Jump to content

pmcardle

Members
  • Content Count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pmcardle

  1. In my simulation I am considering the scattered far-field from my antenna over a box. If I am using the absorbing boundary condition, is the scattered field being absorbed by the air box? Or am I not conceptualizing this correctly.
  2. Thank you for the response. As a follow up, what is the boundary condition for the FEM? and how does it differ from the MoM boundary condition? Cheers, Patrick
  3. I want to simulate the electromagnetic back scattering response from half of a biconical antenna over an anisotropic half plane. Since FEKO does not support the use of a half plane with an anisotropic dielectric function I am instead trying to use a large box with the FEM. I have surrounded my system with an air buffer, but am receiving the following warning: ERROR 33132: Not enough memory available for an in-core solution. Out-of-core storage of the MoM matrix is not supported with the FEM See also message in the output file Model.out So are my options essentially to simulate with more memory such that the FEM-MoM matrix can be stored locally, or reduce the size of my simulation? Is it possible to simulate purely with the FEM with absorbing boundary conditions? If so how would one set this up? I have attached Model.cfxmy model below
  4. Is their a half planar Green's function implemented that supports a material with a 3d anisotropic dielectric function in FEKO? If it does not exist, is it because it has not been implemented or that it has not been formulated for a half plane?
  5. Is it possible to implement a electromagnetic source which has an incoherent phase front? I have been using a plane wave, but would like the phase for the source to be undefined.
  6. Is there a closed form expression for the spherical hankel functions used in the definition of spherical mode data? I have not been able to find any resources that use the smn indexing scheme.
  7. pmcardle

    Thin Metal

    Thank you for the replies
  8. pmcardle

    Thin Metal

    I have attached an image of the simulation. A plane wave is incident and focused by the mirror onto a conical conducting antenna, which is above a metallic layer. It is relevant to have a light source which converges to a focus, which necessitates the mirror. The antenna is above a thin layer of gold ~100 nm. I am simulating the gold by using the multilayered Green's function. I am calculating the scattered electric field from the antenna, in the far field. I have also performed the same simulation with a half planar PEC. For both I am getting inconsistent results for both the half planar PEC and multilayered green's function. Any suggestions on how to proceed?
  9. I have been trying to simulate the scattering of an antenna above a thin layer of gold ~100 nm. I am a plane wave source, the plane wave is focused using a mirror. After the mirror, the focused plane wave is used to illuminate the antenna and layer of gold. The simulation is using frequencies in the ~ THz, where the skin depth of Au is comparable to the thickness of the layer. Any suggestions for simulating the Au layer?
  10. pmcardle

    Thin Metal

    I have been trying to simulate the scattering of an antenna above a thin layer of gold ~100 nm. I am a plane wave source, the plane wave is focused using a mirror. After the mirror, the focused plane wave is used to illuminate the antenna and layer of gold. The simulation is using frequencies in the ~ THz, where the skin depth of Au is comparable to the thickness of the layer. I originally tried the multilayered Green's function and received this warning. WARNING 3489: Too many integration intervals are required for the potentials See also message in the output file The results were not consistent with experimental results. I than tried to simplify the problem by using a half plane PEC, and received results that were also inconsisent . Is there a better way to proceed? Should I increase the number of layers in the multilayered Green's function to reduce the number of integration intervals? Is the half plane PEC always reliable? Is there a way to check its reliability for a particular simulation?
  11. What would having two layers accomplish? Would it split up the integrations in both layers? Cheers, Patrick
  12. WARNING 3489: Too many integration intervals are required for the potentials See also message in the output file I am getting this error when using the half planar green's function. I have switched to a multilayered green's function to reduce the thickness of the material which has a small effective wavelength. Does reducing the volume help alleviate this warning? or does it only depend on the effective wavelength and size of the problem. I am still receiving this warning when I use the multilayered green's function.
  13. I am running a simulation where the effective wavelength in one of my layers is quite small. Does decreasing the thickness of this layer speed things up since less effective wavelengths will be in this layer?
  14. If my extents are set to 50e2, does this mean that the simulation space is 1000 x 1000 x 1000 for whatever unit is being used.
  15. Thanks, for the reply. As a follow up, does this error occur because the model is to electrically large? Or does it also depend on the effective wavelength in the half plane?
  16. I am using a half planar greens function and am receiving this error for certain frequencies WARNING 3489: Too many integration intervals are required for the potentials See also message in the output file PEC_10.out Is there a way to check the reliability of the solution? Is the solution at all valid?
  17. I am using a lens to focus a plane wave onto a conical antenna and I am receiving this error WARNING 1931: No effective excitation for the MoM is present (right hand side vector is zero) what is this indicating? Is the antenna not seeing the focused plane wave or not at all?
  18. I have a fairly large metallic structure over a half planar green's function. I have received the following warning WARNING 3595: Too many interpolation points for the substrate See also message in the output file PEC_1.out What does this indicate? How unreliable is the solution due to this warning?
  19. I am trying to simulate the electromagnetic response of a conical, conducting antenna to a beam of electromagnetic waves which converges to a focus near the tip of the antenna. I attach a pdf file showing a schematic sketch of the setup I wish to simulate in FEKO. I have been able to successfully simulate the response of the antenna to incident plane electromagnetic waves in FEKO. My question is how to implement the convergent electromagnetic wave in FEKO? Convergent Beam.pdf
  20. FEKO supports the use of a plane (electromagnetic) wave. Does FEKO support the use of a convergent electromagnetic wave?
  21. I was able to somewhat remedy my issue by scaling the dimension of the mm sized object. Only the curvature of the object was relevant so I was able to scale down without changing the problem. Thanks, Patrick
  22. Is it at possible to have a convergent light source with finite spatial dimensions in FEKO? I would like to simulate the focusing of a collimated light source without having to include a mirror, since the dimensions of the mirror are much much larger then the object I am focusing on. Cheers, Patrick
  23. I I am trying to simulate a problems that has three length scales, nm, um, and mm. For the nm and um length scales I am using the MoM and for the very large length scale am using the RL-GO solver. Are these length scales too disparate for the solver? I had to increase the extents of the problems but then ran into errors regarding mesh tolerance size. Do not really know how to correct this given the extents of the problem.
  24. When a far field scattering calculation is computed for a plane wave. How is the phase calculated? Is the reference phase assumed to be zero?
  25. I am interested in simulating 3d anisotropic scatterer's and am trying to determine the accuracy of my results? For my particular situation, I do not have any analytic solutions to compare against. So in general how does one ensure the solution is accurate?
×
×
  • Create New...