Replies: 2 comments 3 replies
-
As a sanity check, when you run the existing tutorial as is, you can replicate the reported results, right? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
3 replies
-
See if this similar discussion helps answer your questions. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Hello,
I wrote my version of the tutorial differently, but I have been over the code a number of times, but it still does not come out right.
I am linking the notebook, you can see clearly the results are way off and see my code.
I tried a couple of suggestions I saw on different Issues/threads from this repo, like disabling the symmetry, but it did not work.
The main difference with this code is the introduction of fluxes/flux regions is procedural, and simulators are automatically generated. All fluxes and flux data arrays are logged. Also fluxes are automatically subtracted.
It seems no combination of fluxes from the control (no geometry) and variable (sphere geometry) or the fluxes themselves changes the qualitative results.
There are more results in the notebook I linked, but this is the result I think should be correct:
The different "Meep" lines are essentially as if I had changed
to be a different flux box in the original
Any suggestions?
Thanks!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions