7 ms·
OpenEMS: a free and open electromagnetic field solver
- aluhut 9y agoPage seems down from here (Germany).
- amingilani 9y agoHere too (Pakistan)
- msla 9y agoPage is down, but here's the Github repo: https://github.com/thliebig/openEMS-Project https://github.com/thliebig/openEMS-Project
- fosco 9y agogoogle cache : https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OSe8Ovb1jWEJ:openems.de/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OSe8Ov... Also : http://openems.de/start/index.php?show=home http://openems.de/start/index.php?show=home [connectivity worked initially, it appears the site is being 'HN'ed']
- thliebig 9y agoYes indeed it was. It is up again
- cr0sh 9y agoInteresting piece of software. Seems similar (though much more advanced), to a piece of DOS software I remember floating around various "overunity" forums I used to visit years ago (I have a secret fascination with such efforts; I know they can't succeed, but it is interesting to see the lengths and effort people go for to try), though I don't recall its name. This software would probably be very useful for designing motors and generators, and for the DIY crowd in those areas.
- madengr 9y agoMotors usually use static field solvers; i.e. E and H field are independent. This uses FTDT which is more for propagating waves in media.
- ianai 9y agoSo signal processing?
- noobermin 9y agoI'm not sure it's "signal processing" as much as it is the actual things that people would call "signals" in the first place.
- WJW 9y agoYes, though these days the term 'signal processing' is usually only used for operations on the signal in digital form, ie after sampling. Since this works for the propagation of the signal in analog form, it is more useful for doing calculations about propagation of signals in waveguides or in a TWT or something.
- petre 9y agoI used FEMM for motors, but it works for just about any magnetic, electric or heat field static analisys. http://www.femm.info http://www.femm.info
- auxym 9y agoWhen I was in grad school, I had quite a few colleagues using FEMM for various electromagnetic clutch designs, looks like it worked well.
- jonnycowboy 9y agoDid you go to Sherbrooke?
- th0ma5 9y agoUseful for antenna design, right?
- madengr 9y agoMaybe have to try this. Been using commercial EM tools for years. Really boils down to ease of use; model entry and results post-processing.
- mindviews 9y agoWhat's your take on model accuracy? I ask because my startup has developed a high-order accurate CEM solver (think MoM full-wave type solvers but every time you double the mesh density you get a 100x accuracy improvement thanks to a bunch of algorithmic breakthroughs). But we've also been putting in a lot of work to make CAD import fast and easy and it's not clear to me what's going to get people more interested - the technical performance of the solver or the usability of the GUI. I'd be interested in thoughts on that. Or anyone interested in getting hands-on, send me an email (see my profile).
- madengr 9y agoHave you tried stripline as a benchmark? It's analytic solution for infinite ground planes, so plotting error vs simulation time (mesh refinement) gives nice accuracy vs time curves. Jim Rautio did this for Sonnet a few years ago, and I then used it to benchmark several solvers. Really just to show that 2.5D solvers gives much better accuracy vs. simulation time than 3D, for planar problems. I use AWR (Axiem, Anaylst), CST, and Sonnet. I'm satisfied with accuracy; need more speed. It's at a point where material and manufacturing tolerances are more of an issue, so I need to run parameter sweeps, yield analysis, etc. So multi-threading, GPU acceleration, and distributed computing help that. Working on a thick patch antenna today. Axiem (2.5D infinite substrate) said 1.57 GHz. Analyst says 1.51 GHz. It actually measured 1.53 GHz. That's a 3% error on an 8% 12 dB RL bandwidth antenna. Those simulated results are after mesh convergence, so finer meshing won't help. So I use 2-3 solvers on a single problem. It's important that the geometry translation between them be quick and easy. That's where AWR comes into play; everything plugs into it. 3D solver (modeling) is horrible for pushing polygons during the design process. 2.5D solvers are awesome for this, but then you need to sometimes push the geometry to 3D solver.
- 9y ago
- gravypod 9y agoHow does this compare to NEC2?
- amelius 9y agoIt's informative to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the FDTD method on Wikipedia: [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-difference_time-domain_method#Strengths_of_FDTD_modeling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-difference_time-domain_...
- cozzyd 9y agoanyone have any experience on how it compares to meep (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep)? I've used meep for a few things but am not too entrenched that I can't switch...
- thliebig 9y agoIt uses the same method, but the focus of openEMS is more in RF devices while Meep is more focused on optics. One important difference is that openEMS supports graded (inhomogeneous) meshes. You need this since for RF devices some features are much much smaller than the wavelength, e.g. feeding lines, and you do not want (or need) a dense mesh everywhere in those cases. Furthermore openEMS has a small GUI to display the defined structure and mesh to inspect if your setup is ok.
- throwaway7645 9y agoIs that a common acronym for electromagnetic solvers? It can also deal with health and the power grid depending on context.
- nullc 9y agoHow does it compare to Meep?