Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Easy modification of the refocusing time bounds #362

Closed
HKaras opened this issue Aug 8, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #368
Closed

Easy modification of the refocusing time bounds #362

HKaras opened this issue Aug 8, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #368
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@HKaras
Copy link
Member

HKaras commented Aug 8, 2022

When using chirped pulses it is often helpful to increase the bound for the refocusing time when importing an experiment model into dl.dipolarmodel. Currently this is set +-50ns however when using chirped pulses that are over 100ns long this can be an issue.

In my personal fork I have modified the dl.dipolarmodel function to take an additional parameter where the +- uncertainty can be adjusted. I think this should become standard.

@luisfabib
Copy link
Collaborator

luisfabib commented Aug 8, 2022

I agree, this should be an exposed options to the user.

A more intuitive way (for users) to implement this could be to add an optional keyword argument to the experiment model functions (e.g. ex_4pdeer) which allow them to specify the longest pulse length used in the experiment. From that value the program could automatically adjust the boundaries on the refocusing times, e.g. reftime +- 3*max(pulselength). So for example for standard 16ns rectangular pulses one would have reftime +- 48ns (similar to what is now hard-coded) and for shaped pulses of 100ns one would have reftime +- 300ns.

@luisfabib luisfabib added the enhancement New feature or request label Aug 8, 2022
@luisfabib luisfabib added this to the v0.15.0 milestone Aug 8, 2022
@HKaras
Copy link
Member Author

HKaras commented Aug 9, 2022

I agree, this would be a nice way to implement this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants