[yt-dev] Particle Deposition fields and grid boundaries

[Nathan Goldbaum]

Sorry, forgot to mention that I needed to fix a bug to get that notebook to
work, pull request is here:
https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/pull-request/1242/generic-data-loading-fixes/diff

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Andrew Myers <atmyers2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> PS, this is on the current development tip, and I updated all the
> dependencies using yt update --all, which did give me a new ipython, but
> didn't eliminate the error in the notebook.
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Andrew Myers <atmyers2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> Just making all the CIC fields ValidateSpatial(1) doesn't quite work - it
>> looks like it kicks off an endless recursion, where in order to generate
>> ('deposit', 'io_cic'), you have to generate ('deposit', 'io_cic'), etc,
>> etc. I'll try to look into it some more.
>>
>> Nathan, thanks for that notebook - that will be very useful. I can't
>> quite get it to work, though
>> <http://nbviewer.ipython.org/gist/atmyers/f1e31ccbe18268bfb466>. Ever
>> see that before?
>>
>> -Andrew
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Andrew Myers <atmyers2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi Folks,
>>> >
>>> > I'm trying to understand how the particle deposition fields work for
>>> > grid-based codes. Specifically, how does yt handle particles that are
>>> close
>>> > to the grid boundaries, so that the CIC interpolation stencil involves
>>> cells
>>> > on grid(s) other than the one that contains the particle position?.
>>> Like,
>>> > say I did:
>>> >
>>> > import yt
>>> > ds = yt.load(fn)
>>> > g = ds.index.grids[0]
>>> > print g['deposit', 'all_cic']
>>> >
>>> > How does yt handle the fact that particles other than those living on
>>> "g"
>>> > can contribute to the total CIC density? Does it grab a layer of "ghost
>>> > particles" somehow? I can't seem to find where that happens.
>>> >
>>> > Sorry if I'm just missing something obvious here...
>>>
>>> It doesn't, and you're not.  This is something it should do, but does
>>> not currently.  If you're using a "smoothing" operation, it will, as
>>> then it handles non-local particles, but deposit operations don't do
>>> ghost zones.
>>>
>>> This is something we should fix, and that we probably could by simply
>>> making all the CIC fields ValidateSpatial(1).  Can you give that a
>>> shot?
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Andrew
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20141008/27704b2a/attachment.html>