This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
docs:become [2020/04/22 15:43] pklapetek |
docs:become [2020/04/22 21:34] pklapetek |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
The image below shows the normalized angular dependence of the diffraction from the (finite size) grating. | The image below shows the normalized angular dependence of the diffraction from the (finite size) grating. | ||
- | {{:docs:become_grating_2d_normalised.png?600|}} | + | {{:docs:result_twomethods.png?600|}} |
When inspected in detail, it can be seen that there is a slight asymmetry in the result which needs to be analyzed, probably due to wrong placement of far-field points. The average intensity of the s+1 and s-1 diffraction orders is 0.178 of the incident intensity for the default silver model (not the Become one). | When inspected in detail, it can be seen that there is a slight asymmetry in the result which needs to be analyzed, probably due to wrong placement of far-field points. The average intensity of the s+1 and s-1 diffraction orders is 0.178 of the incident intensity for the default silver model (not the Become one). | ||
Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
+ | ===== Summary ===== | ||
+ | The sensitivity of 2D calculations results on the settings (computational domain size, time step, near-to-far field transformation, et.c) is in the order of few percent, the dominant effect of this uncertainty is the near-to-far field transformation. This does not affect the cases when these conditions are kept same in a series of calculations (so relative changes can be calculated with much higher accuracy), however it certainly affects the absolute values, e.g. when comparing a single calculation to completely different calculation or experimental data. | ||
===== TODO ===== | ===== TODO ===== |