Closed whedon closed 4 years ago
This looks great, much improved.
A couple more (I think maybe final!) questions on the article:
=
a typo for +
, or should it be =-v...
? Should these derivatives be partial derivatives? I think I must be missing something here.@TomGoffrey , I've made your proposed changes in 1-4
and provided a response to 5 in the thread for the Pull Request here https://github.com/joglekara/VlaPy/pull/45
@whedon generate pdf from branch origin/paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch origin/paper. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon generate pdf from branch origin/paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch origin/paper. Reticulating splines etc...
@TomGoffrey, equation set clarified and a bunch of other edits for clarity and precision. Thanks for this back and forth so far!
@TomGoffrey Looking forward to your thoughts on the most recent version in origin/paper
. Thanks!
@TomGoffrey @dpsanders looking forward to your thoughts on how to proceed here. Thanks!
@whedon generate pdf from branch origin/paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch origin/paper. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon generate pdf from branch origin/paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch origin/paper. Reticulating splines etc...
@TomGoffrey @dpsanders looking forward to your thoughts on how to proceed here. Thanks!
Based on that version I only have a couple of comments:
If you can check these points I'll give the manuscript a final read through over the weekend, but I think we're there.
@TomGoffrey thanks for the follow up!
Fixed! Thanks for catching this. (I've been working off of https://github.com/joglekara/VlaPy/pull/45 for the past month, and don't see your comment in there. Perhaps it was in a different PR that got merged, so my apologies.)
Ah, thanks for that too. You are very right here, and I got lost in making sure the pesky minus signs were consistent between the (tested) code and the (well-known) equations! I finally traced it back to the fact that the FFT/IFFT operation in NumPy is not symmetric.
@whedon generate pdf from branch origin/paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch origin/paper. Reticulating splines etc...
@TomGoffrey thanks for the follow up!
- Fixed! Thanks for catching this. (I've been working off of joglekara/VlaPy#45 for the past month, and don't see your comment in there. Perhaps it was in a different PR that got merged, so my apologies.)
- Ah, thanks for that too. You are very right here, and I got lost in making sure the pesky minus signs were consistent between the (tested) code and the (well-known) equations! I finally traced it back to the fact that the FFT/IFFT operation in NumPy is not symmetric.
@TomGoffrey , ^^. Many thanks for your suggestions and comments, as always.
Sorry, I'm still stuck on the sign issue. You appear to have changed both the sign of the electric field term and the wording of the normalisation. You're now stating (in the description of the normalisation) and e is the fundamental charge
- what exactly do you mean by fundamental charge
here? I'd read this as being the same as elementary charge
i.e. + 1.6e-19 C.
In summary combinations I think are correct:
where e is the charge of an electron ... $ ... + E df / dv$
or
where e is the elementary charge (1.6e-19 C) ... $ ... - E df / dv
Does that make sense, or have I confused myself?
Finally, are the axes on the field solver really 'arbitrary'. Naively I'd assume that x, or \tilde{x} would be more appropriate?
Hi @TomGoffrey , thanks for this, no reason to apologize! All part of the process in my opinion!
I think that we have to leave the positive sign in $ ... + E df / dv$
with the elementary charge = +1.6e-19.
(Changed to elementary because that is more accurate terminology). The reason is because we can't ignore the stationary ion background i.e. \nabla E = \rho_i + \rho_e
. My understanding is that the minus sign ends up going in front of rho_e
. Does this make sense and remain self-consistent?
As for the field solver, I left those axes as arbitrary as the test is simply recovering integrals of a periodic function over an arbitrary dimension, rather than specifically working with a spatial coordinate. Do you think it's more illustrative / less distracting if I change those to x
?
@joglekara I'm going to discuss the normalisation, in a belated effort to keep this thread clean.
@dpsanders Just to note, whilst I have finished my checklist I'd like to see this point clarified before signing off on it. Hope that's OK.
@whedon generate pdf from branch origin/paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch origin/paper. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon generate pdf from branch origin/paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch origin/paper. Reticulating splines etc...
PDF failed to compile for issue #2182 with the following error:
Error producing PDF. ! Package amsmath Error: \tilde allowed only in math mode.
See the amsmath package documentation for explanation.
Type H
l.396 ...a_D), (\tilde{m} = m / m_e), \tilde{q}
Looks like we failed to compile the PDF
@whedon generate pdf from branch origin/paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch origin/paper. Reticulating splines etc...
@dpsanders Is there anything specific I need to do to mark this review as complete?
@TomGoffrey No, thanks, that message is a perfectly good signal. Many thanks for your hard work on this!
@whedon generate pdf from branch origin/paper
Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch origin/paper. Reticulating splines etc...
π @joglekara: I added a couple of issues in the repo.
@dpsanders @TomGoffrey Both of your issues had to do with a small update that was necessary for the run file. It's in now.
@whedon generate pdf
Hi team, Happy Friday (I realize it's already the weekend in Europe...)
On my side, I gave the docs a good cleaning and updating earlier this week.
Any further thoughts on this one?
Hi @dpsanders , hope all is well.
I see that you're in the midst of a super cool class this fall so just wanted to help out with a friendly bump
here ;)
π @joglekara: Thanks for the bump (and the kind words). Apologies for the absence. I'll do a final check over.
@whedon generate pdf
Submitting author: @joglekara (Archis Joglekar) Repository: https://github.com/joglekara/VlaPy Version: v0.1.0 Editor: @dpsanders Reviewer: @TomGoffrey, @StanczakDominik Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4026770
Status
Status badge code:
Reviewers and authors:
Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)
Reviewer instructions & questions
@TomGoffrey & @StanczakDominik, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @dpsanders know.
β¨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks β¨
Review checklist for @TomGoffrey
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @StanczakDominik
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper