Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Recently, Xiao et al. [Opt. Lett. 39, 574 (2014)] compared two sets of boundary conditions and the resulting transformation coefficients for an electromagnetic wave at a temporal boundary. They claimed to identify a correct set and to resolve the existing discrepancy in the literature. We point out that the boundary conditions discarded by Xiao et al. as incorrect have been used in the literature for rapidly growing plasma, for which the material model of Xiao et al. is not appropriate. We show that Xiao et al. misinterpreted the results from the literature by opposing two sets of boundary conditions that are related to different material models of the temporal boundary.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OL.39.006029 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!