{"id":360195,"date":"2024-04-03T06:57:21","date_gmt":"2024-04-03T06:57:21","guid":{"rendered":"\/forum\/?post_type=topic&p=360195"},"modified":"2024-04-03T06:57:21","modified_gmt":"2024-04-03T06:57:21","slug":"doubts-in-finding-the-q-factor-of-the-meta-atom","status":"closed","type":"topic","link":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/forums\/topic\/doubts-in-finding-the-q-factor-of-the-meta-atom\/","title":{"rendered":"Doubts in finding the Q-factor of the meta atom"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

I am attempting to replicate the findings of the study by Hail, C.U., Foley, M., Sokhoyan, R. et al., titled “High quality factor metasurfaces for two-dimensional wavefront manipulation,” published in Nat Commun 14, 8476 (2023). I have conducted simulations on the transmission and reflection properties of the meta-atom, and the results somewhat aligns with those reported in the article. Both sets of results, from the article and my own simulations, have been included as attachments. Now, I aim to measure the quality factor of the transmission curve. To achieve this, I utilized a low Q-analysis group from the object library. After adjusting the position of the time monitor, I executed the analysis group. However, the Q-Factor obtained is significantly larger compared to the Q-Factor presented in the article. Q-Factor, from article is 290 whereas after running the analysis group, I am getting, Additionally, I will attach screenshots of the results after running the analysis group. (I get resonant dip at 1281nm as per Figure 2 but the low-Q Analysis group shows resonance at 1691nm and the Q factor is very large)\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\" Act\"\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-360195","topic","type-topic","status-closed","hentry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t