Updated database, and removed DS_store

[MarkMagee]

Updated database with duplicates removed
Removed possible typo in gfall_latest. S I 3p4 3P g from 0 to 2

[wkerzendorf]

Looks great. We are now testing this and hopefully will merge this next week. The problem is we don't have an easy way to run several new spectra with this (if you have comparison plots - it would be great if you add them to the description of this PR)

[MarkMagee]

Here are some comparisons for models I've been working on. These are based on the Fink et al. 2014 deflagration models so are more appropriate for SNe Iax than SNe Ia. They are representative of the changes in the spectra. Test 1 and 2 show effectively no change, while Test 3 shows some minor differences.

Test1 is the N5def model at maximum light.
Test1.pdf

Test2 is the N5def model about 2 weeks after maximum.
Test2.pdf

Test3 is the N1def model a few days after explosion.
Test3.pdf

[wkerzendorf]

@MarkMagee thanks - that is really great!! (just FYI if you drag them in as PNG they appear directly) - your PDFs have the advantage of being higher resolution

[Heringer-Epson]

Thx @MarkMagee, @wkerzendorf and @ssim ! I tried using the .h5 file from #18 and it seems that some duplicates have been removed. Can someone double check whether the following C I lines are still duplicates?
level_number_lower level_number_upper line_id wavelength
40 184 6955 10722.078660
40 183 6954 10722.078660

Thx!

[wkerzendorf]

@Heringer-Epson can you have a quick look yourself what the level_ids are the same j and so on?

[Heringer-Epson]

@wkerzendorf
I think the j are the same, but note that I have little experience using this quantity. I'm extracting the information from

j = pd.read_hdf(fpath, '/simulation/plasma/j_blues').loc[6,0] and
print j.loc[40,183], j.loc[40,184] yields:

0 0.000051
1 0.000041
2 0.000033
3 0.000028
4 0.000024
5 0.000022
6 0.000019
7 0.000017
8 0.000016
9 0.000014
10 0.000013
11 0.000011
12 0.000011
13 0.000010
14 0.000009
15 0.000009
16 0.000008
17 0.000008
18 0.000007
19 0.000007
Name: (40, 183), dtype: float64

0 0.000051
1 0.000041
2 0.000033
3 0.000028
4 0.000024
5 0.000022
6 0.000019
7 0.000017
8 0.000016
9 0.000014
10 0.000013
11 0.000011
12 0.000011
13 0.000010
14 0.000009
15 0.000009
16 0.000008
17 0.000008
18 0.000007
19 0.000007
Name: (40, 184), dtype: float64

The line_id are 6955 and 6954. Is that what you are asking?

[ssim]

Those two lines do appear to be in the gfall file and they are indicated as being different transitions - one should be J = 1 -> J=2, the other J=1-> J=1. Is that what Tardis has too? It may just be that the J-splitting of the upper level is not taken into account in the energies. …this seems to be a rather highly excited pair of transitions?

…

On 17 Aug 2018, at 23:44, Epson-Heringer ***@***.***> wrote: @wkerzendorf <https://github.com/wkerzendorf> I think the j are the same, but note that I have little experience using this quantity. I'm extracting the information from j = pd.read_hdf(fpath, '/simulation/plasma/j_blues').loc[6,0] and print j.loc[40,183], j.loc[40,184] yields: 0 0.000051 1 0.000041 2 0.000033 3 0.000028 4 0.000024 5 0.000022 6 0.000019 7 0.000017 8 0.000016 9 0.000014 10 0.000013 11 0.000011 12 0.000011 13 0.000010 14 0.000009 15 0.000009 16 0.000008 17 0.000008 18 0.000007 19 0.000007 Name: (40, 183), dtype: float64 0 0.000051 1 0.000041 2 0.000033 3 0.000028 4 0.000024 5 0.000022 6 0.000019 7 0.000017 8 0.000016 9 0.000014 10 0.000013 11 0.000011 12 0.000011 13 0.000010 14 0.000009 15 0.000009 16 0.000008 17 0.000008 18 0.000007 19 0.000007 Name: (40, 184), dtype: float64 The line_id are 6955 and 6954. Is that what you are asking? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#18 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAwPLYItiTMYVsRZEsjadD_Nu9PnSjhrks5uRsjBgaJpZM4V4Pl9>.