Revisit example LightningSegmentedTransmissionLine

[AHaumer]

... i.e. excessive size of the simulation result.

1. The elements R[N+1], L[N+1], G[N] and C[N] are protected again, but voltages v[N] and currents i[N+1] are mirrored to to alias variables to be able to initialize and to track traveling waves along the line.
2. The output interval of the example has been relaxed to 1e-6,
3. The comparisonSignals,txt has been updated: It doesn't make sense to compare both current and voltage at the load resistor, but the voltage in the middle of the line is useful.

[AHaumer]

@beutlich Somehow I don't understand your result file sizes. Dymola 2024x on Windows 11: How does this compare to your 890.394.816 bytes (21 times my size)?

[beutlich]

Dymola regression testing uses stricter settings on solver tolerance and output interval:

// Experiment settings (standardized annotation)
StartTime=0
StopTime=0.025 // from model
Interval=5e-07 // used annotation from model, multiplied by 0.5
Tolerance=1e-07 // used annotation from model, multiplied by 0.1

// Experiment settings (tool specific)
// The following lines can be used as mos-script in Dymola
Advanced.PedanticModelica := false;
Evaluate := false;
OutputCPUtime := false;
translateModel("Modelica.Electrical.Analog.Examples.Lines.LightningSegmentedTransmissionLine");
Advanced.StoreProtectedVariables := true;
Advanced.EfficientMinorEvents := false;
Advanced.PlaceDymolaSourceFirst := 2;
experimentSetupOutput(
  textual=false,
  doublePrecision=true,
  states=true,
  derivatives=true,
  inputs=true,
  outputs=true,
  auxiliaries=true,
  equidistant=true,
  events=true,
  debug=false);
simulateModel(
  problem="Modelica.Electrical.Analog.Examples.Lines.LightningSegmentedTransmissionLine",
  startTime=0,
  stopTime=0.025,
  outputInterval=5e-07,
  method="Dassl",
  tolerance=1e-07,
  resultFile="LightningSegmentedTransmissionLine");

[HansOlsson]

• I noticed some changes of the diagram, I assume that is unintentional; can they be reverted?
• Apart from that I'm a bit unsure about the change for OLine as it makes variables protected, and it is not protected - that's not something we want in a non-Example.

[AHaumer]

@HansOlsson no the changes in the diagram are just shifting the "lightning" a little bit to the middle, looks better now. The components R[N+1], L[N+1], G[N] and C[N] in OLine have been protected previously. Then I "unprotected" them to be able to initialize the model properly. Now I protected them again to save size of the result, but introduced alias variables for initialization. What's the problem? We have an improved situation.

[HansOlsson]

@HansOlsson no the changes in the diagram are just shifting the "lightning" a little bit to the middle, looks better now. The components R[N+1], L[N+1], G[N] and C[N] in OLine have been protected previously. Then I "unprotected" them to be able to initialize the model properly. Now I protected them again to save size of the result, but introduced alias variables for initialization. What's the problem? We have an improved situation.

I was not aware of those details, but based on that it seems ok.