Hello, While it is good to see that many users are interested in adaptive resolutions for meep, what I meant was actually "Is there any interest *by the developers* to implement such a feature somewhen?".
Mischa wrote: you could consider doing a coordinate transformation that magnifies the > region that you are interested in, and compensate for that by choosing an > appropriately modified epsilon profile: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03029.html > The exploit of scaling of Maxwell's Equations which you suggest is very interesting, I hadn't thought about that! Would it also work with the current implementation of dispersive materials? (Since only the \sigma can be a function of position?) gpipc wrote: > what resolution you need? > I am not yet sure I am finished with the convergence study. Right now it looks like this: My nanostructure has a characteristic radius of curvature of ~ 50 nm, but is much larger than that (um range). Since I'm only interested in an estimate of the effects of beam propagation near the structure, I obtain reasonable looking results for quite coarse resolutions of ~ 12.5 nm. The maximum I can afford is ~ 4 nm, calculating on a cluster, with a simulation box of ~ 5*5*3 um and dispersive materials. I get decent results for a 20 nm diameter nanosphere in two > dimensions (so it is actually a cylinder) with 0.5 nm resolution, but they > do not seem to be enough for 3d (I am trying a calculation with 0.25 nm > resolution now). I compare the FDTD scattering efficiencies with Mie > theory. > I would think needing a better resolution for 3d than for 2d is the intuitive result, no? I personally would be extremely careful with such high resolutions. At 0.25 nm you are in the range where you have a single atom per pixel/voxel. Maxwell's Equations (in matter) are a macroscopic theory formulated for fields which should be considered averaged over many atom distances. I would not expect any classical electromagnetic theory to accurately describe experiments on this length scale. Georg On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:02 PM, gpipc <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 01:36:54 +0100, Georg Wachter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > PS.: I would really like to see a possibility for having regions of > > different resolution in meep. This is The One Feature (for me) that > > commercial competitors have over Meep or any free electromagnetism > > software. > > Is there any interest that this might be implemented soonishly? > > > I, for one, would be interested. But I must admit that I do not have any > clue on how much effort it could cost developers to code this. > > -- > ================================================ > Giovanni Piredda > Postdoc - AK Hartschuh > > Phone: ++49 - (0) 89/2180-77601 > Fax.: ++49 – (0) 89/2180-77188 > Room: E2.062 > ---------------------------------------- > Message sent by Cup Webmail (Roundcube) > >
_______________________________________________ meep-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meep-discuss
