There is a known bug when combining two or more symmetries with periodic
boundary conditions in 3d which causes the fields to blow up
(https://github.com/NanoComp/meep/issues/132). To test this whether this
bug is present in your case, check what happens when you have just one
mirror symmetry.
Note that in addition to mirror symmetries, Meep also supports C2 and C4
rotation symmetries
(https://meep.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Python_User_Interface/#symmetry).
On 4/29/20 13:58, J. Philip Haupt wrote:
From what I gather in the documentation, MEEP doesn't support the x=y
symmetry, but I may still exploit the other symmetry. However,
whenever I try this I get diverging fields. If I instead use two
mirror symmetries (one in X and one in Y), I still get a diverging
field. In particular, my source is
sources = [mp.Source(mp.GaussianSource(frequency=freq_centre,
width=freq_width),
component=mp.Ex,
center=mp.Vector3(0,0,0.5*sz-pml_width-0.25),
size=mp.Vector3(sx,sy,0))]
The symmetry that makes the most sense to me to use here is
symm = [mp.Mirror(mp.X, phase=-1), mp.Mirror(mp.Y, phase=1)]
since Ex should have odd symmetry about X and even symmetry about Y.
Am I misunderstanding the symmetry of this source or is there some
other numerical error? My fields converge if I do not include the
symmetry.
_______________________________________________
meep-discuss mailing list
meep-discuss@ab-initio.mit.edu
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meep-discuss
