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

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#544 1 commento 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 3 giorni

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
5/5
Tempo stimato
Più di una settimana
Idoneità per principianti
35/100
Tipo di issue
Bug
Chiarezza
Abbastanza chiara
Stato di attività
Attiva
Stack tecnologico
julia
Ambito
data, testing

Direzione di ricerca

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.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

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

Lingua principale
Julia
Stelle
11
Fork
7
Merge medio
4g 1h
PR unite (30g)
68

Preparare l'ambiente

  • Nessun Dockerfile né file Docker Compose
  • Ha un modello di pull request
  • Nessuna guida per i contributori

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di OpenFUSIONToolkit/GPEC

Tutte le issue di OpenFUSIONToolkit/GPEC

Issue simili

Altre issue su Julia

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.