You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hello!
I was originally running simulations in Lumerical to calculate the incoupling efficiency for an angled grating coupler in which I used a field monitor in the waveguide for transmission, so I tried to apply that logic to Meep and decided to do two runs:
Normalization run to get input flux
Geometry run to get flux through the waveguide
Then I would take the flux from the geometry run and divide it by the input flux. However, my results between the two simulations do not seem to be matching up. I was wondering if anyone could check my logic? Thank you!
Normalization run:
Geometry run:
Also if anyone had tips in general in trying to match simulation results between the different software's that would be helpful!
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hello!
I was originally running simulations in Lumerical to calculate the incoupling efficiency for an angled grating coupler in which I used a field monitor in the waveguide for transmission, so I tried to apply that logic to Meep and decided to do two runs:
Then I would take the flux from the geometry run and divide it by the input flux. However, my results between the two simulations do not seem to be matching up. I was wondering if anyone could check my logic? Thank you!
Normalization run:



Geometry run:



Also if anyone had tips in general in trying to match simulation results between the different software's that would be helpful!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions