PE - FEATURE - Port Fortran sing_spot / use_res_spot for the resonant jump radius (and try layer-width spots for kinetic cases)

Abierto
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#427 0 comentarios 0 reacciones 1 asignado Ver en GitHub

Los mantenedores suelen responder en 3 días

@matt-pharr ya está trabajando en esto.

Desde el 22/8/2026.

Evaluación

Este issue todavía no se ha evaluado.

Descripción

Problem

The PE singular-coupling jump is evaluated at ψ_s ± spot_psi with a hard-coded numerator (SingularCoupling.jl:378):

spot_psi = 5e-4 / (abs(nn) * abs(sing_surf.q1))

annotated "spot = 5e-4 matches Fortran default singfac_min". That annotation is wrong on both counts: the Fortran quantity is sing_spot, its own namelist knob (default 5e-4, gpec.f:123), unrelated to singfac_min. So the Julia port reproduces the Fortran default but drops the knob — and drops a second capability entirely.

What Fortran actually does

gpec.f:486-508 builds a per-surface sing_spots(ising) array:

  • default: sing_spots(ising) = sing_spot (5e-4);
  • with use_res_spot = .TRUE. (requires gal_flag): sing_spots(ising) = sing_resspot·(n·|q′|)·sfac^(−1/3) + sing_spot, i.e. the matching radius is set by the resistive resonant-layer width (the S^(−1/3) scaling from singtype(ising)%restype), floored at sing_spot.

Consumed as lpsi/rpsi = respsi ∓ spots(ising)/(nn·|q1|) (gpout.f:598-603, and the same in gpout_singfld:1658-1663). The netCDF output even ships them as sing_spots ("Sweet spots used for calculating resonant jump quantities").

Proposed work

  1. Baseline fidelity: expose sing_spot as a control ([PerturbedEquilibrium]), replace the literal, and fix the misleading annotation. Default 5e-4 keeps current behaviour bit-identical.
  2. Per-surface resistive spot: port the use_res_spot branch — matching radius from the resistive layer width per surface, floored at sing_spot. The ingredients exist on the Julia side (ForceFreeStates/Resist.jl, the Galerkin Δ′ path, the inner-layer solvers).
  3. New work — kinetic cases: try a resonant-layer-width-based spot for kinetic runs, where the relevant layer is not the resistive one. Motivation from issue #376 (handoff/issue376/RESULTS.md §36): on a DIII-D kinetic-calculated case, the resonant-layer surface term is ~20% of the total NTV torque and the PE-vs-NTV comparison agrees to 0.8% only once that layer window is excluded — so the choice of matching radius is not cosmetic there. Related: #375 (Riccati + kinetic) and #423 (torque cross-check).

Also worth noting: a matching-radius bias of exactly this kind was already found and fixed on the Riccati side (#412), which is precedent that the radius choice materially moves Δ′-family numbers.

Lenguaje dominante
Julia
Estrellas
11
Forks
7
Merge medio
3 d 11 h
PR fusionados (30 d)
68

Preparar el entorno

  • Sin Dockerfile ni archivo de Docker Compose
  • Tiene una plantilla de pull request
  • Sin guía de contribución

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de OpenFUSIONToolkit/GPEC

Todos los issues de OpenFUSIONToolkit/GPEC

Issues similares

Más issues de Julia

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.