Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
8 years ago
Oct 9, 2016, 2:25 p.m. EDT
I agree that number looks weird. What do the fields look like inside the cavity? What are your materials? Is there lossy material anywhere? How did you decide what frequency to the cavity resonates at, did you do a sweep?
I agree that number looks weird. What do the fields look like inside the cavity? What are your materials? Is there lossy material anywhere? How did you decide what frequency to the cavity resonates at, did you do a sweep?
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
8 years ago
Oct 9, 2016, 3:36 p.m. EDT
I agree that number looks weird. What do the fields look like inside the cavity? What are your materials? Is there lossy material anywhere? How did you decide what frequency to the cavity resonates at, did you do a sweep?
Cavity size has been designed by considering fondamental TE mode. I've used a coaxial cable as feed with a little extension of inner conductor to couple energy inside the cavity. I've simulated a frequency range between 1.45[GHz] and 1.65[GHz]. However, you can see the field in the picture below.
Cavity has air inside and PEC as boundary.
[QUOTE]
I agree that number looks weird. What do the fields look like inside the cavity? What are your materials? Is there lossy material anywhere? How did you decide what frequency to the cavity resonates at, did you do a sweep?
[/QUOTE]
Cavity size has been designed by considering fondamental TE mode. I've used a coaxial cable as feed with a little extension of inner conductor to couple energy inside the cavity. I've simulated a frequency range between 1.45[GHz] and 1.65[GHz]. However, you can see the field in the picture below.
Cavity has air inside and PEC as boundary.