A Comparison of Two Methods for Solving Electromagnetic Field Integral Equation

<table>Solution for total current <svg height="13.6375" id="M81" style="vertical-align:-1.97925pt" version="1.1" viewbox="0 0 7.8874998 13.6375" width="7.8874998" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
<g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,.062,11.113)"><path d="M434 650l-5 -28q-60 -8 -75 -20.5t-25 -69.5l-71 -395q-20 -107 -57.5 -168t-106.5 -94q-40 -18 -61 -20l-10 32q77 23 113 108q21 50 41 160l68 377q10 57 -1.5 69.5t-76.5 20.5l6 28h261z" id="x1D43D"></path></g>
</svg>: correspondence between direct MoM solution and iterative CGM.</table>

International Journal of Differential Equations

fig3

Figure 3

Figure 3: A Comparison of Two Methods for Solving Electromagnetic Field Integral Equation 