Unification of OPAL-Cyc and OPAL-T
According to the OPAL round table meeting of today (i.e. 2. March 2017) we need to unify the OPAL flavors OPAL-T and OPAL-Cyc in the following points:
- units
- convention of vertical and longitudinal plane
- definition of particle distribution (i.e. different meaning of py)
- OPAL-Cyc allows single particle tracking but in OPAL-T minimum 10 particles are needed
The points are also listed in Valeria's wiki page at point OPAL-Cyc: RINGDEFINITION
Designs
Relates to
- #195OPAL 2.0.0
Activity
Yes and all this is regardless of OPAL-t or OPAL-cycl. However in the case of OPAL-cycl we write special files with cyclotron related information. I propose to set a lower limit on number of particles, that one can changed with an option. If the number of particles are smaller than the limit:
a) no stat (sdds) file is written b) no space charge is computed
for both OPAL-t & OPAL-cycl.
The h5 file is written but all components of the stat file is zero .
mentioned in issue #47 (closed)
I tried to run one of my input file without Monte Carlo with a single particle. I am using OPAL1.5.1
The first step reports the right energy
OPAL> OPAL> * ************** B U N C H ********************************************************* OPAL> * NP = 1 OPAL> * Qtot = 1.60000e-10 [nC] Qi = 1.60000e-10 [nC] OPAL> * Ekin = 1.85313e+02 [MeV] dEkin = 0.00000e+00 [MeV] OPAL> * rmax = ( 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 ) [m] OPAL> * rmin = ( 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 ) [m] OPAL> * rms beam size = ( 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 ) [m] OPAL> * rms momenta = ( 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 ) [beta gamma] OPAL> * mean position = ( 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 ) [m] OPAL> * mean momenta = ( 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 ) [beta gamma] OPAL> * rms emittance = ( 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 ) (not normalized) OPAL> * rms correlation = ( 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 ) OPAL> * hr = ( -1.00000e+00 , -1.00000e+00 , -1.00000e+00 ) [m] OPAL> * dh = 1.00000e-10 [%] OPAL> * t = 0.00000e+00 [s] dT = 1.00000e-12 [s] OPAL> * spos = 0.00000e+00 [m] OPAL> * ********************************************************************************** OPAL>but then I don't think OPAL is really tracking through the beamline.
ParallelTTracker > 21:06:46 Step 48999; only 1 particles emitted; t= 4.900e-08 [s] E= -nan [MeV] ParallelTTracker > 21:06:46 Step 49999; only 1 particles emitted; t= 5.000e-08 [s] E= -nan [MeV] OPAL > OPAL > * ************** B U N C H ********************************************************* OPAL > * NP = 1 OPAL > * Qtot = 1.60000e-10 [nC] Qi = 1.60000e-10 [nC] OPAL > * Ekin = -nan [MeV] dEkin = -nan [MeV] OPAL > * rmax = ( 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 ) [m] OPAL > * rmin = ( 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 , 0.00000e+00 ) [m] OPAL > * rms beam size = ( -nan , -nan , -nan ) [m] OPAL > * rms momenta = ( -nan , -nan , -nan ) [beta gamma] OPAL > * mean position = ( -nan , -nan , -nan ) [m] OPAL > * mean momenta = ( -nan , -nan , -nan ) [beta gamma] OPAL > * rms emittance = ( -nan , -nan , -nan ) (not normalized) OPAL > * rms correlation = ( -nan , -nan , -nan ) OPAL > * hr = ( -1.00000e+00 , -1.00000e+00 , -1.00000e+00 ) [m] OPAL > * dh = 1.00000e-10 [%] OPAL > * t = 5.00000e-08 [s] dT = 1.00000e-12 [s] OPAL > * spos = -nan [m] OPAL > * ********************************************************************************** OPAL >Could you please provide a working input file that I could run?
-
Concerning the writing of the H5, the idea was to not store it if the number of particle is smaller than 3 (#16 (closed)). In case of OPAL-Cyc, a text file (TrackOrbit.dat) is written and contains the particle coordinates in the global frame. In case of OPAL-T, we could maybe provide something similar. Are the particle coordinates anyway stored in the stat file?
@rizzoglio_v sorry, I was talking about version >1.6.
added Enhancement label
mentioned in issue #195 (closed)
mentioned in issue #227
marked this issue as related to #195 (closed)
mentioned in issue #307 (closed)
mentioned in issue #357
marked this issue as related to #357
mentioned in issue #378 (closed)
