Dear Sergei,

(1) I am not sufficiently into this to know where you can find suitable (presumably free) software in Russia. Maybe someone else  will respond. If not, get Eugeni to phone or e-mail Konstantin Nikiforov (who does a lot of simulation work) to see if he  (or one of his colleagues) knows. Professor Eletskii might be another source of advice.

(2) Make a realistic geometrical model of the experimental arrangements including the mounting structure and the counter-electrode, or a SUITABLE simplification of them

(3) Use a Laplace solver that either has a small intrinsic mesh size [but this not may not work), or one that has variable mesh size, so that you can model the small emitter apex at high resolution, and the apparatus as a whole at low resolution.

(4) If possible use a package that has automatic meshing that can be optimised manually.

(4) Avoid attempting to model the high-current situation, if you think that there is any possibility of effects due to field emitted vacuum space charge.

(5) For current-related "voltage loss" effects, you may have to carry out separate modelling, in order to find out what electrostatic-potential variation should be put on the boundaries of the Laplace solver. Things like cylinders should be easy (but see the problems that Cahay and co-authors discussed in the 2016 IVNC Proceedings, in connection with their multi-stage model), but more general shapes may need rather more effort.

If this is not helpful enough, please e-mail me directly.

Best wishes

Richard

Dear Sergei,

(1) I am not sufficiently into this to know where you can find suitable (presumably free) software in Russia. Maybe someone else  will respond. If not, get Eugeni to phone or e-mail Konstantin Nikiforov (who does a lot of simulation work) to see if he  (or one of his colleagues) knows. Professor Eletskii might be another source of advice.

(2) Make a realistic geometrical model of the experimental arrangements including the mounting structure and the counter-electrode, or a SUITABLE simplification of them

(3) Use a Laplace solver that either has a small intrinsic mesh size [but this not may not work), or one that has variable mesh size, so that you can model the small emitter apex at high resolution, and the apparatus as a whole at low resolution.

(4) If possible use a package that has automatic meshing that can be optimised manually.

(4) Avoid attempting to model the high-current situation, if you think that there is any possibility of effects due to field emitted vacuum space charge.

(5) For current-related "voltage loss" effects, you may have to carry out separate modelling, in order to find out what electrostatic-potential variation should be put on the boundaries of the Laplace solver. Things like cylinders should be easy (but see the problems that Cahay and co-authors discussed in the 2016 IVNC Proceedings, in connection with their multi-stage model), but more general shapes may need rather more effort.

If this is not helpful enough, please e-mail me directly.

Best wishes

Richard

Good answer of the best way to model (simulate) nanoobject in electrical field. Thanks @Forbes

Dear Fillipov,

You should pay attention to the physics/models that will be adopted in your simulation analysis. Market available software are dealing the nanoparticles as diluted species into the media with a charge on them. It is a fact that the surface of the nanoparticle acts as "electron trap".

You can contact Prof. S.M. Korobeynikov (and his team, Dr. Ushakov, Dr. Kuperstoch, Dr. Klimklin) from Novosibirsk State University. We have worked with this team in the past into simulation models in C++.

Regards,

Dr. G. Peppas