ez ) stays the same, yet the
electrons energy is lower by an amount of eV due to the applied bias:
Z Z
4m2 EF
N2 = P (Ez )dEz f (E eV )dEr . (47)
h3 0 0
The overall current per unit area J from the left to the right is, therefore,
(Simmons, 1963)
Z Z
4m2 e EF
J = e(N1 N2 ) = P (Ez )dEz [f (E eV ) f (E)] dEr .
h3 0 0
(48)
2.4.3 Approximation for Faster Computing
Simmons also derived an approximation of equation (48). Taking
Z s2
1
:= (z)dz (49)
s2 s1 s1
as the average height of the potential that an electron has to tunnel
through, the tunneling current per area is roughly given by (Simmons,
1963)
h p i
J = J0 ( eV ) exp A eV exp A (50)
where
e
J0 := ,
2h 2 (s2 s 1 )2

4 2m
A := (s2 s1 ), (51)
h Z s2
1
:= 1 ((z) )2 dz 1.
2
8 (s 2 s 1 ) s1
For very low voltages eV , one can use the Taylor series expansions
X
x xn
e = 1 + x, (52)
n!
n=0

X (1)n (2n)! 1
1+ x = xn 1 + x (53)
n=0
(1 2n)(n!) 4
2 n 2
to obtain
AeV
J J0 exp A ( eV ) . (54)
exp
2

After further expansion and because A 1, one has a tunneling current
per unit area of (Simmons, 1963)

2me V
exp (s2 s1 ) (55)
2 (s2 s1 )
J
with h2

4 2m 1
:= 1.02 eV1/2 . (56)
h
If eV is very small the bare potential (b) (r) is also very small since the
induced charge (18) is also negligible. Hence the mean barrier height
is approximately constant. The tunneling current shows, therefore, an
Ohmic behavior J V for a small bias V .
Assuming further that s2 s1 scales like the actual gap between the
electrodes, tunneling current per unit area is exponentially decaying with
increasing gap size s,
eC s
J , (57)
s
for some constant C .
2.5 Tunneling Current Between Two 2 THEORY
Colloids
w()
a b
z
s
Figure 10: An electron tunneling at an angle traverses parallel to the z-

axis a total distance w().
2.5 Tunneling Current Between Two

Colloids
Simmons derivation is valid for two plates. Nevertheless, his results may
also be applied to calculate the tunneling current between two spheres
since all assumptions of Simmons still hold. In particular, the velocity
distribution of electrons is still isotropic at room temperature.
Simmons derives a formula for the tunneling current per unit area par-
allel to the z-direction. If one integrates this equation over one half of the
smaller of the two spheres, one may calculate the overall tunneling current.
Let the smaller colloid of radius a be located at the origin and the larger
colloid of radius b have its center at z = a + s + b (see Figure 10).
One is only looking at electrons tunneling parallel to the z-axis,
decomposing their velocity vectors. Since the gap for an electron that
starts tunneling at some point r on the smaller sphere widens with the
spherical angle , the tunneling current in z-direction is only dependent.
If w() is the width of the gap at angle , then
20
20
2.5 Tunneling Current Between Two q 2 THEORY
Colloids w() = s + a(1 cos()) + 1 1
2
2
b2 sin () . (58)
a
b
The tunneling current per unit area in z-direction is only dependent on

that width, Jz (r) = Jz (w()). The total tunneling current I is then
given
21
21
in spherical coordinates by
ZZ
I= Jz (r) dA
half-sphere
Z 2 Z /2
= d d a2 sin() cos()J (w())
0 0
Z /2
2
= 2a d sin() cos()J (w()) (59)
0
This last equation integrates Simmons formula (50) to give an overall cur-
rent for two arbitrary colloids.
If one looks at two colloids of the same radius a and uses equation (57),
then
Z /2
e2aC cos()
2 C (s+2a) d sin() cos()
Ia e s + 2a(1 cos())
0
Z 1
te2C at
= a2 eC (s+2a) dt
s + 2a 2at
Z s+2a0
s + 2a eC z 1
= dz + eC (s+2a) eC s . (60)
4 s z 4C
C is of the order of inverse Angstrom (equation (56)). The second

term can thus be neglected. There is no analytical solution for the
exponential integral in the first term. However, the distance between
the colloids is usually much smaller than their radius, s a:
Z 2a
eC z
Ia dz . (61)
s z
Again, since C is of the order of A1 , but a in the tenths of

nanometers, this proportionality is about the same as
Z
eC z
Ia dz = a Ei(C s), (62)
s z
where Ei(x) is the so-called exponential integral (Bronstein et al. , 2005)
Z
t
Ei(x) := dt e . (63)
x t
Equation (62) shows that the total tunneling current I scales approximately
like the radius a of the colloids. I depends non-trivially on gap s. However,
if one plots x (0, 100) versus Ei(Dx), where D is of the order of
unity, Ei(Dx) exp(D s) for some constant D 1. Because C is
indeed of the order of inverse Angstroms and s in the order of
Angstroms,
I a exp(C s). (64)

2.6 Capacitance of Two Colloids 2 THEORY
2.6 Capacitance of Two Colloids

If one wants to model a specific nanowire as an electrical circuit, one
may also want to include the capacitances between two distinct colloids.
Even though the results reviewed in this section are not used further,
they are given for the sake of completeness.
The smaller colloid shall have a radius a, the larger b. The spheres are
separated by a gap of size s. Let the two colloids have charges Q1 and Q2 ,
respectively, and potentials V1 , V2 . Then the capacitance tensor C for
the system is
2.6 Capacitance of Two Colloids 2 THEORY
Q1 = C11 V1 + C12 V2 (65)
Q = CV
Q2 = C21 V1 + C22 V2

We are interested in the coefficients between the two spheres, C12 =
C21 . One can once again use infinitely many image charges to calculate C
(Erick- son, 1999). However, there is another way that ultimately yields
formulas which converge much faster (Russell, 1911):
" #
X
2n+1
C11 = 40 a + 2 2n ,
n=0 1
2n+1
" #
X
2n+1 2n
C22 = 40 b + 2 , (66)
n=0 1
2n+1
" #
X
ab 2n+1
C12 = 40 + 2 2n ,
c 1 2n+1
n=0
where
c := a + s + b,
1 p
:= (c + a + b)(c a b)(c + a b)(c a + b),
2c
p
:= 1 + 2 /a2 (67)
,a
:= c a
b ,

:= .

C12 is the capacitance between the two spheres and can be used to
model an electrical circuit.
2.7 One-Dimensional Distribution of Colloids 2 THEORY
2.7 One-Dimensional Distribution of Colloids

Any structure to be formed of colloids will show a random distribution of
spheres and holes between spheres due to the self-assembling nature of the
system. Colloids randomly place themselves where there is enough space
left. There is no overlap between neighboring spheres. Thus one can
use a model in which the colloids are placed one after the other. What is
the distribution of gaps between colloids in a nanowire?
There is no simple solution to this question. The one-dimensional prob-
lem is known as Renyis Parking Problem. Let the diameter of a
colloid be unity and the wire the interval [0, x], x > 1. The number of
placed colloids Mx is then given by the integral equation (Bankovi,
1962)
2.7 One-Dimensional Distribution of Colloids 2 THEORY
Z x1
2
Mx = 1 + My dy. (68)
x1 0
Reasonable results can be given if the length of the wire approaches infinity.
The expected density of colloids in this case is (Bankovi, 1962)
Z Z
E(Mx ) t
1 eu
C := lim = dt exp 2 du 0.748. (69)
x x 0 0 u
Also, the probability P(sx < h) that a gap picked at random of size sx
is smaller than 0 < h 1 can be calculated to (Bankovi, 1962)
Z Zt
2 1 eu
P(sx < h) = 2 dt exp ht 2 du . (70)
C 0 0 u
Two- or even three-dimensional self-assembled structures pose an ever-
greater mathematical challenge.
3 METHODS
3 Methods
MathWorks Matlab 7.6 was used for all numerical calculations. A program
was written to yield an overall resistance R = V /I for a tunnel
junction between two arbitrary colloids with an applied bias V . A
graphical user interface lets one plot and analyze the data. An algorithm
was developed to generate a random one-dimensional distribution of
colloids in a nanowire.
3.1 Numerical Calculation of Tunnel

Resistance
The overall tunneling current between two colloids is given by equation
(59). There, the tunneling current per area J (),
h 3 METHODS i
J p
J () = ( eV ) s exp s
0
eV
(s)2 exp
(71)
needs to be integrated over [0, /2], where
e
J0 := ,
2h 2
(72)
4 2m
:= .
h
For every , one finds a different potential (r) = (z) between the
spheres. Along the straight line parallel to the z-axis connecting the two
spheres at angle , the zeros s1 , s2 of (z) need to be found to yield an
average barrier height Z s2
1
:= dz (z). (73)
s1
Here we defined s
s := s2 s1 . (74)
An electron tunnels only between s1 and s2 through an approximately
rectangular barrier of height (see Figures 9 and 11). The whole
barrier might vanish entirely if the gap is small enough while a large bias is
applied.
The potential (z) is found with equation (39). In theory, there are in-
finitely many image charges to both the bare potential (b) (r) and the image
potential (i) (r). Yet 20 image charges were found to be sufficiently
accurate for both potentials (see section 4.3.1 on page 31). The M-file
colloidpotential calculates (z) with arbitrarily many image charges.
In order to find s1 and s2 for each , the rough location of the maxi-
mum zmax needs to be calculated.
3.1 Numerical Calculation of Tunnel Resistance 3 METHODS
4.5
3.5
3
Potential (z) [eV]
2.5
1.5
0.5
-0.5
540 560 580 600 620 640 660
z
[A]
Figure 11: Form of a typical potential between two colloids of radius 600
A
at an angle = /8 with V = 1 V. Gap size is s = 10 A, barrier
height = 4.8 eV, permittivity = 1. The electron must tunnel only
where (z) > 0 between s1 and s2 .
3.1.1 Potential at a Specific Point

The function colloidpotential calculates the overall potential (z) where the
tunneling electron is located. Only two coordinates are needed since the
problem has rotational symmetry with respect to the z-axis. Let us project
the problem onto a two-dimensional plane (see Figure 12). In cartesian
coordinates (x, z)T , the location of the electron r for a given is
a sin()
3.1 Numerical Calculation ofrTunnel
= Resistance 3 METHODS
(75)
z
with [0, /2] and z [zstart , zstop ], where
zstart = a cos(),
q (76)
zstop = a + s + b b2 a2 sin2 ().

and the colloids are separated by
0
R= . (77)
a+s+b
x
w()
r
a b

z
zstart s zstop R
Figure 12: The tunneling electron at r. In the model, all electrons tunnel
along straight lines parallel to the z-axis from zstart to zend . The gap at
angle has an actual width of w() = zstop zstart .
Let the number of image charges for the bare potential (b) (r) be N
(b)
and N (i) for the electrons image potential (i) (r). The function
colloidpotential approximates the potential (z) at r with
N (b) (i)
X NX
(z) + m (r) + m(l) (r) + m(r) (r) (78)
m=0
| { z } m=1
| { z }
(b ) (r)
(i ) (r)
(l) (r)
using the recursive relations for m (r), m (r) and m (r) given at the end
of sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 for a given and z.
3.1.2 Finding Potential

Maximum
The location of the maximum zmax of (z) for a given is roughly deter-
mined using the peakdet function common Matlab routines to
determine maxima and minima failed due to the finite number of image
charges and the many resulting local maxima and minima in the potential
(z).
The Matlab variable (z) is a vector of values handed to peakdet. An
entry is considered to be a local maximum if it is larger than its left
and
right values by a certain tolerance value (0.1 eV proved to be
sufficient).
If the maximum (zmax ) happens to be a negative value, the
entire barrier is suppressed and electrons do not need to tunnel. In this case,
the model fails and not-a-number (NaN) is returned.
3.2 Analyzation of Tunnel Resistance 3 METHODS
3.1.3 Finding Tunneling Boundaries s1 and s2

Once the maximum zmax of (z) is found, the tunnel boundaries s1 and s2
are calculated using Matlabs fzero command. It is necessary to call fzero with
an interval [zstart + , zmax ] and [zmax , zstop ], respectively. zstart and
zstop are the actual gap boundaries for a given calculated with equation
(76). > 0 is a small tolerance value added since the potential (z)
diverges at zstart and zstop . Otherwise, fzero would yield only zstart .
3.1.4 Tunneling Current

The subroutine tunnelcurrent finds the potential maximums location and uses
it to calculate the tunneling boundaries s1 and s2 . The matlab routine trapz
is then invoked with an equally spaced z [s1 , s2 ] grid to yield the
mean potential . The current per area J () at an angle is the
subroutines output using equation (71).
The graphical user interface resistancemodel finally integrates J ()
using equation (59) to calculate an overall current between two arbitrary
colloids. Herein, trapz is called with a -grid
3.2 Analyzation of Tunnel Resistance 3 METHODS
1
grid = max (1 xgrid )7 , where xgrid := 0 : : 1. (79)
Nangle 1
This ensures that the vector grid with Nangle entries has more values
towards = 0 where the gap is smaller and more current flows. The
integration process thus puts more weight on values close to zero. 7 in
the exponent was randomly chosen and proved to provide sufficient
accuracy even for Nangle = 50 what was used for all numerical
calculations.
resistancemodel gives the tunnel junctions resistance R = V /I as a result.
3.2 Analyzation of Tunnel

Resistance
The subroutine analyzeresistance plots the data collected from resistancemodel
using a graphical user interface. It offers to fit the data points P (x, y) using
Matlabs polyfit subroutine, thus fitting data to a polynomial of
arbitrary degree. For a suspected exponential dependence
y = AeBx , (80)
one takes the logarithm on both sides to fit the data to the first
degree polynomial
log(y) = Bx + log(A). (81)
The absolute change of resistance dR/d and the relative change R1 dR if
varying the permittivity can also be approximated for different d
independent variables such as the gap s or the smaller colloid radius a. A
polynomial is fit to the R plot for every value of the independent
variable. Matlabs
3.3 One-Dimensional Distribution of Colloids 3 METHODS
polyderfunction then yields the derivative of these polynomials. Ultimately,

the slope of the permittivity-resistance plot is calculated. One should use
caution in interpreting the results. Permittivity values close to the ends of
the data spectrum yield wrong results.

The Matlab routine randomdistr simulates Renyis parking problem.
Colloids of radius a are randomly placed in a one-dimensional interval of
length L, one after the other. The procedure stops if there is no space
left for an additional colloid. The program uses the following fast
implementation:
1. Subsequent colloids are randomly placed to the left of the preceding

colloid until there is no space left in the interval currently filling up.
2. If there is no space left, start filling the next interval to the right: go
to step 1.
3. Stop if the current intervals right boundary is L and no space is left

for an additional colloid.
A vector containing the coordinates of the colloids centers is the pro-

grams output. Data can be interpreted using gapdistr, which yields a vector
containing only the gap sizes, and drawgapdistr, which plots the number
of gaps that fall in an arbitrary number of categories.
4 RESULTS
4 Results
The expected boundaries of all independent physical variables are given
first. After that, Coulomb blockade effects are investigated. Then the
resulting total potential barrier through which an electron must tunnel is
studied. The current-voltage relationship of a tunnel junction is then
examined. The distribution of colloids in a self-assembled one-dimensional
nanowire is studied finally.
4.1 Range of Variables

The gold colloids have radii between 50 and 900 A. The highest field
strengths that can be expected between two colloids are in the order of 2
kVm1 , the disruptive strength of air (Stocker, 2004). A bias of at
most 3 mV could thus be applied to two colloids having a gap of 10 A.
This justifies the approximation |V | 1 for a bias applied to two colloids
that are reasonably spaced.
All data was collected using the work function of gold, = 4.8 eV
(Anderson, 1959). The range of all variables used in this thesis is listed in
table 1.
Independent variable Range

Gap size [A] s [5, 40]
Smaller colloid radius [A] a [50, 900]

Bigger colloid radius [ A] b [50, 900], b
a
Permittivity [1] [1, 150]
Applied bias [mV] V [0, 3]
Table 1: Range of variables in this thesis. Note that the work function of
gold, = 4.8 eV, has been used for all calculations.
4.2 Coulomb Blockade

A single isolated colloid may already show Coulomb blockade characteristics.
A colloid is considered to be isolated from its neighbors if the tunneling
resistances to the left and right are both well above RQ := h/e2 25.8 k
(Simon, 1998). This limit is easily reached as shown in section 4.4.5. If the
nanowire is assembled as described in section 4.5 most colloids will actually
be considered to be isolated from their neighbors.
If we arbitrarily choose a permittivity of = 3 and a bias of V = 3 mV
4.2 Coulomb 4 RESULTS
Blockade
VT
V
VT
Figure 13: Expected current-voltage plot for Coulomb blockade. Current

J
is limited to sequential single electron tunneling for a bias V < VT .
over the gaps separating the colloid (see figure 5 on page 8), colloids of
radius
a 8 nm (82)
show single electron transfer if one applies low voltages to the whole
nanowire (equation (13)). This upper limit is even increased if the
permittivity is larger. A single specimen of the smallest colloids of 50 nm
radius could thus show Coulomb blockade effects.
In a self-assembled nanowire, more than just one single isolated colloid
are to be expected. The threshold bias VT to observe Coulomb blockade in
a nanowire of colloids of radius a is given by (Maheshwari et al. , 2008)
30
30
4.2 Coulomb 4 RESULTS
Blockade e n
VT = , (83)
80 a
where n is the number of these isolated colloids. If we arbitrarily
choose
VT = 1 V, = 3 and a = 5 nm then
n 21. (84)
21 isolated colloids are thus sufficient to observe a complete Coulomb block-

ade for an overall applied bias V . 1 V even at room temperature,
no matter how long the nanowire. This limit is easily reached. Therefore,
self- assembled nanowires will almost certainly show Coulomb blockade
effects.
Figure 13 shows the expected current-voltage relationship for a
device in the regime of a Coulomb blockade.
31
31
4.3 Effective Potential Between Two 4 RESULTS
Colloids
4.3 Effective Potential Between Two Colloids

The necessary number of image charges for both the bare potential and the
image potential are given first. They will be used in subsequent calculations.
Barrier heights with and without an image potential caused by the tunneling
electrons are then plotted.
4.3.1 Number of Image Charges Needed

It was found that N (b) 50 image charges to model the bare poten-
tial (b) (r) (equation (30)) are sufficient for all reasonable other variables.
Also, an estimated N (i) 20 image charges for the image potential (b) (r)
(equation (37)) yield enough precision.
For these numbers of image charges, no considerable deviation from the
exact potential was found. The exact potential was approximated
(b) (i)
using values N , N > 5000.
4.3.2 Barrier Height without Image Potential

Figure 14 shows the barrier height without an image potential due to the
tunneling electron. The barrier height is plotted as the electrons tunnel in
the model along a straight line parallel to the z-axis as shown in figure 12
on page 26.
As opposed to two parallel plates described by Simmons (1963), the bare
potential is not linear for larger . Close to = 0, however, the potential
could be linearly approximated for faster future computations. Almost
all the electrons will tunnel close to the z-axis as the gap is smallest there.
4.3.3 Barrier Height with Image Potential

Included
Figures 15 and 16 show the total barrier height for a tunneling electron
including an image potential (i) (r) from equation (37). The image
potential is caused by the tunneling electron itself.
The image potential is vital to describe the tunneling process
between two metal colloids correctly. It significantly lowers the barrier
through which electrons have to tunnel. This increases the overall
tunneling current between two colloids, thus reducing the tunnel
junctions resistance.
a = b = 10 A, = a = b = 10 A, = a = b = 10 A, = /2
5 0 5 /4 5
4.8 4.8 4.8
Potential [eV]
Potential [eV]
Potential [eV]
4.6 4.6 4.6
4.4 4.4 4.4
4.2 4.2 4.2

4 4 4
3.8 3.8 3.8
3.6 3.6 3.6
10 12 14 16 18 20 7 11 15 19 23 0 6 12 18 24 30
z [ z [ z [A]
a = b = 900 A, = /2
5 a = b = 900 A, = 5 a = b = 900 A, = 5
0 /4
4.8 4.8 4.8
Potential [eV]
Potential [eV]
Potential [eV]
4.6 4.6 4.6
4.4 4.4 4.4
4.2 4.2 4.2
4 4 4
32
3.8 3.8 3.8

3.6 3.6 3.6
900 902 904 906 908 910 650 750 850 950 1050 1150 0 360 720 1080 1440 1800
z [ z z [A]
[
Figure 14: Barrier height for a tunneling electron between two gold colloids without an image potential. Colloids have
the same radii a = b. See Figure 12 on page 26 for the definition of the coordinate system. Gap s = 10 A. Applied bias V
= 1 V, permittivity = 1.
4 RESULTS
a = b = 50 A, = a = b = 50 A, = a = b = 50 A, =
0 /4 /2
5 5 5
4 4 4
Potential [eV]
Potential [eV]
Potential [eV]
3 3 3

2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0 0
-1 -1 -1
50 52 54 56 58 60 35 45 55 65 75 0 22 44 66 88 110
z z z
[A] [A] [A]
a = b = 900 A, = a = b = 900 A, = a = b = 900 A, =
0 /4 /2
5 5 5
4 4 4
Potential [eV]
Potential [eV]
Potential [eV]
3 3 3
33
2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0 0
-1 -1 -1
900 902 904 906 908 910 630 810 990 1170 0 450 900 1350 1800
z z z
[A] [A] [A]
Figure 15: Total barrier height (r) with image potential (i) (r) due to the tunneling electron included (red curve). The
4 RESULTS
blue curve shows barrier height without the image potential. Gap s = 10 A, bias V = 1 V, permittivity = 1.
a = 50 A, b = 400 A, a = 50 A, b = 400 A, = a = 50 A, b = 400 A, =
=0 /4 /2
5 5 5
4 4 4
Potential [eV]
Potential [eV]
Potential [eV]
3 3 3

2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0 0
-1 -1 -1
50 52 54 56 58 60 35 44 53 62 0 9 18 27 36 45 54 63
z z z
[A] [A] [A]
a = 50 A, b = 900 A, a = 50 A, b = 900 A, = a = 50 A, b = 900 A, =
=0 /4 /2
5 5 5
4 4 4
Potential [eV]
Potential [eV]
Potential [eV]
3 3 3
34
2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0 0
-1 -1 -1
50 52 54 56 58 60 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 16 32 48 64
z [ z [ z [A]
Figure 16: Total barrier height (r) with image potential for colloids of different radii (red curve). The blue curve
shows barrier height without the image potential. Gap s = 10 A, bias V = 1 V, permittivity = 1.
4 RESULTS
4.4 Resistivity of the Tunnel Junction 4 RESULTS
4.4 Resistivity of the Tunnel Junction

4.4.1 Dependency on Gap Size
Gap resistance R = U/I is exponentially dependent on gap size s as
proposed by equation (64),
35
35
4.4 Resistivity of the Tunnel JunctionC s 4 RESULTS
Re (85)
for some constant C . The simulation confirmed this relationship even
for colloids of different radii, a = b. Figures 17 and 18 are two examples
showing the simulations output in blue and an exponential fit in red.
Figures 19 and 20 show fits for different permittivities and radii a
= b. Figure 21 shows the exponential dependence for different radii.
The exponential dependency holds nicely in all studied cases.
If permittivity is increased, the resistance increases as well. This is an
expected simple consequence of Maxwells equations. The exponential coef-
ficient C is only slightly modified for different as can be seen in Figure
19
and 20.
Larger colloids conduct better. A larger area leads to more electrons
tunneling and an overall increase in tunneling current.
The exponential coefficient C is constant for all investigated radii and
permittivities:
1
C = 2.20 0.08 . (86)
If one assumes that
= C = (equations (57) and (64)) then the
C
average barrier height colloid for an entire colloid is about
colloid 4.7 eV.
(87) This value is slightly lower than the work function = 4.8 eV
that was
used.
36
36
Radii a = b = 90 nm. Applied bias V = 1 mV. = 1
40
10
Resistance R [] 1030
1020
1010
100
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Gap size s
[A]
Figure 17: Tunnel resistance R versus gap size s for colloids of the
same radius. Blue dots show numerical simulation. Red curve fits data
points to
R eC s.
Radii a = 5 nm, b = 90 nm. Applied bias V = 1 mV. = 80
1040
Resistance R []
1030
1020
1010
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Gap size s
[A]
Figure 18: Same plot for colloids of different radii and higher permittivity .
R eC sstill holds.
a = b = 90 nm. V = 1 mV.
40
10
1035 = 100
= 10
= 2
1030
= 1
Resistance R []
1025
1020
1015
1010
105
100
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Gap size s
[A]
same radius.
a = 5 nm, b = 90 nm. V = 1 mV.

45
10
= 100
1040
= 10
= 2
1035 = 1
Resistance R []
1030
1025
1020
1015
1010
105
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Gap size s
[A]
Figure 20: Tunnel resistance R versus gap size s for colloids of different
radii.
V = 1 mV, = 1.
1040
1035 a = b= 90 nm
a = b= 20 nm
30 a = b= 10 nm
10
a = b= 5 nm
Resistance R []
1025
1020
1015
1010
105
100
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Gap size s
[A]
same size. Different radii are plotted.
4.4.2 Dependency on Colloid Radius

Equation (64) also proposes that the tunneling current I is proportional to
the radii a = b if the colloids are of the same size, thus
1
R . (88)
a
Figure 22 is a sample plot demonstrating that this 1/a-dependency is a nice
approximation for colloids of the same size. However, if only one radius if
varied while the other is kept constant, this is not true any longer. Figure
24, for example, shows a R a0.72 dependency.
108 s = 10 A, = 1, V = 1 mV.
9
Resistance R [] 6
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Radius of colloids a = b
[A]
Figure 22: Resistance-radius relationship if both colloids have the same

radius a = b. 1/a fit is plotted red.
s = 10 A, = 1, V = 1 mV.
9
10
Resistance R []
108
102 103
Radius of colloids a = b
[A]
Figure 23: Double logarithmic plot of Figure 22. Colloids have the
same radius a = b. 1/a fit is plotted red.
Radius of larger colloid b = 90 nm. s = 10 A, V = 1.5 mV.
Resistance R []
108
40
40
102
Radius of smaller colloid a [A]
Figure 24: b = 900 A is fixed, the smaller colloids radius a is varied.

The fit R a0.72 matches the data best (red curve).
a = 5 nm, b = 90 nm. a = b = 90 nm.

12 12
Resistance R [109 ]
8 8
4 4
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10
Permittivity Permittivity
a = 5 nm, b = 90 nm. a = b = 90 nm.

6 6
Resistance [1013 ]
Resistance [1012 ]
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Permittivity Permittivity
Figure 25: Sample plots for permittivity. Bias V = 1 mV, gap s = 7 A.
41
41
= 80, s = 10 A, V = 1.5 mV, b = 900 A.
2.642
103
2.64
2.638
2.636
Sensitivity
2.634
2.632
2.63
2.628
2.626
2.624
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Radius of smaller colloid a
[A]
Figure 26: Sample plot showing sensitivity := R1 dR for = 80 (permittiv-

ity of water). does not depend significantly onda if b = const.
4.4.3 Permittivity Plots

Figure 25 is a sample plot of how the tunnel junctions resistance R depends
on the permittivity . A linear dependency can be found around [5, 35].
The curve flattens around = 70.
These plots were used to calculate the sensitivity , see next section.
4.4.4 Measurable Permittivity Changes

The gap between two colloids could be used for sensing. If one
changes the permittivity of the gap by e.g. introducing a new substance,
one can measure the relative change in resistance
1 dR
:= . (89)
R d
This quantity is called sensitivity.
Figures 26 and 27 show exemplarily that does not significantly depend
on either colloid radii a, b nor on gap size s. The calculated variances in
could be caused by numerical inconveniences alone. Nevertheless, is in
the order of per mills. Theoretically, changes of the permittivity should
thus be detectable in an experiment.
= 10, V = 1 mV, a = 50 A, b = 900 A.
103
3.2
3.15
Sensitivity
3.1
3.05
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Gap size s
[A]
Figure 27: Sample plot of sensitivity for = 10. Again, is not signif-
icantly influenced by gap size s. A plot for a = b = 900 nm would look
almost exactly the same.
4.4.5 Rough Estimate of General Tunneling Resistance

The results above lead to a formula which yields an approximation of the
expected tunneling resistance R. It is usable for colloids of the same radius
a = b and in the proximity of = 80, the permittivity of water. One finds
that roughly
eC s
R 0 , (90)
a
where
0 = 1.26 106
A,
1
C = 2.20 .
Equation (90) confirms the order of magnitude of the tunnel resistance

found by Blech et al. (2007). They investigated self-assembled gold colloid
nanowires and were able to measure currents through short wires of 5 to
12 colloids with gaps of size below 1 nm. Assuming a linear dependence on
the number of colloids, they found a resistance of 3.5 M per
particle/gap. If the colloids were still surrounded by a ligand shell, the
tunneling resistance was between 80 111 M.
a = 50 A a = 200 A a = 900
N = 100 4.8 5.4 6.1
N = 1000 5.9 6.5 7.2
N = 10000 6.9 7.5 8.2
Table 2: Approximate maximal gap width s between two colloids of radius

a in Angstroms if N nanowires are put in parallel. Rmax = 10 M,
80 and validity of equation (90) and (92) were assumed.
If we suppose that we are experimentally able to measure a resistance of

at most Rmax and put N nanowires in parallel, a single nanowire resistance
of
Rwire = N Rmax (91)
would be acceptable, supposing that all nanowires showed approximately
the same resistance. Within a single wire, all tunnel resistances R are in
series. Only the largest gaps contribute significantly to Rwire . Taking
the very largest gap as a measure of the wires conductance, then
1 Rmax
s. log aN (92)
C 0
Table 2 gives an idea of a maximal gap-width between two colloids

in a self-assembled nanowire. Clearly, gaps of size s > 1 nm will prohibit
any measurable tunneling current in a nanowire array.
4.5 One-Dimensional Distribution of Colloids 4 RESULTS

Gold colloids form a nanowire in a self-assembling way one nano particle
after the other is placed randomly in a given one-dimensional structure. This
ultimately leads to Renyis Car Parking Problem. However, equation
(70) is not really handy.
Figure 28 shows a simulated typical one-dimensional distribution of col-
loids. The problem is apparent: too many large gaps are left to construct a
conducting nanowire (see Table 2 on page 43).
A two-dimensional distribution of colloids is even more complicated and
beyond the scope of this thesis.
1
Probability [arbitrary units]
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Gap size s
[A]
Figure 28: Distribution of gaps in nanowire. Colloids had radius a = 50

A and were placed in a 5 107 A long interval. 373906 colloids fit,
yielding a wire-density of 0.7478.
5 CONCLUSIONS
5 Conclusions
A simple model to describe tunneling current through a gap between
two metal colloids was presented. The colloids themselves are assumed to be
perfectly conducting. Tunneling through the gap is estimated using a
quantum mechanical approximation made by Simmons (1963). His
assumption that electron velocity within the metal electrodes is
isotropically distributed still holds for the systems geometry. Simmons
equations are thus integrated to yield an overall tunneling current between
two arbitrary colloids.
Coulomb blockade effects limit charge carrier transport to
sequential tunneling in longer nanowires assembled of the smallest
colloids. Even at room temperature, these nanowires show Single Electron
Tunneling (SET).
Image charges induced by the tunneling electron itself are crucial to the
model. They lower the barrier height through which an electron has to
tunnel significantly.
Tunneling resistance between two gold colloids was studied. The
resistance R is exponentially dependent on gap size s for colloids of
arbitrary radii. R is also inversely proportional to the colloid radius a if
both colloids are of the same size. For permittivities around 80 (the
permittivity of water), one finds the approximation
eC s
R = 0 , 5 CONCLUSIONS
(93)
a
with
0 = 1.26 106 A,
1
C = 2.20 .
Taking Rmax as the maximal detectable overall resistance of a given

nanowire- array, N as the number of parallel wires, an upper limit for gap
sizes is
1
smax = log aN Rmax . (94)
C 0
Larger gaps will render the system non-conducting. For Rmax 10

M, gaps wider than 1 nm will prohibit detectable currents.
No significant dependence of the sensitivity := R1 on gap size or
dR d
colloid radius was found.
The self-assembling of colloids in a given one-dimensional structure such
as a nanowire is mathematically equivalent to Renyis car parking
problem. No explicit analytical solution to describe gap size distribution
exists as of today. A high percentage of large gaps and the fact that
wires with gaps larger than a few nanometers are insulating pose a
challenge to the fashioning of conducting nanowire-arrays (see Figure 28
on page 44).
6 OUTLOOK
6 Outlook
Current-voltage measurements of longer nanowires and nanowire-arrays
need yet to be made. Blech et al. (2007) could only investigate nanowires
made of 5-12 colloids.
The model at hand can be implemented to study a given nanowire. SEM
images could be analyzed to yield gap widths which in turn would be used
to calculate tunnel resistances. Current-voltage measurements could
then be used to test the models accuracy.
The model could also be extended to alternating currents. The gaps
capacitances (section 2.6) would then have to be implemented and a suitable
electrical circuit model would have to be found.
The self-assembling process itself should not produce gaps wider than
just a few nanometers. Otherwise the nanowires will be insulating. A way
of achieving this is further growth of the gold colloids after the colloids
have attached themselves by immersing them in a specific solution
(Stadler,
2007).
The electrical properties of nanogap sensing need to be further investi-
gated. The way a certain specimen caught in a gap between two
colloids changes the resistance and capacitance of the gap needs to be
studied.
Charge transfer through a shuttle mechanism might need to be included
in the current model if future experiments yield a characteristic hysteresis
current-voltage curve or discrete charge transfers.
Future nanogap biosensing using nanowires could be done with moni-
toring the electrical properties of the wire or wire-array. This information
could be combined with optical properties of the nanowire by investigating
Localized Surface Plasmon Resonances (LSPR).
This thesis presents a way to model one-dimensional, particle-based
nanowires. However, the basic concept of quantum mechanical tunneling
between two individual colloids could be expanded to two- or even three-
dimensional structures. The main challenge will be the modelling of the
distribution of the self-assembling colloids which will ultimately lead to
shortest-path problems. Once a shortest path with minimal gaps would be
found, the one-dimensional model presented in this thesis could be applied.
REFERENCES
References
Anderson, Paul A. 1959. Work Function of Gold. Physical Review, 115(3),
553554.
Ashcroft, Neil W., & Mermin, N. David. 1976. Solid State Physics. Thomson
Learning, Inc.
Aswal, Dinesh K., Lenfant, Stephane, Guerin, David, Yakhmi, Jatinder V.,
& Vuillaume, Dominique. 2005. A Tunnel Current in Self-Assembled
Monolayers of 3-Mercaptopropyltrimethoxysilane. Small, 1, 725729.
Blatter, Johann W. 2005. Quantenmechanik 1 & 2. Lecture notes. ETH

Zurich.
Blech, Kerstin, Noyong, Michael, Juillerat, Frederic, Nakayama,

Tomonobu, Hofmann, Heinrich, & Simon, Ulrich. 2007. In-Situ
Electrical Ad- dressing of One-Dimensional Gold Nanoparticle
Assemblies. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 8, 461465.
Bankovi, G. 1962. On Gaps Generated by a Random Space Filling

Proce- dure. Publ. Math. Inst. Hungar. Acad. Sci., 7, 395407.
Braun, Erez, Eichen, Yoav, Sivan, Uri, & Ben-Yoseph, Gdalyahu. 1998.
DNA-Templated Assembly and Electrode Attachment of a Conducting
Silver Wire. Nature, 391, 775778.
Bronstein, Ilja N., Semendjajew, Konstantin A., & Musiol, Gerhard. 2005.
Taschenbuch der Mathematik. 6th edition. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Harri
Deutsch GmbH.
Cohen-Tannoudji, Claude, Diu, Bernard, & Laloe, Franck. 1999. Quanten-

mechanik, Teil 1 & 2. Second edition. Gruyter.
Dong, Xiaodong, Xia, Yong, Zhu, Guoyi, & Zhang, Bailin. 2007. Molec-
ular Sensing with the Tunnel Junction of an Au Nanogap in Solution.
Nanotechnology, 18, 395502.
Erickson, Fred M. 1999 (November). The Capacitance Between Two
Spheres. Gorelik, L. Y., Isacsson, A., Voinova, M. V., Kasemo, B.,
Shekhter, R. I.,
& Jonson, M. 1998. Shuttle Mechanism for Charge Transfer in Coulomb
Blockade Nanostructures. Physical Review Letters, 80, 4526.
Imry, Yoseph. 2002. Introduction to Mesoscopic Physics. Second edition.

USA: Oxford University Press.
REFERENCES
Isacsson, A., Gorelik, L. Y., Voinova, M. V., Kasemo, B., Shekhter, R. I., &
Jonson, M. 1998. Shuttle Instability in Self-Assembled Coulomb Blockade
Nanostructures. Physica B: Condensed Matter, 255, 150163.
Itoh, Y. 1980. On the Minimum of Gaps Generated by One-Dimensional

Random Packing. Journal of Applied Probabability, 17, 134144.
Jackson, John David. 1999. Classical Electrodynamics. Third edition. John

Wiley & Sons Inc.
Kaye, George William Clarkson, & Laby, Thomas Howell. 1966. Table of
Physical and Chemical Constants. Longmans Green.
Lang, N. D., & Kohn, W. 1971. Theory of Metal Surfaces: Work Function.
Physical Review B, 3(4), 12151223.
MacKenzie, Robert, Grieshaber, Dorothee, Voros, Janos, & Reimhult, Erik.

2008. Electrochemical Biosensors - Sensor Principles and Architectures.
Sensors, 8, 14001458.
Maheshwari, Vivek, Kane, Jennifer, & Saraf, Ravi F. 2008. Self-Assembly of

a Micrometers-Long One-Dimensional Network of Cemented Au Nanopar-
ticles. Advanced Materials, 20, 284287.
Morrison, J. A. 1987. The Minimum of Gaps Generated by Random Pack-

ing of Unit Intervals into a Large Interval. SIAM Journal on
Applied Mathematics, 47, 398410.
Patolsky, Fernando, & Lieber, Charles M. 2005. Nanowire Nanosensors.

Materials Today, 8, 2028.
Russell, Alexander. 1911. The Capacity Coefficients of Spherical Electrodes.

Proceedings of the Physical Society of London, 23(Dec.), 352360.
Simmons, John G. 1963. Generalized Formula for the Electric Tunnel Effect
between Similar Electrodes Separated by a Thin Insulating Film. Journal
of Applied Physics, 34(6), 17931803.
Simon, Ulrich. 1998. Charge Transport in Nanoparticle Arrangements. Ad-

vanced Materials, 10, 1487.
Stocker, Horst. 2004. Taschenbuch der Physik: Formeln,

Tabellen, U bersichten. 5th edition. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Harri
Deutsch GmbH.
Stadler, Brigitte. 2007. Biolithography: A Tool to Manipulate Surfaces

for DNA-Assisted Patterning in the Micron- and Nanorange. Ph.D.
thesis, ETH Zurich.
REFERENCES
Stadler, Brigitte, Solak, Harun H., Frerker, Susanne, Bonroy,

Kristien, Voros, Filip Frederix Janos, & Grandin, Michelle. 2007.
Nanopatterning of Gold Colloids for Label-free Biosensing.
Nanotechnology, 18, 155306.
von Hippel, Arthur Robert. 1995. Dielectric materials and applications.

Artech House.
Wood, David M. 1981. Classical Size Dependence of the Work Function of

Small Metallic Spheres. Physical Review Letters, 46, 749.
Wyckoff, Ralph W. G. 1963. Crystal Structures. Second edition. Interscience.
Xu, Hongxing, & Kall, Mikael. 2002. Modeling the optical response
of
nanoparticle-based surface plasmon resonance sensors. Sensors and Ac-
tuators B: Chemical, 87, 244249.
A DESCRIPTION OF MATLAB PROGRAMS
A Description of Matlab Programs

The Matlab graphical user interfaces resistancemodel and analyzeresistance are
described and screenshots given.
A.1 Resistancemodel
The Matlab routine resistancemodel is a graphical user interface to
calculate the resistance R (Figure 29). The top part lets one choose the
simulations accuracy, the bottom part each variables range to be
investigated. The results are saved into a . mat file.
Number of image charges is the number of charges induced by the
tunneling electron (N (i) in equation (78)) and should at least be equal to 20.
Number of image charges for raw potential is the bare potentials accuracy
(N (b) in equation (78)) and should be around 50. Tunneling current
per area is integrated from zero to max , the Max integration angle.
Usually, max = /2. Mean potential integration steps and Angle theta
integration steps let one choose the precision with which equations (73)
and (59) are integrated.
The function resistancemodel will scan through all values of the variables
given in the bottom part of the graphical user interface. Barrier height is
the value of the work function in equation (39).
For instance if one chooses a minimal and maximal value of 1 and
100 for the permittivity and 100 steps, then the function will calculate R
for every
= 1, 2, 3, . . . , 100. (95)
This is done for every value of the other variables. Depending on the
computers speed and the variable grid chosen, calculations may take up to
a couple of years.
Hence, one should make a test run with only a few variables to estimate
the time needed for the full run.
50
50
A.1 Resistancemodel A DESCRIPTION OF MATLAB PROGRAMS
Figure 29: Graphical user interface to calculate the resistances R for different
values of the barrier height (approximated by the work function ) and
other variables. The top part of the window lets one choose different
degrees of accuracy. All results are saved into a . mat file.
51
51
A.2 Analyzeresistance A DESCRIPTION OF MATLAB PROGRAMS
A.2 Analyzeresistance
The . mat files generated by the Matlab function resistancemodel are
analyzed using another graphical user interface called analyzeresistance (see
Figure 30). Files must first be loaded. The range of the variables for which
a resistance was calculated can then be found in the six listboxes.
The resistance R can be plotted versus every variable using the first drop-
down list. The plots x-axis or both the x- and y-axis may be logarithmical.
Plot in one window only has an effect if a second variable is chosen
with the drop-down list Plot with different. The Matlab function will
then plot R versus the first variable for every single value of the second
variable. All plots are made using the specific values selected in the
listboxes.
Different fits may also be plotted if one changes the entry No Fit in the
very last drop-down list. The calculated fit parameters are saved into the
variable fitparameters in Matlabs workspace.
An analytical model of the resistance R can be plotted as well (like
the one given in equation (90)). If Plot approx is checked,
resistancemodel will call a Matlab . m file called modelresistance.m to get
approximations to the current plot. The values of the barrier height ,
permittivity , gap width s, colloid radius a and applied bias V are handed
to modelresistance.m in exactly this order. Currently, the colloids must be of
the same size to plot approximations.
Plot permittivity change may also be chosen in the first drop-down list.
A second variable to plot must then be chosen in the fourth drop-
down list. This will first plot R versus the permittivity for every fifth
value of the second variable together with a polynomial fit of the order
chosen in the field right next to Degree. One can thus check if the
polynomial fit
52
52
A.2 Analyzeresistance A DESCRIPTION OF MATLAB PROGRAMS
is acceptable. The absolute and relative change with permittivity, d and
dR
1 dR (the sensitivity ) are then plotted using the polynomial fits to get the
R d
slopes dR
d
for different values of the second variable.
One should not choose values of the permittivity close to the
boundaries of the investigated -interval since the polynomial
approximations usually fit only poorly.
The function analyzeresistance can also be used to extract the resistance R
for certain values of the other variables since the plotted R-values are
saved to the variable resistance in Matlabs workspace.
53
53
Figure 30: Graphical user interface to calculate the resistances R for different
values of the barrier height (approximated by the work function and other
variables) and other variables. The top part of the window lets one choose
different degrees of accuracy.
B MATLAB SOURCE FILES
resistancemodel.m analyzeresistance.m
tunnelcurrent.m modelresistance.m
.mat file
colloidpotential.m peakdet.m
Figure 31: Diagram of Matlab functions. The graphical user interface

resistancemodel generates a . mat file with simulated resistances R. It
integrates the tunneling current per area given by tunnelcurrent, which in
turn needs the electromagnetical potential between two colloids and a way
of finding the potential maximum with peakdet. The data is then analyzed
and plotted with the other graphical user interface analyzeresistance .
Optionally, one can also plot an analytical model resistance as given in
equation (90).
B Matlab Source Files

Excerpts from some Matlab source files are given in this section. Fig-
ure 31 shows how the functions are linked together. Source codes from
analyzeresistance and modelresistance are not given since they only plot the data
stored in . mat files.
The source codes of randomdistr and gapdistr to model Renyis Parking
Prob- lem are also given.
B.1 colloidpotential.m
f u n c t i o n p h i = c o l l o i d p o t e n t i a l ( s , V , b a r r i e r , K, a , b , z i n i t i
al ,theta , images , bare pot images)
% COLLOIDPOTENTIAL C a l c u l a t e s p o t e n t i a l btw two c o l l o
ids
%
% p h i = c o l l o i d p o t e n t i a l ( s , V , b a r r i e r , K, a , z , t h e t a , i m a
ges ,
5 % bare pot images)
%
% s: gap [
A ]
% V: bias [V
]
% b a r r i e r : b a r r i e r h e i g h t [ eV
]
10 % K: permittivity [1]
% a: colloid radius [
A ]
% z, theta : coordinates of point of int er
est
% i f r =( a s i n ( t h e t a ) ,
z)
% i m a g e s : number o f i m a g e c h a r g e s (
20)
15 % bare pot images : image charges for bare pot ent ial (50)
%
% phi : calculated pot ent ial at point (asin ( theta ) , z) i
n eV
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Load p h y s i c a l c o n s t a n
ts
20 global e e 0
physicalconstan
ts
B.1 colloidpotential.m B MATLAB SOURCE FILES
% Init ializing , convert input to SI

barrier = barrier e;
z init ia l = z in it ia l 10 10;
25 s = s10 1
0;a = a10
10;b = b1
0 10;
% R : v e c t o r btw t h e two c o l l o i d s c e n t e r s
R = [0; a + s + b ];
30 z length = length ( z init ial ) ;
phi = zeros(1, z length ) ;
Q = zeros(1, bare pot images + 1) ;
d = zeros(2, bare pot images + 1) ;
% c o n s t r u c t b a r e p o t e n t i a l btw two s p h e r e s u s i n g i m a g e c h a r g e s
35 % t h e r e i s no 0 t h e l e m e n t s h i f t a l l i n d i c e e s by 1
% Original charge Q at the origin d(: ,1
) : Q( 1 ) = a V ;
d(: , 1) = 0;
for m = 1 : bare pot images
40 b a r e p o t e n t i a l (m) ;
end
% Input z init ial is vector ; run for every ele
ment for i = 1 : z length
% Init ialize loop
45 z = z init ial ( i ) ;
% r : vector pointing from 1st colloid s center to elect ron
that is in
% the process of tunneli
ngr = [asin ( theta ) ; z]
;
% construct bare pot ent ial
50 % using image charges
% I n d i c e e s a r e s h i f t e d +1!
bar e sum m e = 0 ;
f o r o =1: b a r e p o t i m a g e s +
1 i f mod ( o , 2 ) ==0
55 bar e sum m e = bar e sum m e + Q( o ) / norm ( rRd ( : , o ) ) ;
else
B.1 colloidpotential.m
bar e sum m e
= bar e sum m e + Q( o ) / norm ( rd ( : , o ) ) ;
end
end
60 % st art values for it erat ion
Q l e f t = e ;
d left = r R
; Q r i g h t = e ;
d right = r ;
65 % construct image charges
% for tunneling elect r
o n summe = 0 ;
f o r o =1: i m a g e s
phi left = left (o) ;
70 phi right = right (o) ;
summe = summe + p h i l e f t + p h i r i g h t ;
end
% a c t u a l p o t e n t i a l btw c o l l o i d s t a k i n g i m a g e c h a r g e s i n t o a c
c o u n t p h i ( i ) = b a r r i e r e bar e sum m e ( e / ( 4 p i e 0 K) )
75 end summe ;
% c o n v e r t b a c k t o eV
phi = phi / e;
% BARE POTENTIAL BETWEEN THE COLLOIDS

80 % v e c t o r e l e m e n t s a r e s h i f t e d by 1 s i n c e Q( 0 ) is not accessible !
f u n c t i o n b a r e p o t e n t i a l (m)
i f mod (m, 2 ) =0 % m i s odd
B.2 peakdet.m B MATLAB SOURCE FILES
Q(m+1) = b Q(m) / norm ( Rd ( : , m) ) ;

d ( : , m+1) = b 2 (R d ( : , m) ) / norm ( Rd ( : , m) ) 2 ;
85 else % m is even
Q(m+1) = a Q(m) / norm (R+d ( : , m) ) ;
d ( : , m+1) = a 2 (R + d ( : , m) ) / norm (R + d ( : , m) ) 2 ;
end
end
90 % ELECTRONS IMAGE POTENTIAL
% left sphere where origin is located . Radius
= a f u n c t i o n p h i l e f t = l e f t (m)
i f mod (m, 2 ) = 0 % m i s odd
Q l e f t = a Q l e f t / norm (R + d l e f t )
;
95 d l e f t = a 2 (R + d l e f t ) / norm (R + d l e f t ) 2 ;
p h i l e f t = Q l e f t / norm ( r d l e f t ) ;
else % m is even
Q l e f t = b Q l e f t / norm (R d l e f t ) ;
d l e f t = b 2 (R d l e f t ) / norm (R d l e f t ) 2 ;
100 p h i l e f t = Q l e f t / norm ( r R d l e f t ) ;
end
end
% right sphere . Radius = b
f u n c t i o n p h i r i g h t = r i g h t (m)
105 i f mod (m, 2 ) = 0 % m i s odd
Q r i g h t = b Q r i g h t / norm (R d r i g h t ) ;
d r i g h t = b 2 (R d r i g h t ) / norm (R d r i g h t ) 2 ;
p h i r i g h t = Q r i g h t / norm ( r R d r i g h t ) ;
else % m is eve
n
110 Q r i g h t = a Q r i g h t / norm (R + d r i g h t ) ;
d r i g h t = a 2 (R + d r i g h t ) / norm (R + d r i g h t ) 2 ;
p h i r i g h t = Q r i g h t / norm ( r d r i g h t ) ;
B.2 peakdet.m
end
end
115 end
B.2 peakdet.m
f u n c t i o n maxtab = p e a k d e t ( v , d e l t a )
% PEAKDET D e t e c t s l o c a l maxima i n a v e c t o r
%
% MAXTAB = PEAKDET( V , DELTA)
5 %
% A p o i n t i s c o n s i d e r e d a maximum p e a k i f i t h a s t h e m axi m al
% v a l u e , and was p r e c e d e d ( t o t h e l e f t ) by a v a l u e l o w e r by
% DELTA. MAXTAB c o n s i s t s o f two c o l u m n s . Column 1 c o n t a i n s
% i n d i c e s i n V , and col um n 2 t h e f o u n d v a l u e s .
10 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%
maxtab = [ ] ;
mx = I n f ; mxpos = NaN ;
lookformax = 1;
f o r i =1: l e n g t h ( v )
15 t his = v( i) ;
i f t h i s > mx
mx = t h i s
; mxpos = i
;
end
20 if lookforma
x
i f t h i s < mx d e l t a
maxtab = [ maxtab ; mxpos mx ] ;
lookformax = 0;
end
25 end
end
B.3 tunnelcurrent.m B MATLAB SOURCE FILES
B.3 tunnelcurrent.m
f u n c t i o n J = t u n n e l c u r r e n t ( s , V , b a r r i e r , K, a , b , t h e t a i n i t
ial ,images , bare pot images , mean pot ent ial int egrat ion st eps
)
% TUNNELCURRENT C u r r e n t p e r a r e a a t s p e c i f i c a n g l e btw 2 c o l l o i d s
%
% J = t u n n e l c u r r e n t ( s , V , b a r r i e r , K, a , b , t h e t a , i m a g e s ,
5 % bare pot images , mean pot ent ial int egrat ion st eps)
%
% s: gap [ A ]
% V: bias [V]
% b a r r i e r : b a r r i e r h e i g h t [ eV ]
10 % K: permittivity [1]
% a: s m a l l e r c o l l o i d r a d i u s [ A ]
% b: b i g g e r c o l l o i d s r a d i u s [ A ]
% t h e t a : a n g l e , m e a s u r e d f r o m d i r e c t l i n e c o n n e c t i o n btw c o l l o i d
% centers , measured in radians
15 % i m a g e s : number o f i m a g e c h a r g e s ( 2 0 )
% bare pot images : images for bare pot ent ial (50)
% mean pot ent ial int egrat ion st eps : int egrat ion accuracy (100)
%
% J : c a l c u l a t e d c u r r e n t f o r a n g l e t h e t a [ A ] , NOT y e t i n t e g
rat edover phi
20 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Load p h y s i c a l c o n s t a n
tsglobal e h m
physicalconstants
% beta is around 1
25 beta = 1;
% P relocation
t het a size = length ( t het a init ia
l ) ;J = zeros(1, t het a size) ;
% Calculate for every entry of vector t het a init ial
30 for o=1:1: t het a size
theta = t het a init ial (o) ;
% g e t a l l o w e d ( f r e e s p a c e ) z i n t e r v a l btw c o l l o i d s f o r a n g l e
theta z st art = acos( theta ) ;
z stop = a + s + b realsqrt (b2 a2sin ( theta )2) ;
35 gap = z s t o p z s t a r t ;
% t o l e r a n c e f o r f i n d i n g minima o f d e r i v a t i v e o f p o t e n t i a l .
% Essential since there are poles at int erval endpo
i n t s t o l e r a n c e = gap 1 0 6 ;
z g r i d = z s t a r t + t o l e r a n c e : ( gap 2 t o l e r a n c e ) / 2 5 : z s t o p
tolerance ;
40 p o t = c o l l o i d p o t e n t i a l ( s , V , b a r r i e r , K, a , b , z g r i d , t h e t a , 5 ,
5) ;
% F i n d maximum o f p o t e n t i a l u s i n g p e a k d e t m
f i l e maxtab = p e a k d e t ( p o t , 0 . 1 ) ;
maximum = z g r i d ( maxtab ( : , 1 ) ) ;
f u n c t i o n h a n d l e = @( z ) c o l l o i d p o t e n t i a l ( s , V , b a r r i e r , K, a , b
, z ,theta , images , bare pot images) ;
45 % C a l c u l a t e t u n n e l c u r r e n t i f f p o t e n t i a l b a r r i e r i s p o s i t i v and
% tunneling takes place
i f f u n c t i o n h a n d l e ( maximum) >0
% Z e r o s o f p o t e n t i a l btw c o l l o i d s
% Left zero
50 s 1 = f z e r o ( f u n c t i o n h a n d l e , [ z s t a r t +t o l e r a n c e , maximum ] ) ;
% Right zero
s 2 = f z e r o ( f u n c t i o n h a n d l e , [ maximum , z s t o p t o l e r a n c e ] ) ;
% E l e c t r o n t u n n e l s a d i s t a n c e d e l t a s btw s 1 and
s 2delt a s = s 2 s 1 ;
B.4 resistancemodel.m B MATLAB SOURCE FILES
55 % Grid for int egrat ion over t his delt a s

zgrid = s 1 : delt a s/( mean pot ent ial int egrat ion st eps 1)
: s 2;
f = functionhandle( zgrid ) ;
q = trapz(zgrid , f) ;
% Average barrier height phi
60 phi = (1/ delt a s) q;
% convert phi to joules for further calculat ions , length
s tometers
phi = phie;
delt a s = delt a s 10 10;
% F o r m u l a s t a k e n f r o m John G . Simmons G e n e r a l i z e d For m ul a
65 % for the Elect ric Tunnel Effect between Similar Electrodes
% S e p a r a t e d by a Thi n I n s u l a t i n g F i l m , J . A ppl . Phys . 3 4 ,
% p. 1793, 1963
J 0 = e/(2 pih( beta delt a s ) 2) ;
A = ( 4 p i b e t a d e l t a s / h ) r e a l s q r t ( 2 m) ;
70 J ( o ) = J 0 ( ( p h i e V) e x p (A r e a l s q r t ( p h i e V) )
p h i e x p (A r e a l s q r t ( p h i ) ) ) ;
% I f p o t e n t i a l b a r r i e r btw c o l l o i d s i s <0: no n e e d f o r t u n n e l i n g
% M odel f a i l s !
else
B.4 resistancemodel.m
J ( o ) = NaN ;
75 end
end
B.4 resistancemodel.m
Only the most important program excerpts are given. Program parts asso-
ciated with Matlabs graphical user interface are omitted.
function varargout = resistancemodel( varar

gin )
% RESISTANCEMODEL G r a p h i c a l u s e r i n t e r f a c e t o c a l c u l a t e m
o d e l r e s i s t a n c e s btw two c o l l o i d s
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%
% E x e c u t e s on b u t t o n p r e s s i n p u s h b u t t o
nRun.
5 function pushbuttonRun Callback(hObject , eventdata , handles)
% Get s a v e p a t h f r o m u s
er
File = saveresult s
;
% W r i t e v a r i a b l e names i n c e l l F i e l
ds
Fields {1,1} = Barrier
;
10 F ields {1,2} = P ermittivit
y ;F ields {1,3} = s ;
F ields {1,4} = a
;Fields{1,5} = b
;Fields{1,6} =
V ;
15 % Read i n a l l v a l u e s f r o m
GUI
Data . n u m b e r o f i m a g e s = s t r 2 d o u b l e ( g e t ( h a n d l e s . e d i t N u m b e r o f
images,
String )) ;
Data . n u m b e r o f r a w i m a g e s
=
str2double (get (handles .editNumberofimagesraw , Strin
g ) ) ; Data . t h e t a m a x = ( 2 p i / 3 6 0 ) s t r 2 d o u b l e ( g e t ( h a n d l e s . e d
itThetamax ,
String )) ;
Data . m e a n p o t e n t i a l i n t e g r a t i o n s t e p
s =
str2double (get (handles . editMeanpotentialintegrationsteps ,
String )) ;
20 Data . a n g l e i n t e g r a t i o n s t e p s
=
str2double (get (handles . editAngleintegrationsteps , String )) ;
% Read i n t h e 5 v a r i a b e
sfor i=1:6
Fieldname = st rcat ( handles . edit , F ields {1, i }) ;
Resistance [108 ]
Data . ( g e n v a r n a m e ( [ F i e l d s { 1 , i } , min ] ) ) =
s t r 2 d o u b l e ( g e t ( e v a l ( [ F i e l d n a m e , min ] ) , S t r i n g ) ) ;
25 Data . ( g e n v a r n a m e ( [ F i e l d s { 1 , i } , max ] ) ) =
s t r 2 d o u b l e ( g e t ( e v a l ( [ F i e l d n a m e , max ] ) , S t r i n g
) ) ; Data . ( g e n v a r n a m e ( [ F i e l d s { 1 , i } , s t e p s ] ) ) =
str2double ( get ( eval ([Fieldname , steps ]) , String ) ) ;
% construct grid
i f Data . ( g e n v a r n a m e ( [ F i e l d s { 1 , i } , s t e p s ] ) ) = 1
Data . ( g e n v a r n a m e ( [ F i e l d s { 1 , i } , g r i d ] ) ) =
Data . ( g e n v a r n a m e ( [ F i e l d s { 1 , i } , min ] ) ) :
...
30 ( Data . ( g e n v a r n a m e ( [ F i e l d s { 1 , i } , max ] ) )
Data . ( g e n v a r n a m e ( [ F i e l d s { 1 , i } , min ] ) ) ) /
( Data . ( g e n v a r n a m e ( [ F i e l d s { 1 , i } , s t e p s ] ) ) 1 ) :
. . . Data . ( g e n v a r n a m e ( [ F i e l d s { 1 , i } , max ] ) ) ;
else
Data . ( g e n v a r n a m e ( [ F i e l d s { 1 , i } , g r i d ] ) )
= Data . ( g e n v a r n a m e ( [ F i e l d s { 1 , i } , min
end ]) ) ;
35 end
% Parameter to space angles theta for integration ,
% Equally spaced int erval of ? points for int egra
t i o n x g r i d = 0 : 1 / ( Data . a n g l e i n t e g r a t i o n s t e p s 1) :
1;
% Newly s p a c e d t h e t a g r i d f o r i n t e g r a t i o n , p o i n t s a c c u m u l a t e n e a r
t h e t a =0
40 t h e t a g r i d = Data . t h e t a m a x (1 x g r i d ) . 7 ;
% Prelocate tensors
J = z e r o s ( Data . B a r r i e r s t e p s , Data . P e r m i t t i v i t y s t e p s , Data . s s t e
p s , Data . a s t e p s , Data . b s t e p s , Data . V s t e p s ) ;
Data . r e s i s t a n c e = z e r o s ( Data . B a r r i e r s t e p s , Data . P e r m i t t i v i t y s t
e p s , Data . s s t e p s , Data . a s t e p s , Data . b s t e p s , Data . V s t e p s ) ;
% Init ialize time measurement
45 t ic
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Run t h r o u g h g r i d s
% The r e s i s t a n c e i s s a v e d i n t o a t e n s o r o f t h e f o r m
% R = R( b a r r i e r h e i g h t , K, s , a , b , V)
50 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
f o r f o r B a r r i e r = 1 : Data . B a r r i e r s t e p s
b a r r i e r h e i g h t = Data . B a r r i e r g r i d ( f o r B a r r i e r ) ;
f o r f o r P e r m i t t i v i t y = 1 : Data . P e r m i t t i v i t y s
teps
K = Data . P e r m i t t i v i t y g r i d ( f o r P e r m i t t i v i t y ) ;
55 f o r f o r s = 1 : Data . s s t e p s
s = Data . s g r i d ( f o r s ) ;
f o r f o r a = 1 : Data . a s t e p s
a = Data . a g r i d ( f o r a ) ;
f o r f o r b = 1 : Data . b s t e p s
60 b = Data . b g r i d ( f o r b ) ;
f o r f o r V = 1 : Data . V s t e
ps
V = Data . V g r i d ( f o r V )
;
f u n c t i o n h a n d l e = @( t h e t
a)
sin ( theta ) .cos( theta ) .tunnelcurrent
. . . ( s , V , b a r r i e r h e i g h t , K, a , b , . . .
65 t h e t a , Data . n u m b e r o f i m a g e s , . . .
Data . n u m b e r o f r a w i m a g e s , . . .
Data . m e a n p o t e n t i a l i n t e g r a t i o n s t e p s ) ;
% Integration over angle theta
J ( forBarrier , forP ermittivity , fors , fo
r a , f o r b , f o r V ) = t r a p z ( t h e t a g r i d ,
functionhandle( thetagrid )) ;
70 % Spherical coordinates
J ( forBarrier , forP ermittivity , fors , fo
ra ,forb , forV) = J ( forBarrier ,
B.5 randomdistr.m B MATLAB SOURCE FILES
60
60
B.5 randomdistr.m B MATLAB SOURCE FILES
forP ermittivity , fors , fora , forb , forV)
2pi a2 1020;
% C a l c u l a t e r e s i s t a n c e f r o m c u r r e n t and b i a s
Data . r e s i s t a n c e ( f o r B a r r i e r , f o r P e r m i t t i v i t y ,
f o r s , f o r a , f o r b , f o r V ) = V/ J ( f o r B a r r i
er ,forP ermittivity , fors , fora , forb ,
end forV) ;
75 end
end
end
end
end
80 % Get t i m e and s a v e t o mat f i l e
Data . t i m e = t o c ;
s e t ( h a n d l e s . t e x t T i m e t o t a l , S t r i n g , n u m 2 s t r ( Data . t i m e / 6 0 ) ) ;
s a v e ( F i l e , s t r u c t , Data , . . .
numberofimages , number of raw images , thetamax , time , . . .
85 Barriermin , Barriermax , Barriersteps , ...
Permittivitymin , Permittivitymax , P ermittivityst eps , ...
mean pot ent ial int egrat ion st eps , ...
angle int egrat ion st eps , ...
s m i n , smax , s s t e p s , . . .
90 amin , amax , a s t e p s , . . .
bmin , bmax , b s t e p s , . . .
Vmin , Vmax , V s t e p s , . . .
resist ance ) ;
B.5 randomdistr.m
function [X, t ] = randomdistr (L, a)
% RANDOMDISTR G i v e s a random d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c o l l o i d s a l o n g 1 d w i r e
% T h i s i s Re n y i s P a r k i n g P r o b l e m ( o r Re n y i s P a c k i n g P r o b l e m )
% Theoretical density : 0.748...
5 %
% [X, t ] = randomdistr (L, a)
%
% L: length of wire
% a: radius of colloids
10 %
% X: vector containing coordinates of colloid midpoints
% t : calculat ion time
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% i n i t i a l i z i n g random num ber s
15 r a n d ( t w i s t e r , sum ( 1 0 0 c l o c k ) ) ;
t ic
% P relocation
size = round (L / (2a) ) +
1;X = zeros(1, size) ;
20 l = a ; r = L + a ;
m = 1;
X( 1 ) = L + a ;
% Start fillin g int erval
w h i l e ( r l >= 4 a ) | | ( r = L + a )
25 w h i l e r l >= 4
am = m + 1;
X(m) = l + 2 a + ( r l 4 a ) r a n d ;
r = X(m) ;
end
30 l = X(m) ;
r = min (X( f i n d ( X>l , s i z e ) ) ) ;
61
61
B.6 gapdistr.m B MATLAB SOURCE FILES
w h i l e ( r l < 4 a ) && ( r = L + a
)
l = r;
r = min (X( f i n d ( X>l , s i z e ) ) ) ;
35 end
end
% S o r t i n g and r e s i z i n g o f
X X = s o r t (X , a s c e n d ) ;
X = X(X>0) ;
40 X = X(X <= L ) ;
% Get t i m
e t=t o c ;
B.6 gapdistr.m
f u n c t i o n [ S ] = g a p d i s t r ( L , a , X)
%GAPDISTR g i v e s v e c t o r o f gap d i s t a n c e s
%
% [ S ] = gapdistr(L, a)
5 % OR
% [ S ] = g a p d i s t r ( L , a , X)
%
% L: length of wire
% a: radius of spheres
10 % X: vector containing coordinates of spheres
%
% S : v e c t o r w i t h gap d i s t a n c e s
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
i f e x i s t ( X , v a r )
15 X = randomdistr (L, a) ;
end
S i z e = l e n g t h (X) ;
S = zeros(1, Size + 1)
; S ( 1 ) = X ( 1 )a ;
20 f o r i =1 : S i z e 1
S ( i +1) = X( i +1) X( i ) 2 a ;
end
S ( S i z e + 1 ) = L X( S i z e ) ;

Modelling of Electron Transport in Self-Assembled Nanowires

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Modelling of Electron Transport in Self-Assembled Nanowires

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Laboratory of Biosensors

Modelling of Electron Transport in

June 25, 2008

Academic Supervisors: Prof. Janos Vrs

Project Supervisor: Robert MacKenzie

A Description of Matlab Programs 50

B Matlab Source Files 54

Figure 1: SEM image of a nanowire array. How can charge carrier

2.1 Physical Domain of the Problem

2.1.1 Sommerfeld Model of an Individual Colloid

to have a total energy E. The function f (E) is known as the Fermi

as an upper limit for the electron velocity within the colloids.

The length is of the same order of magnitude as the colloids size.

2.1.2 Quantum Dots

Figure 4: Typical current-voltage plot showing hysteresis due to the shuttle

Figure 5: A single colloid of radius a separated from its neighbors by suffi-

2.2 Coulomb Blockade

Figure 6: Diagram of potential energy Epot . Electrons also have a

threshold to avoid effects from thermal fluctuations. Hence if the

colloids can act as single electron transistors.

2.3 Potential Between Two Metal

2.3.1 Bare Potential Between Two Colloids Using Image

(18) This charge at the origin destroys the equipotential = 0 of the

Figure 7: Definition of coordinate system. The smaller colloids

second colloids surface at = 0. Using the method of images, Q1 and d1

where R points from the origin to the second colloids center.

If m and c are large, this can be approximated by

If the colloids are separated by a gap of length s, convergence is even faster

2.3.2 Image Potential due to the Tunneling

em (r) = (b) (r) + (i) (r). (38)

2.3.3 Resulting Tunnel Barrier

(r) = + (b) (r) + (i) (r). (39)

2.4 Tunnel Effect

2.4.1 WKB Approximation

The electron has a kinetic energy Ez = 2m vz2 in z-direction along which it

2.4.2 Tunneling Current in the WKB

left electrode insulating gap right electrode

Assuming isotropic velocity distribution, using the relationship

Figure 10: An electron tunneling at an angle traverses parallel to the z-

2.5 Tunneling Current Between Two

The tunneling current per unit area in z-direction is only dependent on

C is of the order of inverse Angstrom (equation (56)). The second

Again, since C is of the order of A1 , but a in the tenths of

I a exp(C s). (64)

2.6 Capacitance of Two Colloids

2.7 One-Dimensional Distribution of Colloids

3.1 Numerical Calculation of Tunnel

3.1.1 Potential at a Specific Point

3.1.2 Finding Potential

3.1.3 Finding Tunneling Boundaries s1 and s2

3.1.4 Tunneling Current

3.2 Analyzation of Tunnel

polyderfunction then yields the derivative of these polynomials. Ultimately,

3.3 One-Dimensional Distribution of Colloids

1. Subsequent colloids are randomly placed to the left of the preceding

3. Stop if the current intervals right boundary is L and no space is left

A vector containing the coordinates of the colloids centers is the pro-

4.1 Range of Variables

Independent variable Range

4.2 Coulomb Blockade

Figure 13: Expected current-voltage plot for Coulomb blockade. Current

21 isolated colloids are thus sufficient to observe a complete Coulomb block-

4.3 Effective Potential Between Two Colloids