Wall loss example - Githubissues

uncscode / particula

a simple, fast, and powerful particle simulator

https://uncscode.github.io/particula

MIT License

5 stars 7 forks source link

Wall loss example #424

Closed Gorkowski closed 7 months ago

Gorkowski commented 7 months ago

Fixes #402

[x] adding rectangular beta0
[x] testing rectangular code
[x] example of different losses

Gorkowski commented 7 months ago

@ngmahfouz I wrote things out more explicitly in wlc, in this update too

I was going, to update wlc name too, but that might have side-effects that need to be fixed at that point from other dependencies.

github-actions[bot] commented 7 months ago

PR Preview Action v1.4.6 :---: :rocket: Deployed preview to https://uncscode.github.io/particula/pr-preview/pr-424/ on branch gh-pages at 2024-01-04 22:58 UTC

ngmahfouz commented 7 months ago

@Gorkowski do you want me to fix the initial mess here? I put the initial function as a placeholder and I left it half-baked. Let me look into it and rewrite the whole thing so that it is more flexible and generic and can be called from anywhere

ngmahfouz commented 7 months ago

I can also write a notebook with references and visualizations, etc.

Gorkowski commented 7 months ago

@ngmahfouz Here is my first cut of the chamber forward simulations. Look at the plots in the notebook to double-check the dynamics look right.

Also, some negative concentration values slip in at high concentrations of 1e5 and smaller particle sizes. This is due to the ODE taking too large of a step (i think). Ideas on fixing that would be good :) It's not a significant problem, but something that a novice person could find puzzling if they don't understand it.

ngmahfouz commented 7 months ago

@ngmahfouz Here is my first cut of the chamber forward simulations. Look at the plots in the notebook to double-check the dynamics look right.

Also, some negative concentration values slip in at high concentrations of 1e5 and smaller particle sizes. This is due to the ODE taking too large of a step (i think). Ideas on fixing that would be good :) It's not a significant problem, but something that a novice person could find puzzling if they don't understand it.

Will review tonight; we can set a a number limiter to ensure it never goes negative ;)

ngmahfouz commented 7 months ago

Not sure if you see this, but I would encourage you to enable it if you'd like; if a reviewer (me) approves the PR, then it will automatically merge!