search

mumax / 3

GPU-accelerated micromagnetic simulator
Other
447 stars 150 forks source link

About defregion #264

Open ray0903 opened 4 years ago

ray0903 commented 4 years ago

if i defregion like this : defregion(1,cuboid(5e-9,5e-9,1e-9).transl(0,0,0)) ,my simulation‘s result will be different with normal. But i think this code is right.

JeroenMulkers commented 4 years ago

What do you mean by 'normal'?

Can you give a minimal script which demonstrates the problem?

ray0903 commented 4 years ago

This is my script .

SetGridSize(500, 25, 1)
SetCellSize(2e-9,2e-9,1e-9) outputformat = OVF2_TEXT BFO1:= cuboid(1000e-9,50e-9,1e-9).transl(0,0,0)
setgeom(BFO1) defregion(1,cuboid(30e-9,50e-9,1e-9).transl(0,0,0))
Aex=1.3e-11 Msat=800e3 GammaLL =2.21e5; alpha=0 B_ext=vector(1.005,0,0)
relax() save(m)
B_ext.setregion(1,vector(1.005,0.5sin(2pi500e9(t-50e-12))/(2pi500e9*(t-50e-12)),0)) autosave(m, 1e-12) SetSolver(2) FixDt = 1e-12 run(5e-9)

My code is used to excite spin waves locally If I write this way, the data is wrong.But if I change the definition of region to x range, the result is correct. Like this "defregion(1,Xrange(-15e-9,15e-9)) The result of the two definitions should be the same in theory.

JeroenMulkers commented 4 years ago

Using the cuboid or the xrange should indeed give the same results here. However, in both cases, the dynamics of the magnetization seems to me to be insignificant. So I do not know what to look at to compare both cases. Can you explain why you believe using xrange yields correct results while using a cuboid yields wrong results? Which quantities do we need to investigate?

Side note: I've put multiplication operators in the definition of the excitation field because otherwise the script does not run. I might have done this incorrectly which could be the reason why I do not see any significant output. Please provide a working script.

ray0903 commented 4 years ago

Hello， I think that's a problem with my solver selection.And I recently had a problem about recompiling mumax3.3.10.

I've used a lot of methods, but I still can't solve it.So could you send me the latest version of mumax3.I really spent a lot of time about recompiling this. Thank you!

At 2020-06-30 16:44:18, "Jeroen Mulkers" notifications@github.com wrote:

Using the cuboid or the xrange should indeed give the same results here. However, in both cases, the dynamics of the magnetization seems to me to be insignificant. So I do not know what to look at to compare both cases. Can you explain why you believe using xrange yields correct results while using a cuboid yields wrong results? Which quantities do we need to investigate?

Side note: I've put multiplication operators in the definition of the excitation field because otherwise the script does not run. I might have done this incorrectly which could be the reason why I do not see any significant output. Please provide a working script.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.