- removed comment
RotatingSymmetry90 as applied to pseudo vectors fail
Hi,
doing some tests today with RotatingSymmetry90 today I noticed the symmetry conditions were not applied correctly for Bvec as defined by hydrobase:
CCTK_REAL Bvec[3] type = GF Timelevels = 3 tags='ProlongationParameter="HydroBase::prolongation_type" tensortypealias="U" tensorparity=-1 interpolator="matter"' "Magnetic field components B^i"
The parity settings used to work until recently. Does anyone know what could be causing this problem?
Keyword: RotatingSymmetry90
Comments (13)
-
-
reporter - removed comment
No, this is not what I observe. Indeed it seems to happen to all kind of vectors across this kind of symmetry. It turned out that I was looking at bvec at the time. So the problem may arise when applying symmetry boundaries for vectors (tensors too?).
I have attached two figures. One is the Bvec[1] component of B field showing the issue I am facing with the symmetry boundary for this field. The second one, added for the sake of comparison, is the density rho; its symmetry boundary condition is applied correctly.
-
reporter - removed comment
Ok, I can't attach the figures (400Kb each). It is complaining about the figure size. Here it is a link directly to them:
http://ccrg.rit.edu/~mundim/Bvec1_z=1_0.jpg http://ccrg.rit.edu/~mundim/rho_z=1_0.jpg
-
- removed comment
Would you mind also posting an image of Bvec0_z=1_0.jpg, please (or the paremeter file used), please? If I understand RotatingSymmetry correctly then its symmetry operation is:
B_x' = -B_y B_y' = +B_x so just looking at Bvec1 is not sufficient.
-
reporter - removed comment
Here it is:
http://ccrg.rit.edu/~mundim/Bvec0_z=1_0.jpg
I agree with your definition. The problem is that it doesn't look smooth on the figures at all.
-
reporter - removed comment
Actually,
I think it should be:
B_x' = -B_y B_y' = -B_x
-
- removed comment
Can you provide a parameter file?
-
- removed comment
Bruno: is this still an issue?
-
- removed comment
Bruno?
-
reporter - removed comment
Apparently this is an issue with the GRMHD equations. I will run this test again soon and report back asap. Thanks, Bruno.
-
reporter - removed comment
It is fixed now.
-
reporter - removed comment
- changed status to resolved
-
- edited description
- changed status to closed
- Log in to comment
Hmm, RotatingSymmetry90 does not even look at `tensorparity`, which is probably ok since under a rotation both polar and axial vectors transform the same way. Is that not what you observe?