Skip to content

Incorrect handling of lossy materials #1

@kitchenknif

Description

@kitchenknif

@MK8J
Let's move this over to the relevant project :)

BTW - The files did not get attached for some reason.
Pavel

Hey Mikhail,

Everything looks great. Thanks for the efforts!

On the scripts you have attached to the github, I think,
https://github.com/kitchenknif/PyTMM, might not properly take into account
the extinction coefficient. There is an implementation that does here
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/tmm.

Mattias

Hi Mattias,
Hmm.
I wasn't sure if the way I had implemented complex refractive indices in PyTMM was correct, but couldn't think of any quick way of checking... If you have an example that definitely shows incorrect behaviour, I would really appreciate it.

That being said,
https://github.com/kitchenknif/PyATMM
Should handle complex refractive indices correctly, and can also work with anisotropic (uniaxial) materials, but is a bit more complex.

Hey Pavel,

I wouldn't rule at user error yet . See below is my attempt at comparing 3
TMM implementations.

I compared a stack of a-Si [272 nm] and Si [infinite], optical constants
shown below. So layers without k, I got good agreement between all
models.
Zip below containing everything required.

i did simulations at 0 deg, so polarization doesn't matter.

pyTMM seems to do some where stuff, giving over 100% transmission.

Yeah I has a look at pyATMM, and put it in the to hard basket for now. I'm
only dealing with isotropic materials.

Mattias

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions