Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

split up silas issues #5993

Closed
moellep opened this issue Jun 20, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed

split up silas issues #5993

moellep opened this issue Jun 20, 2023 · 1 comment
Assignees

Comments

@moellep
Copy link
Member

moellep commented Jun 20, 2023

A list of silas issues which should be split into new items, grouping where possible:

Overall

  • After the user has saved a change to the input, before the simulation button is pushed, plots should be grayed out or something, so that the user knows they are not up to date

Laser tab

  • remove the “from file” option for now
  • Change default num slice to >3, maybe 5
  • Add longitudinal representation of wavelength and frequency
  • Polarization: might be better to just say “linear” until later, maybe not even say anything at all if only one option choice (linear vertical vs linear horizontal would only matter if we had the crystal alignment information)
  • For current tau_fwhm, and soon-to-be-added tau_0, default to picoseconds for both
  • Change how we initialize from function? Place all slices at the same z?
    • Then on plots need to indicate the time of the slice relative to t_0, something like +-40ps
  • Clarify “number of gaussian sigma” to be in units of w, like +- # w (w=2*sigma)
  • Instead of “RMS waist size”, people use “Beam Size w”
  • Instead of sigma say rms or longitudinal standard deviations (or eliminate this option, set to ~6, require the last slice to be < 10% of peak, or could make +-2 or 3 FWHM_chirp)
  • Number of mesh points “in slice” is confusing

Laser reports

  • We would like the usual control over the plot limits
  • Why does the phase unwrapping look strange sometimes? (Maybe KW needs to play with the beta)

Thermal Transport tab

  • Crystal choice:
    • A crystal initialized on the Amplifier Tab
      • don’t let the user play with the pre-defined parameters like diameter (or if you do, the changes are reflected on the Amplifier Tab)
    • A crystal initialized on the thermal transport tab
      • All parameters adjustable
  • Clarify display:
    • Include the repetition rate and energy of the pump laser, as well as whether the crystal is pumped from left or right or both
    • Parameters below the equation need descriptions, update notations to:
      • T_0 notation is fine
      • δT notation is fine
      • ξ should be “w_p”
      • Add z_0 (half-length of crystal [cm])
      • Add alpha (inverse absorption length [1/cm])
    • Equation display clean up (current equation isn’t correct):
      • When selecting a different pump pulse profile (gaussian, higher order gaussian, top hat), the display should update what equation is shown
        • "gaussian": T = T_0 + dT * exp(-2*(x^2+y^2)/(wp^2)) * exp(-alpha * (z - z0))
        • "higher order gaussian" : T = T_0 + dT * exp(-((x^2+y^2)/(2*wp^2))^P) * exp(-alpha * (z - z0))
        • "top hat": If x^2+y^2 <= w_p, then T = T_0 + dT * alpha * exp(-alpha * (z - z0))/(1 - exp(2 * alpha * z0)); If x^2+y^2 > w_p, then T = T_0
  • Allow for choice between analytical calculation (known solution) or differential solve (FEniCS)

Crystals

  • n0 and n2, would like a FEniCS option and an Innocenzi option, if keep the boxes, need to label them with either position in crystal or corresponding crystal slice

Amplifier tab

  • Mirror: confusing currently
    • Clarify why it is there (to pass through the crystal from the other side)
    • Two cases:
      • No symmetry inversion (single flat mirror)
      • Flipped symmetry (two 45 degree mirrors called “folding mirror pair”)
@gurhar1133
Copy link
Contributor

K, I think I split up and grouped in a way that should make sense
See: #6002 #6003 #6004 #6005 #6007 #6008 #6009 #6010 #6011 #6012

@moellep moellep closed this as completed Aug 15, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants