Examples - BUGFIX - Re-tune the Solovev wall fixture and close out follow-ups from the surface-sampling review

Abierto
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#544 1 comentario 0 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Los mantenedores suelen responder en 3 días

Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.

Evaluación

Dificultad
5/5
Tiempo estimado
Más de una semana
Aptitud para principiantes
35/100
Tipo de issue
Error
Claridad
Bastante claro
Estado de actividad
Activo
Stack tecnológico
julia
Área
data, testing

Línea de trabajo

Read the Solovev example and its harness baselines, focusing on the [Wall] standoff_fraction and the stale et[1] deck comment. Compare the kinetic NTV response at the same applied field before and after #398 to assess the proposed resonant amplification; the issue names no test file or entry point. Done when the wall is retuned away from marginal, the Solovev baselines and comment are updated, and the open sampling and PENTRC review follow-ups are resolved.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

Follow-ups from @d-burg's review of #398 (sample every flux surface at the same straight-fieldline (SFL) angles). He marked these as fine to leave for after the merge.

1. The Solovev fixture is now a ~1000:1 cancellation

After #398, Solovev_ideal_example gives et[1] = 0.0109 against ep = −10.42 and ev = +10.43. Any later change that moves ep by 1e-4 relative moves et[1] by ~10 %, so solovev_n1 and the Solovev kinetic cases will amplify every future change.

  • Re-tune [Wall] standoff_fraction (currently 0.2415) so et[1] sits clearly away from marginal, then re-pin the Solovev harness baselines.
  • Fix the deck comment: it still says "with this wall, et[1] = +0.24 (barely stable)". That value came from the resampling noise #398 removed.
2. Is the ~2500× NTV torque move in solovev_kinetic_ntv resonant amplification?

Hypothesis from the review: sitting this close to marginal amplifies the plasma response by roughly (0.677 / 0.0107)² ≈ 4000. Comparing the response amplitude between develop and #398 at the same applied field would settle it. Re-tuning the wall (item 1) should shrink the effect.

3. Put the dense-output samples exactly on ψ = ψ₀

direct_fieldline_int's refinement callback saves pre-refinement states (save_positions=(true, false)). The dense interpolant is therefore offset by one step's refinement, and the SFL samples sit slightly off the surface, at tolerance level. Calling direct_refine on each sample would put them on the surface exactly. Not blocking: measured on Solovev, traced points lie within 1.4e-5 in ψ of the exact surfaces, which is the floor set by the ψ(R, Z) spline.

4. PENTRC-experienced review of #414's physics

#414 (near-axis kinetic validity suppression) is merged into #398. @ebursch asked for a look from someone with PENTRC experience, which is still open.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Lenguaje dominante
Julia
Estrellas
11
Forks
7
Merge medio
4 d 1 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.