Gray vs multigroup #5
Conversation
|
@brryan - sorry to lose track of this - are there any significant further updates pending? |
|
@brryan - if you are still catching updates here, is this ready to merge? |
Hey @RyanWollaeger sorry for my delay, yes I think this is ready to merge (or at least I don't remember any outstanding issues). It's not really tested so it might be useful to add a test of actual working multigroup, like frequency-dependent bremss thermalization that shows the gas temperature undershoot the equilibrium at first. |
+ Cancel log and exponential where possible. + Add comment explaining nu formula is log-space group midpoint.
+ Fix the formatting using style/format.sh. + Use new AbsorptionCoefficient API for mean opacity. + Update some parts of the README.md file. Note: similar to MeanOpacity's Emissivity, AbsorptionCoefficient defaults to Rosseland-weighted grey opacity.
|
Looks like |
+ Remove division by frequency in source particle creation. + Update singularity-opac commit to correct mean opacity accesses. + Have regressions fail if mean errors are NaN.
|
@pdmullen - the most recent commit should get the existing tests to pass. Still need to add an actual multi-frequency test. |
Guess not - the passed for me locally, at least. |
Background
We want to have both gray and multigroup modes
One question is whether this should be a continuous energy or a multigroup representation.
Singularity-opacright now always accepts a continuous frequency argument; maybe this needs to be expanded upon with a multigroup integer index variant. Should multigroup support nonuniformly binned data?Description of Changes
jaybennepackage initialization into gray vs mg depending on which singularity variants are presentChecklist