Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
That's an old version of Cantera. Can you try downloading the current version
(2.0.2) from this site and seeing if you still have the same problem?
Original comment by yarmond
on 9 Jul 2013 at 11:26
Thanks for the response. I am having the same problem... There is an error
that is time step sensitive as well. At larger time steps the error reproduced
in full below is returned.
Error using ctmethods
************************************************
Cantera Error!
************************************************
Procedure: CVodesIntegrator
Error: CVodes error encountered. Error code: -3
Error in reactornetmethods (line 6)
v = ctmethods(65, n, job, a);
Error in ReactorNet/advance (line 22)
reactornetmethods(8, reactornet_hndl(n), tout);
Error in reactor1JSHedit (line 49)
advance(network, t);
Thanks again!
Original comment by heyne...@gmail.com
on 10 Jul 2013 at 1:59
The problem here is that you have your Reactor at P=6e5 Pa connected to a
Reservoir at P=101325 Pa. As soon as the time integration starts, the wall
moves in response to the pressure difference, so the gas in your reactor
expands isentropically and the temperature drops to the value you're seeing.
This happens very fast because the "ExpansionRateCoeff" is set to such a large
value.
To fix the issue with the pressure: Set the state of reservoir gas "a" to the
same pressure as the Reactor before creating the Reservoir object.
One likely reason you're seeing integration errors is because the
ExpansionRateCoeff is too high and is introducing extremely short time scales
into the system. You should probably set it to something more like 1e3 or so.
You can examine the pressure variation after the fact to verify that it is
sufficiently small.
[The "reactor1.m" example should be updated to set the pressure of the
reservoir object explicitly, instead of using the default pressure from the
.cti file]
Original comment by yarmond
on 11 Jul 2013 at 1:16
Just ran it with your corrections! Looks great so far! Thanks and sorry for the
trouble.
Original comment by heyne...@gmail.com
on 11 Jul 2013 at 1:27
Original comment by yarmond
on 11 Jul 2013 at 2:51
The changes in r2476 should resolve this confusion.
Original comment by yarmond
on 16 Jul 2013 at 10:12
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
heyne...@gmail.com
on 9 Jul 2013 at 8:43Attachments: