{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017985611510791366, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.839160839160839, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the accuracy of MoM solutions for RCS and propagation computations

By investigating propagation problems for wind turbines, and more in particular near-field RCS computations, we have noticed that sometimes, even stabilized MoM solutions do not behave as expected. In this paper, we will give examples of some RCS computations in different scenarios. We found out that discrepancies in some RCS values are due to the choice of the meshing. Usually, standard meshers like gmsh only take into account one object. Unfortunately, to be accurate, all the positions of all objects have to be taken into account, to allow an accurate interaction between the objects. We will go deeper into the fundamentals of the relation between the accuracy and the mesh size and shape for some canonic problems of which the solution is exactly known.