after the line sensor_extractor.Update() you can access the data using either: sensor_extractor["v"].Data.GetComponent(0) (if 1D data) sensor_extractor["v"].Data.Field(0) (if 3D data) these return the numpy array holding the raw data. Type dir(sensor_extractor["v"].Data) in the Console to get a list of available functions that can be useful for Data objects.

@Spuky Hi, the Workbench does not allow "dragging" input or output connections (yet). However, if you select an algorithm (which you can do in the Workbench), you can change its "Input Connection" in the "Properties" window: [image: 1568356305618-2019-09-13-08_30_15-_patch_mmwave.smash-sim4life.png]

Hi Sylvain, Thank you for your reply ! Indeed, it seems that one of my components was holding so much current at the end of the simulation. After I increased the number of periods, the results were more consistent. However, even before, the global convergence level was better than -25 dB. This is why I thought I could trust my results since the solver-log said that my results could be trusted in the frequency range of interest.

I seem to encounter a new problem with the simulation of this project. The goal is to have a 3 electrode model that emits RF radiation into a tumor. While the 2 electrode model works fine, meaning that both electrodes have E-field and SAR values, the 3 electrode model doesn't and I can't seem to find the problem. I tried to set it up exactly like the 2 electrode one, but it doesn't work. I get either 1 electrode working or 2 depending on the setup. Could you please have a look and maybe find the problem in my model? First 2 pictures are of the 2 electrode model (working) and the last 2 of the 3 electrode model in which only the Electrode-Insulator pair is working and gives SAR values. I know that the settings aren't the same, but even if I set it up exactly the same way as the 2 electrode model, the same problem appears. ![image: 1558340209112-screenshot_4.png] [image: 1558340209075-screenshot_3.png] [image: 1558340209038-screenshot_2.png] [image: 1558340208992-screenshot_1.png]

@montanaro , Ohh that is maybe a better solution to the current problem, awesome:)

Okay awesome, I think this will do the trick :)

Yes, deleting the line you mentioned has solved the problem. Thank you again for your help Sylvain.

@Sylvain Thank you, I think that has solved my problem

Thanks, Why the dimension of the axis are different and so how to reshape the SAR with different dimension of axis vectors ?

Actually the temperature rise is very lower than what is measured in the lab and I'm wondering what is the reason. I extract the max temperature at a point using a line passing through the point (I find lines of the intersection of the 3 slices xy-xz-yz at max). But the value is much smaller than the value which a point sensor gives and also the max value which the color scale bar shows. What is the reason?

The 10 g PsSAR can not be calculated as well. The density of Gel in the simulation is 1000 kg/m^3, the length of a cube with 10 g should be about 20 mm. what the max step value should be based on the cube length? I did the simulation with the max step 0.1 mm and it seems it should be able to calculate 10 g PsSSAR. But it still can not calculate it and gives the error.

Thanks for your reply.

Yeay. It worked. Great. Thank you so much for your patience :)

Can't you do the same procedure directly for the E_tan along the baseline, instead of doing it for the random splines?