strange Results
Hello,
I am trying to see the different radiation pattern for several materials with different permittivities.
To make my simulation easier, i used planar multilayer substrate.
When i check the results i found something strange.
The higher the permittivity , the higher the reflection of the waves will be. This is correct in the results.
But the strange is in the case of the transmitted waves!!!!
In general the higher the permittivity , then the lower the transmitted waves will be, which is not my case?!?!?!?!?
Why is this happening? I think i made a misstake in the options.
Thanks in Advance.
Best Regards
Haj Hassan
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
Find more posts tagged with
Hello,
thank you for your answer.
Attached you will see my model.
The waves are going in the angle 270.
Thanks in Advance.
Best Regards
Haj Hassan
Altair EmployeeHi @Kuzi,
this doesn't seem to be the correct model. In your pics I see an antenna structure and also a polar plot of far field results. In the attached model only a plane wave excitation is present and the far field request is set to 'Calculate fields in plane wave incident direction'. Could you please check?
Hello,
sorry i sent you the wrong email.
Best regards
Haj Hassan
Altair EmployeeI get odd results when analysing turbo sessions-the distance doesnt show until I set it to manual data entry-and the power calcs are all over the place -negative ones as well should I set the garmin to not use GPS? or is it something fundamental with the settings?
thanks in advance
Hello,
i hope that this file will help you.
Thanks in Advance.
Best regards
Haj Hassan
Altair EmployeeHi @Haj Hassan,
interpreting the far field in a lossy halfspace unfortnately isn't easy. When using the Reflection Coefficient Approximation for example, FEKO deactivates the computation of far fields below z=0 completely. In principle the far field in FEKO is computed in an infinite distance by neglecting the term exp(-j*beta*r)/r. bet however is different for the two media..
I would suggest to rather calculate near field values in a certain distance if you're really interested in the field below ground.
OK
thank you very much.
Hi @Kuzi,
I can only see a small part of the polar plot. Are you sure that the main lobes are in the theta = 180° direction?
Could you attach the files (cfx, fek, bof, out)?