kitchenknif
Incorrect handling of lossy materials
@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
