Thank you for the reply. I should have been more clear: the field is
affected by the PML outside the region occupied by the PML. As if there
was a boundary condition (dE/dy = 0, e.g.) at the interface with the PML.
Is this the expected behaviour?
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, Steven G. Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Sergei Simdyankin wrote:
I also found that the PML affects the field inside the simulation box.
Of course the PML affects the field inside the simulation box. It *is*
inside the simulation box. Although PML is often presented as a "boundary
condition" it is best understood as simply a fictitious absorbing material
placed around the edges of your cell.
Note that when you specify a PML layer, Meep does *not* increase the size of
your computatioonal cell to put the PML on the "outside". Rather, it uses
the computational cell that you specified, and puts the PML on the "inside".
also has an effect of the field above the waveguide. It would be
nice to be able to vary the mesh size to resolve sharp features like
this better. Any plans to implement this in Meep in the future?
We don't have any immediate plans to support variable resolution. The next
release should have much improved subpixel averaging, however, which goes a
long way towards fixing the handling of dielectric interfaces. (We have an
upcoming paper on the effects of subpixel averaging on accuracy, actually.)
Cordially,
Steven G. Johnson
_______________________________________________
meep-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meep-discuss
_______________________________________________
meep-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meep-discuss
