### Abstract

Original language | English |
---|---|

Pages (from-to) | 937-938 |

Number of pages | 2 |

Journal | IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics |

Volume | 50 |

Issue number | 11 |

DOIs | |

Publication status | Published - Nov 2014 |

### Fingerprint

### Cite this

*IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics*,

*50*(11), 937-938. https://doi.org/10.1109/JQE.2014.2360580

**Erratum : A quasi-analytic modal expansion technique for modeling light emission from nanorod LEDs (IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics (2014) 50:9 (774-781)).** / O'Kane, S. E. J.; Sarma, J.; Allsopp, D. W. E.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

*IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics*, vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 937-938. https://doi.org/10.1109/JQE.2014.2360580

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Erratum

T2 - A quasi-analytic modal expansion technique for modeling light emission from nanorod LEDs (IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics (2014) 50:9 (774-781))

AU - O'Kane, S. E. J.

AU - Sarma, J.

AU - Allsopp, D. W. E.

PY - 2014/11

Y1 - 2014/11

N2 - In the above paper [1], there was a minor error in the implementation of the transfer matrix method used to calculate the complex reflection coefficient (r_{mathrm {-}}) of the nanorod/GaN/sapphire trilayer. The formulas provided by Hecht [2] use the convention, where the phase of the electromagnetic fields is assumed to vary as e (^{mathrm {i}(omega tmathrm {-}beta z)}) as opposed to the convention used in the rest of the work where the phase varies as e (^{mathrm {i}(beta z mathrm {-}omega t )}) . While this inconsistency has affected the results reported in [1, Figs. 5–9], the authors believe the conclusions drawn from these data are unchanged.

AB - In the above paper [1], there was a minor error in the implementation of the transfer matrix method used to calculate the complex reflection coefficient (r_{mathrm {-}}) of the nanorod/GaN/sapphire trilayer. The formulas provided by Hecht [2] use the convention, where the phase of the electromagnetic fields is assumed to vary as e (^{mathrm {i}(omega tmathrm {-}beta z)}) as opposed to the convention used in the rest of the work where the phase varies as e (^{mathrm {i}(beta z mathrm {-}omega t )}) . While this inconsistency has affected the results reported in [1, Figs. 5–9], the authors believe the conclusions drawn from these data are unchanged.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908101578&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JQE.2014.2360580

U2 - 10.1109/JQE.2014.2360580

DO - 10.1109/JQE.2014.2360580

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 937

EP - 938

JO - IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics

JF - IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics

SN - 0018-9197

IS - 11

ER -