Draft: inflow bc #358
Open
Draft: inflow bc #358
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
grid can change mid-run, so reference to it might become invalid
redoing inflow
not sure how that happened
JamesMcClung
force-pushed
the
wip/inflow-bc
branch
from
25ed89b to
3f693c5
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
At a certain point, I decided to start from scratch in
injector_boundary_inflow.hxxbecause I wanted a cleaner API for specifying how to sample particles thansetup_particles. (As a bonus, it also avoidsstd::function.)The result is a monolithic
InjectorBoundaryInflow::operator()(mprts, mflds)that injects particles and updates fields all at once. It's a combination of multiple inlinedInflow::inject_into_*methods andPushParticlesVb::push_mprts(). The only alternative seemed to be injecting particles, retrieving those particles via an accessor, reverse-calculating their trajectories, and then updating currents.It fails the integration test by violating the continuity and gauss checks. Part of that may be the incorrect boundary conditions—it currently uses reflecting instead of open BCs, since the latter segfaults—but I'm sure there are other problems, too.