deletions | additions       diff --git a/Figure_ref_fig_stopping_power_shows__.tex b/Figure_ref_fig_stopping_power_shows__.tex  index bd8772a..d5913c7 100644  --- a/Figure_ref_fig_stopping_power_shows__.tex  +++ b/Figure_ref_fig_stopping_power_shows__.tex 
...
Figure \ref{fig:stopping_power} shows a comparison of our calculated electronic stopping power $S_\text{e}$ with \textsc{Srim} data. data and model.  In the channeling case, when the incident velocity $v$ increases after the maximum stopping is reached, the rate of decrease of our $S_\text{e}$ results becomes rather faster than those obtained by either the experimental or the SRIM database due to the following reasons: (i) the projectile moves in a rectilinear uniform movement through the center of the channel and produces a very weak interaction due to its short duration close to the target; (ii) only the effect of valence electrons of the target atoms in the pseudo potential model is considered, the inner electronic excitations which should enhance the $S_\text{e}$ in high energy have not been taken into account \cite{Quijada_2007} and (iii) at higher energies, where stopping gets maximum, the valence electrons become ionized and the contribution due to these plasma electrons to $S_e$ $S_\mathrm{e}$  are significant. Similar effects were also reported earlier by Mao \emph{et al} for SiC by $\mathrm{H^+}$ and $\mathrm{He^{2+}}$ \cite{Mao_2015}, when the ion velocity exceeds certain value, a new mechanism, mechanism  known as the plasma oscillation oscillations  \cite{Bauer_1990} of the target electrons, for the electronic energy loss appears; present TDDFT describe it pretty well. For the off-channeling case, there is a better agreement between the our $S_\text{e}$ results with the \textsc{Srim} data in most of the range.  Presumably in experiments where trajectories are not controlled, the projectile does indeed explore core regions of the host atoms.  At higher velocities ($v > 4 ~\mathrm{a.u.}$) the disagreement stems from combined effect of the lack of explicit core electrons in the simulation and also size effects, as excitations of long wavelength plasmons plasma oscillation  is constrained by the simulation supercell \cite{Schleife_2015}. It is clear that a larger cell and the inclusion of more core electrons would be necessary to obtain better agreement in this region.   Giving the limitation of the orbital based method it is reasuring to see agreement up to a few times the velocity of the maximum stopping.  We also see that at low velocity the off-channeling and channeling simulated points collapses to a common curve, this effect has been seen in the simulations before \cite{Schleife_2015,Ullah_2015}, at low velocity the effect is less sensitive to the precise geometry of the trajectory.  A linear dependency Our results show good agreement with Markin \emph{et al.} \cite{Markin_2009} but a relative disagreement with those  of Cantero \emph{et al.} \cite{Cantero_2009}.   This could be a simple experimental scaling issue related to  the different between measuring absolute or relative  stopping power on the target material is evident \cite{Markin_2009}.  We observe $S_\text{e}$ kink around $v \sim 0.1 ~\mathrm{a.u.}$ due to a mixture of $d$-band  in Figure \ref{fig:stopping_power}. It is also observed that if applied the electronic  density is lower than of states.   For energy loss our new results for $v \leq 0.06~\mathrm{a.u.}$, are primarily due to $s$-band electrons.   In  the experimental value, simulation we directly show a crossover region between  the stopping power gets lower.   On two linear regimes, and we find that  the other hand if our calculated density remains close friction in direct proportion  toexperimental values,  the prediction velocity with a power law  of the stopping powers with exponent $1.455$.  The kink found at $v = 0.6~\mathrm{a.u.}$ can be explained  by TDDFT improves. conservation laws of the homogeneous electron gas.  The minimum e  Below $0.02~\mathrm{a.u.}$, the lack of experimental points preclude a direct comparison, but we find a surprising deviation from linear behavior, one possible explanation is that bound effect breaks down the linear response (Linhard) approximation.  Our results show good agreement with Markin \emph{et al.} \cite{Markin_2009} but there are disagreement with those of Cantero \emph{et al.} \cite{Cantero_2009}. We observe $S_\text{e}$ kink around $v \sim 0.1 ~\mathrm{a.u.}$ due to a mixture of $d$-band in the electronic density of states. For energy loss our new results for $0.01 \leq v \leq 0.06~\mathrm{a.u.}$, are primarily due to $s$-band electrons. Lack of experimental findings preclude a direct comparison. A model calculation \cite{Correa_private} including the density of states distributions confirm this.%   %In the same figure we compare our results with density $6.84~\mathrm{g/cm^3}$ and $8.96~\mathrm{g/cm^3}$.%  %