Hi Robert,
OK. So it seems that for the above, you could use directly dw_laplace
and
dw_volume_dot terms, with material arguments equal to 2\pi r and 2\pi
k^2
r, respectively. Or just r, and put the known constants directly into the equations string.
Hmm.. OK. I'll try to wrap my head around that. ;-)
I will try to support you, don't worry.
Well... I've had some success here, I think!
here's the setup file 'es-test.py' which is trying to model a cylindrically symmetric electrostatic lens. The results compare favorably with a relaxation code with the same setup. Now of course I have a couple of issues that I hope you can help me with.
- In the relaxation version I have to impose the du/dr=0 boundary
condition at r=0 at each time step. I made no mention of that BC in the setup file, but the solution seems to respect it more or less automatically. I remember in the examples seeing mention of "zero flux" over the boundary. Is this just a consequence of leaving out the boundary integral in the weak formulation?
- I've developed a simple wxpython app that allows a user to specify
voltages on, and position/geometry of the lenses and then compute particle trajectories through the system. My relaxation algorithm is currently limited to a uniform rectangular mesh. Part of my motivation for pursuing sfepy is the possibility of using variable/arbitrary mesh density. However, to run this test I had to generate a mesh in gmsh and then hand-edit the output to get a .mesh file that was acceptable to sfepy. I'd like to increase the density of nodes around the corners of the conductors in the problem (especially around the needle where the particles are introduced). Any thoughts on dynamically building meshes in code to accomplish this?
Anyway.. thanks for the help! I think it's working pretty well after I finally groked how variable materials work in the setup file.
thanks for your help! -steve
