Robert Koslover
Certified Consultant
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
4 years ago
Sep 17, 2020, 12:38 p.m. EDT
- Well, it's not much bigger, is it? And the materials in your design have no losses.
- I also suggest you compare the realized gain to the directivity.
- Consider also using a finer mesh.
-------------------
Scientific Applications & Research Associates (SARA) Inc.
www.comsol.com/partners-consultants/certified-consultants/sara
1. Well, it's *not much* bigger, is it? And the materials in your design have no losses.
2. I also suggest you compare the *realized* gain to the directivity.
3. Consider also using a finer mesh.
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
4 years ago
Sep 17, 2020, 1:27 p.m. EDT
Hi Robert,
- Well, it's not much bigger, is it? And the materials in your design have no losses.
Should I accept this situation as they are almost same but the small calculation errors causes this result. If so, I won't worry about it.
- I also suggest you compare the realized gain to the directivity.
I had done it. Realized gain = 7.3393, directivity = 7.3388. The gain is winner again :).
- Consider also using a finer mesh.
The results obtained with extremelly fine meshes:
Maximum directivity, dB: 7.3388
Maximum gain, dB: 7.4306
Maximum realized gain, dB: 7.3393.
Thank you.
Hi Robert,
>1. Well, it's *not much* bigger, is it? And the materials in your design have no losses.
Should I accept this situation as they are almost same but the small calculation errors causes this result. If so, I won't worry about it.
>2. I also suggest you compare the *realized* gain to the directivity.
I had done it. Realized gain = 7.3393, directivity = 7.3388. The gain is winner again :).
>3. Consider also using a finer mesh.
The results obtained with extremelly fine meshes:
Maximum directivity, dB: 7.3388
Maximum gain, dB: 7.4306
Maximum realized gain, dB: 7.3393.
Thank you.