1: \documentclass[prb,aps]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5:
6:
7: \setlength{\voffset}{2.5cm}
8: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
9: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
10: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
12: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
13: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
14:
15: \def\etal{{\it et al}.}
16: \def\refeqn#1{Eq.(\ref{#1})}
17: \def\refsect#1{Section \ref{#1}}
18: \def\eqnref#1{Eq.(\ref{#1})}
19: \def\sectref#1{Section \ref{#1}}
20: \def\tblref#1{Table \ref{#1}}
21: \def\figref#1{Figure \ref{#1}}
22:
23:
24: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2}
25:
26: \begin{document}
27:
28: \def\CC{{\rm\kern.24em \vrule width.04em height1.46ex depth-.07ex \kern-.30em C}}
29:
30: \title{Thomas-Fermi Theory of the Hyperfine Constants of Endohedral Fullerene Atoms}
31:
32: \author{Joshua Schrier and K. Birgitta Whaley}
33:
34: \affiliation{Department of Chemistry and Pitzer Center for Theoretical
35: Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720}
36:
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39:
40: We present a modified Thomas-Fermi theory that describes the increase
41: of the hyperfine coupling constants of endohedrally enclosed atoms.
42: We use the March boundary conditions corresponding to a positively
43: charged spherical shell surrounding the nuclear potential to represent
44: the effect of the fullerene shell. We obtain quantitative agreement
45: with experimental data for N@C$_{60}$ and N@C$_{70}$, and find that
46: fullerene radius dominates over the fullerene charge in its effect on
47: the hyperfine coupling constants. We also present predictions for the
48: hyperfine coupling constants of the endohedral nitrogen fullerenes
49: between C$_{60}$ and C$_{500}$, and discuss the implications for
50: proposed quantum computing schemes.
51:
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \maketitle
55:
56: \section{Introduction} \label{intro}
57:
58: The nitrogen endohedral fullerene molecule, N@C$_{60}$, has received a
59: great deal of
60: experimental\cite{WWPM98,PWM+98,DHP+99,WGK+00,DKKW00,PWDH02,Dinse02,JDM+03,MTA+04}
61: and theoretical\cite{LZZ99,Gre00, KND03} study. Unlike the
62: metallofullerenes, the endohedral nitrogen acts essentially as a
63: ``free'' atom with a $S=3/2$ quartet ground electronic state, although
64: spatially restricted by a harmonic-oscillator-like potential within
65: the fullerene.\cite{PWM+98,WWPM98,Dinse02} Additionally, the fullerene
66: acts a Faraday cage, shielding the spin of the endohedral nitrogen
67: atom from stray fields,\cite{DG04} and the sharp ESR spectra indicate
68: long spin relaxation times,\cite{DHP+99} which have inspired its use
69: as a potential spin qubit for quantum computation.\cite{PSC01,HMW+02,Harneit02,SL02,Twa03,FT04b}
70: Experimental\cite{MTA+04} and theoretical\cite{MT04} studies have
71: indicated that suitable pulse sequences can reduce single qubit errors
72: in these systems to the order of $10^{-6}$, which is within the
73: $10^{-4}$ error threshold of Steane.\cite{Steane03}
74:
75:
76: An interesting physical phenomenon observed for endohedral atom
77: systems is an increase in the hyperfine coupling constant as compared
78: to its gas phase value, in particular, an increase of $54.1\%$ for
79: N@C$_{60}$ and of $49.1\%$ for N@C$_{70}$.\cite{Bucha01} To better
80: understand the origin of this effect, Kobayashi \etal\,carried out
81: {\it ab initio} MP2/uc-Huginaga+(2df) calculations, obtaining
82: enhancements of $77\%$ and $65\%$ for N@C$_{60}$ and N@C$_{70}$,
83: respectively.\cite{KND03} In general, quantitative calculation of the
84: hyperfine constant is a difficult problem, even for the free
85: atom.\cite{Carmichael90} However, a clear qualitative model for the
86: effects of changes in fullerene size and charge that allows prediction
87: of these coupling constants would be helpful, not only for
88: understanding the underlying physics, but also to provide estimates of
89: potential sources of qubit error in applications to quantum
90: information processing. In this paper we introduce a modified
91: Thomas-Fermi theory for the hyperfine coupling constants in endohedral
92: fullerenes that is capable of quantitatively reproducing the
93: experimental results and provides the desired predictive capabilities.
94: We show that the model is accurate by reproducing the experimentally
95: observed increase in coupling constants for N@C$_{60}$ and
96: N@C$_{70}$. We then analyze the independent roles of fullerene cage
97: size and number of electrons on this enhancement and make predictions
98: for the hyperfine coupling enhancement for nitrogen atoms endohedral
99: to fullerenes between C$_{60}$ and C$_{500}$.
100:
101:
102:
103: \section{Theory}\label{theory}
104:
105: Following the spherical boundary condition model for highly symmetric molecules developed by
106: March,\cite{March52} and later applied to
107: endofullerenes by Clougherty,\cite{Clougherty96}
108: we treat the fullerene as a sphere of radius
109: $r=R$, contributing $n$ $\pi$-electrons and with a charge of $N e$,
110: around the nuclear point charge of $Z e$ at the origin. For example, for
111: N@C$_{60}$, $Z = 7$ and $n = 60$. Transforming into the reduced
112: coordinates, $x$, given by $r = b x$ where
113: \be
114: b = {{1}\over{4}} {\left ( {{9 \pi^2} \over {2 Z}} \right
115: )}^{1/3} a_{Bohr}
116: \ee
117: and $a_{Bohr}$ is the Bohr radius, we transform the cage radius $R
118: \to X$. We then proceed to solve the usual Thomas-Fermi differential
119: equation\cite{ParrYang}
120: \be
121: {{d^{2}\chi} \over {dx^{2}}} = {{\chi}^{3/2} \over {x^{1/2}}}
122: \ee
123: with the additional boundary condition,\cite{March52,Clougherty96}
124: \be
125: \chi^{\prime}(X^{-}) - \chi^{\prime}(X^{+}) = {Z \over {nX}},
126: \ee
127: to account for the spherical shell, in addition to a continuity
128: condition, $\chi(X^{-}) = \chi(X^{+})$, and the usual boundary
129: conditions of $\chi(0) = 1$ and $\chi(\infty) = 0$. Clougherty and
130: co-workers\cite{Clougherty96,CZ97} have examined the effect of
131: treating the icosahedral (i.e., non-spherical) nature of the fullerene
132: by means of a multipole expansion, but we neglect this effect in the
133: current work.
134:
135: Next, we use the expression derived by Fermi,\cite{Fermi27,Wong79}
136: \be\label{Nl} p_{l} = {{4 (2 l + 1)}\over{ 2 \pi \hbar}}
137: \int\limits_{r_1}^{r_c} \sqrt{ 2 m e V(r) - {\left [ \left (l +
138: {\frac{1}{2}} \right )\hbar r^{-1} \right ]}^{2} } \, dr \ee which
139: relates the number of electrons, $p_{l}$, having angular momentum $l$,
140: to the potential, $V(r) = Ze\chi(r)/r$. Other expressions for
141: determining the angular momentum assignments from Thomas-Fermi models
142: have been developed, but give similar results for low
143: $Z$.\cite{JL52,Oliph56} The limits of integration are chosen so that
144: the integrand (and hence the integral) is a positive real number. In
145: our case, we take the upper limit of integration to be some tunable
146: cutoff radius, $r_{c}$, inside the fullerene shell, to count
147: only the endohedral atom electrons and avoid contributions of the
148: fullerene electrons to the integral.
149: We are
150: primarily interested in the number of unpaired $l=0$ electrons ({\it
151: vide infra}). Considering only the ``valence'' $l=0$ electrons, there
152: is no ambiguity due to Hund's rule, as there is for the $l > 0$
153: electrons, so we may therefore express the number of fractional, i.e.,
154: non-integer, number of $l=0$ electrons as
155: \be
156: p^{frac}_{l=0} =
157: {\rm frac} \left ( {{{p_{l=0}}\over{2}}} \right )
158: \ee
159: and the number of unpaired
160: $l=0$ electrons as
161: \be\label{Nunpaired} p^{unpaired}_{l=0} = \left
162: \lbrace { { p^{frac}_{l=0} \,\,\,\,\,\,\, , \, {\rm
163: if}\,p^{frac}_{l=0} \leq {\frac{1}{2}}} \atop {1- p^{frac}_{l=0} \, ,
164: \, {\rm if}\,p^{frac}_{l=0} > {\frac{1}{2}}} } \right. . \ee
165:
166: %\noindent Alternatively, one might use a formally spin-polarized Thomas-Fermi theory.\cite{GR88}
167:
168:
169: The contact-term of the isotropic hyperfine coupling constant,\cite{PBD68,Sadlej}
170: \be a =
171: ({\frac{4 \pi}{3}}) g_{e} g_{N} \mu_{B} \mu_{N} \hbar {\langle S_{z}
172: \rangle}^{-1} \langle \Psi \vert \rho(0) \vert \Psi \rangle,
173: \ee
174: is
175: proportional to the electron spin-density (difference between spin up and spin
176: down densities) at the nucleus, $\rho(0)$
177: %BW
178: (${\langle S_{z} \rangle}^{-1}$). However it is
179: well known that the Thomas-Fermi method gives an infinite density at
180: the nucleus, and qualitatively poor results near the nucleus (precluding
181: extrapolation), so a direct evaluation of $\rho(0)$ will
182: fail.\cite{ParrYang} A similar problem occurs in the treatment of the
183: hyperfine coupling constants by semiempirical quantum chemistry
184: methods, in which the $2s$ and $3s$ Slater orbital basis functions
185: erroneously have zero density at the nucleus.\cite{PBD68}
186:
187: To avoid this problem, we present a heuristic argument in the language
188: of atomic orbital theory. The atom-centered basis functions on a free
189: atom may each be decomposed into a radial function multiplied by a
190: spherical harmonic angular function. For orbitals with $l>0$, a node
191: occurs at the nucleus, resulting from the properties of the spherical
192: harmonics, so the electrons in these orbitals have no density at the
193: nucleus. This is unchanged when the atom is placed in a spherically
194: symmetric potential, allowing us restrict our attention to the $l=0$
195: electrons only. The magnitude of the spin density at the origin,
196: $\rho(0)$, is the product of the probability density of finding an
197: $l=0$ electron at the origin, times the number of unpaired $l=0$ electrons,
198: $p_{l=0}^{unpaired}$, given by \eqnref{Nunpaired}. Following the
199: argument made by Pople \etal,\cite{PBD68} we can consider the basis,
200: and hence the $l=0$ propability density term, to be
201: unchanged by the chemical surroundings of the atom, and consider the
202: changes to occur only in the basis orbital populations. Similar
203: arguments have been made in the calculation of host medium effects
204: (including endohedral fullerene inclusion) on the $L/K$
205: electron-capture $\beta$-decay ratio of
206: ${}^{7}$Be.\cite{RDS+02,OYM+04} This allows evaluation of the ratio of $\rho(0)$
207: for the free and endohedral atom cases, as in \eqnref{phi}, below,
208: in which
209: the unknown probability density term now cancels, leaving the ratio in
210: terms of $p_{l=0}^{unpaired}$, which we can calculate from
211: \eqnref{Nunpaired}.
212:
213: Strictly, the fullerene carbon-atom basis functions may have a small
214: non-zero value at the nitrogen atom nucleus. However, if we make a
215: zero-differential overlap (ZDO) approximation, which is well
216: justified by the lack of a chemical bond between the carbon and
217: nitrogen atoms, this contribution is zero. In our calculation we
218: neglect the contributions from fullerene electrons by considering
219: large fullerenes, and by choosing the cut-off radius $r_{c}$ used to
220: determine the integral in \eqnref{Nl}, to be sufficiently smaller than
221: the cage radius, $R$, but sufficiently large to enclose
222: the region one would chemically attribute to the endohedral atom. We
223: discuss the choice of $r_{c}$, with particular attention to the
224: difference in applicability for N@C$_{60}$ and P@C$_{60}$ in the next
225: section.
226:
227:
228: Following the above discussion, the hyperfine compression ratio of
229: Buchachenko,\cite{Bucha01} originally given in terms of the endohedral
230: and free atom hyperfine coupling constants $a$ and $a_{0}$,
231: %BW punctuation
232: respectively, may then be expressed as
233: \bea\label{phi}
234: \phi & = & {{a-a_{0}} \over {a_{0}}} \\
235: & = & {{p_{l=0}^{unpaired}(endohedral) - p_{l=0}^{unpaired}(free)}
236: \over
237: {p_{l=0}^{unpaired}(free)}}
238: \eea
239:
240: \noindent in which a consistent value of $r_{c}$ is used for the
241: evaluation of both the endohedral and free atom terms, in order to
242: make the probability density for the $l=0$ electron at the nucleus transferable
243: between the two cases, as discussed above.
244:
245:
246:
247: \section{Results}\label{results}
248:
249: To determine the appropriate value of the cut-off radius, $r_{c}$, we
250: plot calculated values of $\phi$ versus $r_c$ for N@C$_{60}$ and
251: N@C$_{70}$ in \figref{rcdetermine}, obtained using the
252: experimental fullerene
253: dimensions given by Buchachenko.\cite{Bucha01} To match the
254: experimental
255: measurement for N@C$_{60}$ of $\phi = 0.541$, we take $r_c = 3.01$
256: bohr. This yields values of $\phi = $ 0.541, 0.562 and 0.345 for
257: C$_{60}$, for 6.607 bohr radius (short axis) C$_{70}$, and for 7.38 bohr
258: radius (long axis) C$_{70}$, respectively. Since the C$_{70}$
259: molecule is prolate, the average value of $\phi$ computed by weighting
260: the short axis value twice is 0.490, in excellent agreement with the
261: experimentally measured value of $\phi = 0.491$.\cite{Bucha01} For
262: comparison, we note that the values of $\phi$
263: evaluated with
264: $r_{c} = 3.00$ bohr
265: are 0.531 and 0.486 for C$_{60}$ and C$_{70}$ (average value), and
266: also in reasonable agreement with experiment. Our value of $r_{c}
267: \approx 3$ bohr is consistent with the spatial extent of the spin
268: density distribution determined in the {\it ab initio} calculations of
269: Kobayashi \etal\cite{KND03} However, our attempt to perform a similar
270: calculation for P@C$_{60}$ was unsuccessful, due to the larger size of
271: the P atom. This requires a larger $r_c$ and thus unavoidably
272: introduces possible contributions from fullerene electrons. Thus we
273: restrict the analysis below to nitrogen endohedral fullerenes.
274:
275:
276: We have examined the relative roles of the number of cage
277: $\pi$-electrons, $n$, and radius, $R$, on $\phi$, shown in
278: \figref{charge_vs_size}. Intuitively, one expects $\phi$ to be
279: inversely proportional to fullerene radius $R$ (at constant number of
280: cage electrons $n$), and to be directly proportional to $n$ (at
281: constant $R$). Variations in $n$ and $R$ may arise experimentally by
282: endohedral inclusion into defect fullerenes,\cite{LH04} by use of
283: boron or nitrogen substitutions in place of carbon atoms in the
284: fullerene,\cite{MHOS92, CZS+98} or as the result of interactions with
285: surfaces.\cite{YM96,LGK+04} In practice,
286: simultaneous variations of $n$ and $R$ are unavoidable.
287: Nevertheless, we will analyze ideal
288: independent variations of these two parameters in order to establish their
289: relative importance. The papers by Buchachenko\cite{Bucha01} and by
290: Kobayashi \etal,\cite{KND03} both make the qualitative statement that
291: cage radius ($R$) is more important than the cage electrons ($n$) in
292: enhancing the hyperfine coupling of the endohedral nitrogen atom. The
293: simplicity of the present model allows us to separate and directly
294: test these two contributions. \figref{charge_vs_size} confirms these
295: statements, as is visible from the much steeper slope of the
296: constant-$n$ curves (i.e., varying $R$), as compared to the
297: constant-$R$ (i.e., varying $n$) curves. For N@C$_{60}$, at $\Delta n
298: = 0$ and $\Delta R = 0$, the slopes are $d\phi/dR = -0.35$ bohr$^{-1}$
299: and $d\phi/dn = 0.0031$. We discuss the implications of the magnitude
300: of these dependencies for quantum computation in the next section.
301:
302:
303: To examine the hypothetical endohedral fullerenes N@C$_{n}$ with $60 <
304: n < 500$, most of which have not yet been systematically studied, we
305: have assumed that the ratio of $n/S$ is constant, where $S = 4 \pi
306: R^{2}$ is the surface area of a spherical fullerene. Thus for
307: C$_{60}$, $S = 543$ bohr$^{2}$ and $n/S = 0.11$; for C$_{70}$, $S =
308: 592$ bohr$^{2}$ and $n/S = 0.12$. \figref{hypotheticalfullerenes}
309: shows the behavior of the hyperfine compression ratio, $\phi$, for
310: N@C$_{n}$ with $60 < n < 500$, for $n/S = $ 0.10, 0.11, and 0.12. As
311: expected, $\phi$ is seen to be a monotonically decreasing function of
312: $n$, regardless of the choice of $S/n$, and asymptotically approaches
313: zero (i.e., the free-atom limit of no enhancement of the hyperfine
314: coupling constant) as the fullerene becomes larger. Depending on the
315: exact value of $S/n$, we find $\phi < 0.1$ for $130 \leq n \leq 160$
316: and $\phi < 0.01$ for $350 \leq n \leq 380$. Even for the
317: hypothetical C$_{500}$ fullerene, with a radius of $\sim 40$ bohr,
318: %BW
319: we find a finite enhancement of
320: $0.002 \leq \phi \leq 0.004$, which could be detectable
321: experimentally.\cite{Bucha01}
322:
323:
324: \section{Summary and Discussion}\label{conclusion}
325:
326: Using a modified Thomas-Fermi theory, we have developed a simple
327: physical model for the effect of endohedral inclusion on the hyperfine coupling constant of nitrogen.
328: The only free parameter in our model is the cutoff
329: radius, $r_{c}$, used to partition the atom from the fullerene. A
330: single choice of $r_c \approx 3.0$ bohr is found to give quantitative
331: agreement with
332: %BW
333: recent experimental results for both N@C$_{60}$ and N@C$_{70}$.
334: Moreover, the simplicity of our model allows us to separate the
335: relative contributions of cage potential and size on the hyperfine
336: coupling constants, and to thereby identify the fullerene radius as the
337: dominating factor in the scaling of
338: %BW
339: the hyperfine compression ratio
340: $\phi$. We have also predicted the
341: hyperfine coupling constants for nitrogen endohedral to
342: hypothetical fullerenes as large as C$_{500}$
343: %BW
344: and find that a finite enhancement should exist up to this size.
345:
346: Spin exchange betwen the electron and nuclear degrees of freedom
347: mediated by the hyperfine interaction is necessary to implement the
348: quantum cellular automata scheme of Twamley.\cite{Twa03,FT04b} Since
349: global operations on all the qubits are used to evolve the
350: computational unitary in this scheme, deviations in the hyperfine
351: coupling constants of the individual sites, e.g. due to deformations
352: resulting from fullerene interaction with the substrate surface, would
353: require additional complication in the nuclear-electronic CNOT and
354: swap operations in order to be robust against these variations. Our
355: results in \sectref{results} indicate that the hyperfine coupling is
356: quite sensitive to these deformations, and that even a 1\% (0.07\AA)
357: change in the N@C$_{60}$ radius would result in a $\sim$ 5\% change in
358: %BW
359: the compression ratio
360: $\phi$, corresponding to an approximately 0.5 MHz shift in the hyperfine
361: constant.
362: Using the fidelity measure $F =\vert {\rm Tr}(VU^{\dagger})\vert /
363: {\rm Tr}(UU^{\dagger})$, where $U$ is the desired unitary and $V$ is
364: the actual (erroneous) unitary,\cite{MT04} a 0.5 MHz shift away from
365: the nominal hyperfine interaction gives $1-F = 2 \times 10^{-4}$ for
366: the electron-nuclear CNOT operation. Atomistic calculations treating
367: the fullerene-surface interactions in more detail, may provide useful
368: estimates for the extent of this deformation on experimentally
369: relevant surfaces.
370:
371:
372:
373:
374: %Although current STM-based electron
375: %spin resonance methods for examining single molecules are not yet
376: %capable of hyperfine coupling determination,\cite{DW02,Durkan04}
377: %future experimental studies may be able to use the relationship shown
378: %in \figref{charge_vs_size} as a sensitive measure of cage size change
379: %due to surface binding.
380:
381: \section{Acknowledgements}
382:
383: J.S. thanks Professor Robert A. Harris for a helpful discussion, as well as
384: the National Defense Science and
385: Engineering Grant (NDSEG) program and U.S. Army Research Office
386: Contract/Grant No. FDDAAD19-01-1-0612 for financial support.
387: K.B.W. thanks the Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science for
388: financial support. This work was also supported by the Defense
389: Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Office of Naval
390: Research under Grant No. FDN00014-01-1-0826, and the National Science
391: Foundation under Grant EIA-020-1-0826.
392:
393:
394: %\bibliography{nc60,dft,betadecay}
395: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
396:
397: \begin{thebibliography}{40}
398: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
399: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax
400: \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi
401: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax
402: \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi
403: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax
404: \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi
405: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
406: \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
407: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
408: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
409: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
410:
411: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wiedinger et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Wiedinger,
412: Waiblinger, Pietzak, and Murphy}}]{WWPM98}
413: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Wiedinger}},
414: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Waiblinger}},
415: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Pietzak}}, \bibnamefont{and}
416: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~A.} \bibnamefont{Murphy}},
417: \bibinfo{journal}{Appl. Phys. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}},
418: \bibinfo{pages}{287} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).
419:
420: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pietzak et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Pietzak, Waiblinger,
421: Murphy, Weidinger, H{\"{o}}hne, Dietel, and Hirsch}}]{PWM+98}
422: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Pietzak}},
423: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Waiblinger}},
424: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~A.} \bibnamefont{Murphy}},
425: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Weidinger}},
426: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{H{\"{o}}hne}},
427: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Dietel}}, \bibnamefont{and}
428: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Hirsch}},
429: \bibinfo{journal}{Carbon} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{36}}, \bibinfo{pages}{613}
430: (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).
431:
432: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dietel et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Dietel, Hirsch,
433: Pietzak, Waiblinger, Lips, Weidinger, Gruss, and Dinse}}]{DHP+99}
434: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Dietel}},
435: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Hirsch}},
436: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Pietzak}},
437: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Waiblinger}},
438: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Lips}},
439: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Weidinger}},
440: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Gruss}}, \bibnamefont{and}
441: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.-P.} \bibnamefont{Dinse}},
442: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Am. Chem. Soc.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{121}},
443: \bibinfo{pages}{2432} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).
444:
445: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Weiden et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Weiden, Goedde,
446: K{\"a}{\ss}, Dinse, and Rohrer}}]{WGK+00}
447: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Weiden}},
448: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Goedde}},
449: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{K{\"a}{\ss}}},
450: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.-P.} \bibnamefont{Dinse}}, \bibnamefont{and}
451: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Rohrer}},
452: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{85}},
453: \bibinfo{pages}{1544} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
454:
455: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dinse et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Dinse, K{\"a}{\ss},
456: Knapp, and Weiden}}]{DKKW00}
457: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.-P.} \bibnamefont{Dinse}},
458: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{K{\"a}{\ss}}},
459: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Knapp}}, \bibnamefont{and}
460: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Weiden}},
461: \bibinfo{journal}{Carbon} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{38}},
462: \bibinfo{pages}{1635} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
463:
464: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pietzak et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Pietzak, Weidinger,
465: Dinse, and Hirsch}}]{PWDH02}
466: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Pietzak}},
467: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Weidinger}},
468: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.-P.} \bibnamefont{Dinse}}, \bibnamefont{and}
469: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Hirsch}}, in
470: \emph{\bibinfo{booktitle}{Endohedralfullerenes: A New Family of Carbon
471: Clusters}}, edited by
472: \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Akasaka}} \bibnamefont{and}
473: \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Nagase}}
474: (\bibinfo{publisher}{Kluwer}, \bibinfo{address}{Dordrecht},
475: \bibinfo{year}{2002}), pp. \bibinfo{pages}{13--66}.
476:
477: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dinse}(2002)}]{Dinse02}
478: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.-P.} \bibnamefont{Dinse}},
479: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{4}},
480: \bibinfo{pages}{5442} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).
481:
482: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Jakes et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Jakes, Dinse, Meyer,
483: Harneit, and Weidinger}}]{JDM+03}
484: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Jakes}},
485: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.-P.} \bibnamefont{Dinse}},
486: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Meyer}},
487: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Harneit}}, \bibnamefont{and}
488: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Weidinger}},
489: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{5}},
490: \bibinfo{pages}{4080} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
491:
492: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Morton et~al.}()\citenamefont{Morton, Tyryshkin,
493: Ardavan, Porfyrakis, Lyon, and Briggs}}]{MTA+04}
494: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~J.~L.} \bibnamefont{Morton}},
495: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~M.} \bibnamefont{Tyryshkin}},
496: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Ardavan}},
497: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Porfyrakis}},
498: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lyon}}, \bibnamefont{and}
499: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~A.~D.} \bibnamefont{Briggs}},
500: \eprint{quant-ph/0403226}.
501:
502: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lu et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Lu, Zhang, and
503: Zhao}}]{LZZ99}
504: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Lu}},
505: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.}~\bibnamefont{Zhang}}, \bibnamefont{and}
506: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.}~\bibnamefont{Zhao}},
507: \bibinfo{journal}{Chem. Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{312}},
508: \bibinfo{pages}{85} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).
509:
510: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Greer}(2000)}]{Gre00}
511: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~C.} \bibnamefont{Greer}},
512: \bibinfo{journal}{Chem. Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{326}},
513: \bibinfo{pages}{567} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
514:
515: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kobayashi et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Kobayashi, Nagase,
516: and Dinse}}]{KND03}
517: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Kobayashi}},
518: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Nagase}}, \bibnamefont{and}
519: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.-P.} \bibnamefont{Dinse}},
520: \bibinfo{journal}{Chem. Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{377}},
521: \bibinfo{pages}{93} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
522:
523: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Delaney and Greer}(2004)}]{DG04}
524: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Delaney}} \bibnamefont{and}
525: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~C.} \bibnamefont{Greer}},
526: \bibinfo{journal}{Appl. Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{84}},
527: \bibinfo{pages}{431} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).
528:
529: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Harneit et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Harneit, Meyer,
530: Weidinger, Suter, and Twamley}}]{HMW+02}
531: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Harneit}},
532: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Meyer}},
533: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Weidinger}},
534: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Suter}}, \bibnamefont{and}
535: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Twamley}},
536: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Status Solidi B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{233}},
537: \bibinfo{pages}{453} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).
538:
539: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Twamley}(2003)}]{Twa03}
540: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Twamley}},
541: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{67}},
542: \bibinfo{pages}{052318} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
543:
544: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Feng and Twamley}(2004)}]{FT04b}
545: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Feng}} \bibnamefont{and}
546: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Twamley}},
547: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}},
548: \bibinfo{pages}{032318} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).
549:
550: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Park et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Park, Srivastava, and
551: Cho}}]{PSC01}
552: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Park}},
553: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Srivastava}},
554: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Cho}},
555: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{1}},
556: \bibinfo{pages}{1} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).
557:
558: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Harneit}(2002)}]{Harneit02}
559: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Harneit}},
560: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}},
561: \bibinfo{pages}{032322} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).
562:
563: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Suter and Lim}(2002)}]{SL02}
564: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Suter}} \bibnamefont{and}
565: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Lim}},
566: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}},
567: \bibinfo{pages}{052309} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).
568:
569: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{McHugh and Twamley}()}]{MT04}
570: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{McHugh}} \bibnamefont{and}
571: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Twamley}},
572: \eprint{quant-ph/0404127}.
573:
574: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Steane}(2003)}]{Steane03}
575: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~M.} \bibnamefont{Steane}},
576: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}},
577: \bibinfo{pages}{042322} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
578:
579: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Buchachenko}(2001)}]{Bucha01}
580: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~L.} \bibnamefont{Buchachenko}},
581: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Chem. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{105}},
582: \bibinfo{pages}{5839} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).
583:
584: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Carmichael}(1990)}]{Carmichael90}
585: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Carmichael}},
586: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{93}},
587: \bibinfo{pages}{863} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}).
588:
589: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{March}(1952)}]{March52}
590: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~H.} \bibnamefont{March}},
591: \bibinfo{journal}{Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.}
592: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{48}}, \bibinfo{pages}{665} (\bibinfo{year}{1952}).
593:
594: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Clougherty}(1996)}]{Clougherty96}
595: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~P.} \bibnamefont{Clougherty}},
596: \bibinfo{journal}{Can. J. Chem.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{74}},
597: \bibinfo{pages}{965} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).
598:
599: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Parr and Yang}(1994)}]{ParrYang}
600: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~G.} \bibnamefont{Parr}} \bibnamefont{and}
601: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Yang}},
602: \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Density-Functional Theory of Atoms and Molecules}}
603: (\bibinfo{publisher}{Oxford Science}, \bibinfo{address}{Oxford},
604: \bibinfo{year}{1994}).
605:
606: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Clougherty and Zhu}(1997)}]{CZ97}
607: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~P.} \bibnamefont{Clougherty}}
608: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.}~\bibnamefont{Zhu}},
609: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}},
610: \bibinfo{pages}{632} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).
611:
612: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Fermi}(1927)}]{Fermi27}
613: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Fermi}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mem.
614: Accad. Lincei} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{6}}, \bibinfo{pages}{602}
615: (\bibinfo{year}{1927}).
616:
617: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wong}(1979)}]{Wong79}
618: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~P.} \bibnamefont{Wong}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.
619: Chem. Educ.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}}, \bibinfo{pages}{714}
620: (\bibinfo{year}{1979}).
621:
622: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Jensen and Luttinger}(1952)}]{JL52}
623: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~H.~D.} \bibnamefont{Jensen}}
624: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.}
625: \bibnamefont{Luttinger}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.}
626: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{86}}, \bibinfo{pages}{907} (\bibinfo{year}{1952}).
627:
628: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Oliphant}(1956)}]{Oliph56}
629: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~A.} \bibnamefont{Oliphant}},
630: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{104}},
631: \bibinfo{pages}{954} (\bibinfo{year}{1956}).
632:
633: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sadlej}(1985)}]{Sadlej}
634: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Sadlej}},
635: \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Semi-empirical Methods of Quantum Chemistry}}
636: (\bibinfo{publisher}{Wiley}, \bibinfo{address}{New York},
637: \bibinfo{year}{1985}), \bibinfo{note}{trans. I. L. Cooper}.
638:
639: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pople et~al.}(1968)\citenamefont{Pople, Beveridge, and
640: Dobosh}}]{PBD68}
641: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.} \bibnamefont{Pople}},
642: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~L.} \bibnamefont{Beveridge}},
643: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.}
644: \bibnamefont{Dobosh}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Am. Chem. Soc.}
645: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{90}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4201} (\bibinfo{year}{1968}).
646:
647: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ray et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Ray, Das, Saha, Das, and
648: Mookerjee}}]{RDS+02}
649: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Ray}},
650: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Das}},
651: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~K.} \bibnamefont{Saha}},
652: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~K.} \bibnamefont{Das}}, \bibnamefont{and}
653: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Mookerjee}},
654: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. C} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}},
655: \bibinfo{pages}{012501} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).
656:
657: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ohtsuki et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Ohtsuki, Yuki, Muto,
658: Kasagi, and Ohno}}]{OYM+04}
659: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Ohtsuki}},
660: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Yuki}},
661: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Muto}},
662: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Kasagi}}, \bibnamefont{and}
663: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Ohno}},
664: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{93}},
665: \bibinfo{pages}{112501} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).
666:
667: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee and Han}(2004)}]{LH04}
668: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~U.} \bibnamefont{Lee}} \bibnamefont{and}
669: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.-K.} \bibnamefont{Han}},
670: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{121}},
671: \bibinfo{pages}{3941} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).
672:
673: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Miyamoto et~al.}(1992)\citenamefont{Miyamoto, Hamada,
674: Oshiyama, and Saito}}]{MHOS92}
675: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Miyamoto}},
676: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Hamada}},
677: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Oshiyama}}, \bibnamefont{and}
678: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Saito}},
679: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{46}},
680: \bibinfo{pages}{1749} (\bibinfo{year}{1992}).
681:
682: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cao et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Cao, Zhou, Shi, Xiao,
683: and Wang}}]{CZS+98}
684: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Cao}},
685: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.}~\bibnamefont{Zhou}},
686: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.~J.} \bibnamefont{Shi}},
687: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.~G.~H.} \bibnamefont{Xiao}},
688: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Wang}},
689: \bibinfo{journal}{Fullerene Sci. Tech.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{6}},
690: \bibinfo{pages}{639} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).
691:
692: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Yamaguchi and Miyoshi}(1996)}]{YM96}
693: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Yamaguchi}} \bibnamefont{and}
694: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Miyoshi}},
695: \bibinfo{journal}{Surface Sci.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{358}},
696: \bibinfo{pages}{283} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).
697:
698: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lu et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Lu, Grobis, Khoo, Louie,
699: and Crommie}}]{LGK+04}
700: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.}~\bibnamefont{Lu}},
701: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Grobis}},
702: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~H.} \bibnamefont{Khoo}},
703: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~G.} \bibnamefont{Louie}}, \bibnamefont{and}
704: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~F.} \bibnamefont{Crommie}},
705: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}},
706: \bibinfo{pages}{115418} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).
707:
708: \end{thebibliography}
709:
710:
711: \vfill\eject
712:
713: \begin{figure}
714: \includegraphics[width = 8.5cm]{buch_radii}
715: \caption{
716: Hyperfine compression ratio, $\phi$, as a function of cutoff
717: radius, $r_c$. For $r_c = 3.01$ bohr, the compression ratios calcualated for N@C$_{60}$
718: and the appropriate weighted average for N@C$_{70}$ are 0.541 and 0.490,
719: respectively,
720: %BW
721: in excellent agreement with the experimental values 0.541 for N@C$_{60}$
722: and 0.491 for N@C$_{70}$.\cite{Bucha01}
723: }
724: \label{rcdetermine}
725: \end{figure}
726:
727:
728: \vspace{2cm}
729:
730:
731: \begin{figure}
732: \includegraphics[width = 8.5cm]{charge_vs_size}
733: \caption{Effects of changing $n$ (positive slope curves) and $R$
734: (negative slope curves) for C$_{60}$ ($n_0 = 60, R_0 = 6.578$ bohr) and a
735: spherical model
736: C$_{70}$ ($n_0 = 70, R_0 = 6.8647$ bohr)
737: on the hyperfine compression ratio $\phi$.
738: Here $n = n_0 + \Delta n$ and $R = R_0 + \Delta R$, where $n_0$, $R_0$ are the
739: equilibrium values of $n$ and $R$, respectively.
740: For C$_{60}$ at $\Delta n = 0$
741: and $\Delta R = 0$, $d\phi/dn = 0.0031$ and $d\phi/dR = -0.35$ bohr$^{-1}$. }
742: \label{charge_vs_size}
743: \end{figure}
744:
745:
746: \vspace{2cm}
747:
748:
749: \begin{figure}
750: \includegraphics[width = 8.5cm]{hypothetical_fullerenes}
751: \caption{Values of the hyperfine compression ratio, $\phi$ for the
752: N@C$_{n}$ with $60 < n < 500$, assuming surface charge/area
753: ratios, $n/S$, of 0.10, 0.11, and 0.12.
754: }
755: \label{hypotheticalfullerenes}
756: \end{figure}
757:
758:
759:
760:
761: \end{document}
762:
763: