Timeline for Lattice representation: change of unit cell
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 12, 2020 at 20:26 | vote | accept | Hitanshu Sachania | ||
| Oct 11, 2020 at 20:43 | answer | added | ProfM | timeline score: 6 | |
| Oct 11, 2020 at 16:43 | comment | added | wcw | Okay, I brought it back. The original question might have an answer, but I'm not sure. | |
| Oct 11, 2020 at 13:37 | comment | added | Tristan Maxson | @wcw You should undelete your post, it is good information. It is likely the best that can be done with this cell from my attempts. | |
| Oct 11, 2020 at 11:35 | history | edited | Hitanshu Sachania | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 57 characters in body
|
| Oct 10, 2020 at 21:02 | comment | added | Hitanshu Sachania | @wcw yes, the same # of atoms but an orthogonal traditional FCC like cell. | |
| Oct 10, 2020 at 19:08 | comment | added | wcw | I just gave an answer, but then deleted it because I think I misunderstood. Are you hoping to keep the same number of atoms, just reorganized into an orthogonal cell? | |
| Oct 10, 2020 at 18:40 | answer | added | wcw | timeline score: 6 | |
| Oct 6, 2020 at 16:13 | comment | added | Tristan Maxson | I can't give an answer, but I don't think there is anything wrong with a non-orthogonal supercell. I might recommend always using the Niggli representation of the cell as it makes it easy for others to generate the exact same cell. | |
| Oct 4, 2020 at 18:49 | history | asked | Hitanshu Sachania | CC BY-SA 4.0 |