[yt-dev] unitrefactor: enzo metal fields

[Matthew Turk]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> So I jumped ahead of this and created a metallicity unit and defined Zsun
> relative to that and it seems to work.  Maybe you're right that this will
> cause more trouble, but maybe I'll issue a PR to your fork with the open PR
> and you can check it out.

We'll let it shake out; I may just be alarmist.

>
> I put the metallicity field in yt/fields/fluid_fields.py.  Does that not
> seem like the correct place?

No, that should be fine.  We may eventually split fluid_fields.py up
into "astro" fields, but it's a good place at the moment.

>
> Britton
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bitton,
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I trying to add the metallicity field back to the enzo frontend and am
>> > wondering what field registry it would be appropriate to put it in.
>> > Anyone
>> > have any thoughts on this?
>>
>> So -- the way it's currently set up is that each frontend has a set of
>> fields defined like so:
>>
>>     known_other_fields = (
>>         ("Cooling_Time", ("code_time", ["cooling_time"], None)),
>>         ("HI_kph", ("1/code_time", [], None)),
>>         ("HeI_kph", ("1/code_time", [], None)),
>> ...
>>
>> (Note that in breaking with tradition, this includes a mutable in the
>> class definition.  I think it's okay.)
>>
>> The format of these tuples is:
>>
>> ("FieldNameOnDisk", ("units_on_disk", ["alias_to_this_yt_field",
>> "and_this_one"], "display_name_or_none")
>>
>> So what I think you would want is a generic metallicity field, and an
>> alias to that.  For now, I've been putting "generic yt field" names in
>> yt/frontends/stream/fields.py but I would eventually like to move them
>> elsewhere, so that there can be a collection of fields that yt knows
>> about and that people can utilize.  Right now this is a poor
>> reference.  RAMSES has a "Metallicity" field aliased as "metallicity"
>> presently, but no units.
>>
>> I'm glad this came up, since this is a design decision that hasn't
>> been reviewed or commented on.  Feedback?
>>
>> >
>> > Additionally, I noticed that the particle field metallicity_fraction
>> > currently has units of Zsun.  As far as I know, this is not correct.  I
>> > believe the field is actually unitless and would have to be divided by
>> > ~0.02
>> > to be in units of Zsun.  How can I set this up correctly to make it
>> > aware of
>> > these units?
>>
>> My understanding is that you can set the units to be "Zsun / 0.02" in that
>> case.
>>
>> >
>> > Should I make a "code_metallicity" unit?  This might actually be usable
>> > for
>> > the gas metallicity field as well.
>>
>> Potentially, but I'm not certain, as we may then step into the mess of
>> defining interoperability with other units.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>