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

Change primitive variable to log(f) #12

Open
mchandra opened this issue Jun 28, 2017 · 3 comments
Open

Change primitive variable to log(f) #12

mchandra opened this issue Jun 28, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@mchandra
Copy link
Contributor

#10 might be caused due to the distribution function f taking on negative values. One possible way to overcome this is to evolve log(f), which has no bounds instead of f, which is positive.

The equation for F(x, v, t) == log(f) has the same structure as f:
dF/dt = \partial F/\partial t + \partial F / \partial * dx/dt + \partial F / \partial v * dv/dt

where the characteristic dv/dt now depends on f == exp(F)

@shyams2
Copy link
Contributor

shyams2 commented Jun 30, 2017

It was found that in cases of non-zero charge the density/fields blow up to infinity. This was due to the KSP solver diverging.
Setting ksp.setTolerances(atol = 1e-5) seems to be resolve the issue.
ksp
However, as evident from this plot, it shows poor accuracy. This is the result for the same test-case when the FFT Poisson solver is used.
fft

@shyams2
Copy link
Contributor

shyams2 commented Jul 1, 2017

The initial conditions as mentioned in #10 were setup to evolve using the log(f) implementation. However, the problem of numerical explosion in the electric field/density still persists. This is plot obtained till t = 1.5 after which the solution blows up.
plot

@mchandra
Copy link
Contributor Author

mchandra commented Jul 1, 2017

  1. Please report the above in Numerical blowup in the bump-on-tail instability run #10. This issue deals with a more general issue of mapping onto log(f), with the hope that it helps in the resolution in Numerical blowup in the bump-on-tail instability run #10.
  2. The initial prognosis for the failure in Numerical blowup in the bump-on-tail instability run #10 was that the blowup is being caused by negative regions in phase space due to interpolation errors. By interpolating in log(f), that should no longer be an issue. Is that correct? Confirm that by plotting the phase space distribution in Numerical blowup in the bump-on-tail instability run #10
  3. If the simulation in Numerical blowup in the bump-on-tail instability run #10 still blows up, then there are other issues which we can discuss there.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants