[yt-dev] RAMSES Todo List

Sam Geen samgeen at astro.ox.ac.uk
Mon Dec 2 14:37:47 PST 2013


I noticed that an old version of Ramses I had didn't include mu, so I'm 
not sure when that crept in, but it's explicitly stated in the current 
amr/units.f90 file. Again, Romain may be able to help answer this 
authoritatively.

In any case, I can check the version you upload against my snapshots; in 
my latest test the pressure and temperature units didn't work* (although 
the images looked fine), so if you happen to fix that then great!

* http://i.imgur.com/mcGyuJD.png

On 02/12/13 23:28, Matthew Turk wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Sam Geen <samgeen at astro.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> I believe it's absolute metallicity (i.e. 0.02 = fiducial solar, 0.0 =
>> primordial). If you're paranoid, you could check with Romain; I'll open up
>> some outputs in the morning and confirm this.
>>
>> BTW, I didn't get a chance to hunt down the pressure/temperature units
>> problem today, but if you take a look then be aware that temperature in
>> Ramses is returned (in the version I have, anyway) as T/mu, i.e. you need to
>> multiply by the mean gas particle mass to get temperature in Kelvin.
>> Normally for a given hydrogen mass fraction this is just X + 4*Y + (?) Z (I
>> think! it's late here, so worth checking...), but for radiative transfer
>> runs you need to be a bit careful since you also have electrons - we can
>> look at this when the RT module output format is implemented, though.
> Ah, thank you.  That makes sense, and I'll apply these conversions for
> metallicity.
>
> For pressure, currently what we are doing is:
>
> def _Temperature(field, data):
>      rv = data["Pressure"]/data["Density"]
>      rv *= mass_hydrogen_cgs/boltzmann_constant_cgs
>      return rv
> add_field("Temperature", function=_Temperature, units=r"\rm{K}")
>
> So it looks like that will need to be updated.  I think this was set
> up on-demand from someone, and they compared it against their previous
> results, so I'm not sure where the discrepancy comes in.
>
> -Matt
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Sam
>>
>>
>> On 02/12/13 22:02, Matthew Turk wrote:
>>> Hi Sam,
>>>
>>> What're the metallicity units for RAMSES?  Nathan and I are updating
>>> for the yt-3.0 unit refactor and we're trying to get the RAMSES
>>> conversion done today.
>>>
>>> -Matt
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Sam Geen <samgeen at astro.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I intend to try to fiddle with the RAMSES frontend when I have time/need,
>>>> and thought it would be good to collate a list of tasks that need to be
>>>> completed so we have a consensus on what needs to be fixed. Feel free to
>>>> suggest things or tell me that they're already implemented if I missed
>>>> them:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Add support for RT and ATON files, which are now part of the default
>>>> RAMSES (I assume from the code that the cooling and grav files are
>>>> already
>>>> read)
>>>> 2) Via 1), it might be nice to refactor the RAMSESDomainFile class a bit
>>>> to
>>>> provide a more generic Ramses file reading routine/class, since the
>>>> formats
>>>> of the files are fairly similar and in doing 1) we might get some
>>>> copy-paste
>>>> bloat.
>>>> 3) Allow for RAMSES runs that only contain AMR & particles (i.e. pure
>>>> N-body
>>>> runs with no hydro)
>>>> 4) Refactor the inputs to fit YT default field names (for MHD, RT and
>>>> ATON).
>>>> 5) Allow YT to interpret non-cosmological simulations in RAMSES, or if it
>>>> already does, remove the warning that says this.
>>>> 6) Romain Teyssier suggested allowing users to specify their own default
>>>> field names for user-modified versions of RAMSES. I don't know if YT
>>>> caches
>>>> data that would allow this, but I thought I'd punt the suggestion along.
>>>> Another option could be to allow users to expose the RAMSES namelist
>>>> files
>>>> to YT (i.e. the parameter files for starting up a run) - these contain a
>>>> lot
>>>> more information on the physics included, etc. I'd put this on a low
>>>> priority unless someone thinks of something clever that solves this
>>>> cleanly.
>>>> 7) It could be worthwhile to implement read-on-demand if it's not already
>>>> -
>>>> sometimes the users won't query the ATON/RT/hydro/particle file or
>>>> certain
>>>> fluid fields in each file and so we wouldn't need to read those files in
>>>> that case. This could be folded into 2).
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org




More information about the yt-dev mailing list