Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
21 mai 2010, 10:30 UTC−4
I am sorry but in my limited time I could only look at your model file and not other stuff.
You want a TE-polarized plane wave to impign? If so, I would recommend you to see if there is a change by switching to scattering boundary condition. Both matched and port boundaries in comsol seem to be specifically made for supporting guided eigen modes which always propagate perpendicular to the cross-sectional boundary of the waveguides.
And I know that plane waves are also eigen modes in a loose sense "guided" in infinite space but still when you don't know internal implementation of the system it is always advisable to leave specific things for the specific ideas they were introduced for.
Similarly, change the right boundary to scattering boundary condition with no field excitation (zero TE field). This should work better. And if it doesn't hurt your cause, I would advise you to add a PML before scattering boundary on the right. This should give you the best results.
I am sorry but in my limited time I could only look at your model file and not other stuff.
You want a TE-polarized plane wave to impign? If so, I would recommend you to see if there is a change by switching to scattering boundary condition. Both matched and port boundaries in comsol seem to be specifically made for supporting guided eigen modes which always propagate perpendicular to the cross-sectional boundary of the waveguides.
And I know that plane waves are also eigen modes in a loose sense "guided" in infinite space but still when you don't know internal implementation of the system it is always advisable to leave specific things for the specific ideas they were introduced for.
Similarly, change the right boundary to scattering boundary condition with no field excitation (zero TE field). This should work better. And if it doesn't hurt your cause, I would advise you to add a PML before scattering boundary on the right. This should give you the best results.
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
23 mai 2010, 22:07 UTC−4
Hi
Thank you for your kindness response !!
Following your tip, I changed the boundary setting to scattering condition. And also setting the PML at the right side edge of the module. But the result is same as before.
It's seems like different wavelength working in the medium.
If the wavelength is changed when the wave is getting into the medium, is that setting(fresnel equation) already in the COMSOL? or Do I have to set that things in it?
Hi
Thank you for your kindness response !!
Following your tip, I changed the boundary setting to scattering condition. And also setting the PML at the right side edge of the module. But the result is same as before.
It's seems like different wavelength working in the medium.
If the wavelength is changed when the wave is getting into the medium, is that setting(fresnel equation) already in the COMSOL? or Do I have to set that things in it?
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
7 août 2010, 08:28 UTC−4
Hi, have you fix the problem?
I am also trying to bulit this model, but also failure.
I see your model file, there are two questions: first, your defination for incident angle is pi/18, should be 10 degree, if we got a correct result, we can plot the Power flow in arrow to check it.Second, for each Floquet periodictiy boundary condition, we should set each wave vector for them, i.e., k1x,k1y; k2x,k2y;k3x,k3y.
I tried change the Floquet periodictiy boundary condition as above-mentioned, but I still can not get right result. How about you?
Hi, have you fix the problem?
I am also trying to bulit this model, but also failure.
I see your model file, there are two questions: first, your defination for incident angle is pi/18, should be 10 degree, if we got a correct result, we can plot the Power flow in arrow to check it.Second, for each Floquet periodictiy boundary condition, we should set each wave vector for them, i.e., k1x,k1y; k2x,k2y;k3x,k3y.
I tried change the Floquet periodictiy boundary condition as above-mentioned, but I still can not get right result. How about you?
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
9 août 2010, 21:24 UTC−4
Hi, I already tried those things you said. But, I couldn't solve.
I'm sorry that I can't help you.
Now I'm doing the simulation using another program.
Hi, I already tried those things you said. But, I couldn't solve.
I'm sorry that I can't help you.
Now I'm doing the simulation using another program.