Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'rl-go'.
Found 2 results
Is it possible to use the ray-launching geometric optics method with lossy materials? We are trying to model RF propagation in an empty airplane shell (consisting only of faces) but receive the following error when we change the shell material from PEC to copper with a thickness of 1 mm: ERROR 33858: Metallic triangles for ray-launching GO found with unsupported losses. Is there any way to work around this error (in FEKO Suite 7.0)? I cannot post the plane model, but the shell can be thought of as an arbitrary closed surface inside of which there is a dipole antenna source. We would like to make the metallic shell have a thickness so to eliminate fields being generated external to the airplane with PEC as the shell material.
Hello there, I'm trying to develop a study with the RL-GO solver, so I also need to run a "pre-study" to create the .tr file for the medium. One of the parts in question is made of construction_concrete. In the "pre-study" I'm creating a layered structure of 5mm per side with the following properties: Thickness: 0.1mm (due to WARNING 2757: A triangle is too thick as compared to the lateral dimensions for application of the skin effect approximation) Dielectric material: Construction_concrete_block As the Example H05. Jerusalem_Cross_FSS specifies, I'm including a two dimensions PBC with 5.2mm per side, the operating freq. is 77GHz and running the solver the following WARNING appears: WARNING 49005: Reflection/transmission not defined due to possible grating lobes. I reviewed other similar questions here at the forum (Interpretation of the near field) and one of the alternatives is to move the measurement of the transmission/reflection coeff. to 10 wavelengths, lambda=c/f, 3x10^8/77=3.896mm. If I request the transmission/reflection coeff. at: X: 4mm Y: 0mm Z: 0mm the WARNING still appearing. I think using near field request for "Calculate only the scattered part of the field" is not the more appropriate alternative since my full model intended to run with RL-GO is in meters. Should I change something on the study definition? Or this is something I can take as an "acceptable" WARNING? Should I change the solver for the full model? Thanks for your support on this, -David