Note that PMLs become less effective for incident waves at large oblique
angles. This effect is described in:
https://meep.readthedocs.io/en/latest/FAQ/#why-are-the-fields-not-being-absorbed-by-the-pml.
Rather than increase the PML thickness as you seem to be doing, a better
solution is to replace the PML with an Absorber.
On 12/6/20 08:16, Mandy Xia wrote:
incident angles, especially at the two ends of the frequency range
(i.e. the largest frequency and the smallest frequency that has a well
defined mapped incident angle). I tried to increase the resolution and
pml thickness but they didn't help. I tried to construct the source
with only frequencies that have well-defined mapped incident angles
and the matching to the ground truth significantly improved (although
at the small frequency end there is still a relatively large
difference and I ran out of memory when increasing the resolution and
couldn't make a conclusion if it was converging or not). I'm trying to
figure out why this is the case and what is the impact on the
simulation from the evanescent waves. I have a periodic boundary in
the z direction and pml layers in the x and y directions. My source is
_______________________________________________
meep-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meep-discuss
