This is comparison of two test cases: mgdyn_harmonic_wire + mgdyn_harmonic_wire_impedanceBC2


Data from 3D wire model (mgdyn_harmonic_wire + f=1.0e6):

Variables in columns of matrix: ./s.dat
   1: boundary int: current density im e 3 over bc 3
   2: boundary int: current density re e 3 over bc 3
   3: boundary int mean: av re over bc 3
   4: boundary int mean: av im over bc 3
   5: res: eddy current power
   6: res: electromagnetic field energy

   1.644427986500E-002  -8.871722206343E-004   5.542000000000E-005  -3.541809650383E-027   4.903526786027E-008   4.557897127464E-013

Data from impedance boundary layer model

Variables in columns of matrix: ./g.dat
   1: boundary int mean: surface current re 3 over bc 1
   2: boundary int mean: surface current im 3 over bc 1
   3: res: eddy current power
   4: res: electromagnetic field energy
   5: res: surface current power

Three densities with Element Divisions 1(3) = 8, 16, 24

 -1.260831229184E-001   2.602915034071E+000   0.000000000000E+000   4.305105639634E-013   4.434467768597E-008
  ...


Power dissipation:
s(5)/g(5) = 1.106

Imaginary current (R=0.001):
s(1)/(2*pi*R*g(2)) = 1.005

Real current:
s(2)/(2*pi*R*g(1)) = 1.120


Conclusions:
1) The difference of the dominant (imaginary) part of current ~0.5%
2) Power dissipation difference ~10%
3) Results for meshes of different resolution should be recomputed





 
