|Message: Zero-strength field vs no field||Not Logged In (login)|
Click on the Forum title, e.g. on the "Forums by Category" page, to read a sequence of postings to the Forum and its threads all in one page. If you are only interested in one thread or the thread following a specific posting, click the thread or the posting, which takes you to a smaller page, which contains only the part you are interested in and may be easier to navigate.
Messages are "chained" if there are only replies at the first level, i.e. 1/1.html, 1/1/1.html etc. In case of "chained" messages the message number is replaced by the icon and there is no indentation.
Inline: Display the subject line only or also the text of the posting(s); for the choice "All" the "Outline" choices are switched off.
|1||0||1||no text / full text of posting|
|2||1||All||text for level 1 only / text for All postings|
Outline: Choose the depth of the posting thread, successive toggle controls provide increasing detail.
|1||2||1||2 levels / 1 level (original posting)|
|2||3||2||3 levels / 2 levels|
|3||3||All||3 levels / all levels (all postings)|
I'm measuring dose in a nontrivial geometry with an electric field. Overall, the field behaves well and gives me results that look physical. In particular, there is no difference between setting the field strength E to 0 and using E != 0 as long as E is small compared to the initial energy of my particles. However, if I remove the field completely, I see a small but statistically significant difference. That is, there is a difference between using a field with E = 0 and using no field at all. The discrepancy shows up in some of the more "hard to reach" parts of the geometry. Can any of the experts see a reason for this observation?