Closed jonmaddock closed 5 months ago
In GitLab by @rkemp on Nov 19, 2018, 15:16
I suspect this is similar to the relationships used in e.g. the equilibrium codes used by Roberto Ambrosino to estimate coil sizes as a function of current (and field etc.).
I have never used it that I can recall. I assume from the name it covers the TF coil? It would be interesting to run a quick benchmark to see how it compares and how stable it is -- if it is (or can be made) roughly accurate for DEMO values and is much more stable than the more complex TF model it may be useful for e.g. uncertainty runs, where it could prevent stops resulting from the TF model becoming confused.
In GitLab by @mkovari on May 9, 2019, 16:15
mentioned in commit d85d36aadd72895ebe4049a792f51b18f9250b12
In GitLab by @jmorris-uk on May 31, 2019, 15:34
mentioned in commit c3002e3e52e057f296ae70476bbf8f07336d29d7
In GitLab by @jmorris-uk on Jul 17, 2019, 18:03
removed milestone
In GitLab by @mkovari on Nov 19, 2018, 14:30
Subroutine
sctfjalw
is described as follows.I don't think anyone knows what it does and I don't think we have ever used it. I propose we remove this subroutine. I will remove it unless I hear otherwise.
This superconducting model is only called when
tfc_model = 0
. However, this switch is defined as follows:@stuartmuldrew Someone apparently though that a simple stress model is run when the coil is resistive:
However, there doesn't seem to be any stress model attached.
I have commented out all code that uses 'tfc_model'.
Test suite run successfully.