Rigorous Coupled Wave Analisys - help

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the derivation of equations related to the Rigorous Coupled Wave Analysis (RCWA) for diffraction grating efficiencies, specifically from Soifer's book. The user seeks clarification on how to transition from equations 3.138 and 3.139 to 3.140 and 3.141, noting discrepancies in their own derivation. Additionally, there is confusion regarding the origin of equation 3.150 and the validity of assumption (3.127) in the context of modulation zones. The user emphasizes a desire for comprehension rather than simply seeking solutions, indicating a deep engagement with the material. Assistance is requested to resolve these specific mathematical concerns.
Krzysztow
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Recently I'm trying to understand some explanation of RCWA, which introduces to computational analysis of diffraction grating efficiences. For explanation I use Soifer book, but cannot understand or don't agree with it. I tried to understand the derivation, not to write it straightforward into Matlab but understand as well. And I found that my derivation doesn't agreefully with the book. Can You explain to me:
1) how one can get from the set of equations 3.138 & 3.139 to the set 3.140 & 3.141. I got something for 3.140 like in equation (*).
2) where did He get set 3.150 from? It seems as if assumption (**) or (3.127) is not valid anymore. However then He shouldn't write 3.152.
If assumption (3.127) is valid for modulation zone, then result for coefficients is given by (***)

Please, help me. It's not I want anyone to do my work. I just dwell for too long on it. Thank in advance!
 

Attachments

  • DSCN6430.JPG
    DSCN6430.JPG
    34.5 KB · Views: 472
  • DSCN6431.JPG
    DSCN6431.JPG
    26.5 KB · Views: 464
  • DSCN6432.JPG
    DSCN6432.JPG
    30.6 KB · Views: 494
Physics news on Phys.org
More attachements
 

Attachments

  • DSCN6433.JPG
    DSCN6433.JPG
    31 KB · Views: 444
  • DSCN6434.JPG
    DSCN6434.JPG
    30.7 KB · Views: 495
  • DSCN6435.JPG
    DSCN6435.JPG
    26.4 KB · Views: 449
7th, 8th and 9th pages
 

Attachments

  • DSCN6438.JPG
    DSCN6438.JPG
    30.8 KB · Views: 455
  • DSCN6437.JPG
    DSCN6437.JPG
    30.2 KB · Views: 458
  • DSCN6436.JPG
    DSCN6436.JPG
    32.8 KB · Views: 496
10th and 11th and (*)
 

Attachments

  • DSCN6439.JPG
    DSCN6439.JPG
    31 KB · Views: 459
  • DSCN6440.JPG
    DSCN6440.JPG
    33.3 KB · Views: 478
  • T.jpg
    T.jpg
    8.2 KB · Views: 417
(**) and (***)
 

Attachments

  • Assumption.jpg
    Assumption.jpg
    7.8 KB · Views: 422
  • Result.jpg
    Result.jpg
    4.6 KB · Views: 413
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top