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

Generalized thin combine function (don't merge) #827

Merged
merged 11 commits into from Oct 21, 2019

Conversation

tpersson
Copy link
Contributor

This is following Mate's approach but still gives strange results that needs to be checked in detail.

This is just to discuss so don't merge

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Sep 30, 2019

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.1%) to 54.853% when pulling 716fdd4 on tpersson:cf_generalized into f5bdf4e on MethodicalAcceleratorDesign:master.

@rdemaria
Copy link
Contributor

rdemaria commented Oct 4, 2019

What is the status? Can you reproduce the results of the previous implementation, available from Frank here:

http://frs.web.cern.ch/frs/Source/madX_SC/src/trrun.f90
http://frs.web.cern.ch/frs/Source/madX_SC/src/twiss.f90

@tpersson
Copy link
Contributor Author

tpersson commented Oct 6, 2019

Malte will make some test and make comparison with the previous implementation and thick elements.

@madcern madcern merged commit 6e6eb98 into MethodicalAcceleratorDesign:master Oct 21, 2019
@tpersson
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rdemaria I have compare the results and I get the same results (some small numerical differences) for an easy tracking and for the twiss I compare with the PS lattice. The numerical difference is not surprising considering it uses a different formalism.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants