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

Calculate vacuum magnetic fields from general static current distributions #99

Closed
namurphy opened this issue Sep 8, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed
Labels
effort: very high Requiring ≳2 weeks. Can this be split up into multiple smaller/focused issues? feature request Issues requesting a new feature or enhancement priority: low Issues & PRs of low urgency and importance that may be deferred until later wish list 🌠 Desired but not planned features or improvements
Milestone

Comments

@namurphy
Copy link
Member

namurphy commented Sep 8, 2017

The Biot-Savart law describes the magnetic field resulting from currents throughout a volume. It will eventually be useful for PlasmaPy to have a Biot-Savart law solver that is able to calculate the magnetostatic field associated with one or more current carrying wires or the current density throughout the volume. Potential applications would be the coils that generate pre-existing magnetic fields prior to discharges in laboratory plasma devices. There will probably need to be capabilities for both boundary conditions at infinity as well as conductor boundary conditions.

It would probably be helpful to look for existing general Biot-Savart law solvers in Python or other languages as well as numerical methods described in the literature (perhaps in Principals of Magnetostatics by Richard Fernow).

I'm not sure where the best place to put this would be...perhaps a file named either biotsavart.py or magnetostatics.py in the physics subpackage?

A (probably unrealistic!) stretch goal would be to have a way to analytically solve the Biot-Savart law integral using SymPy when the currents are given by analytic expressions.

Thank you!

@namurphy namurphy added effort: high Requiring perhaps ∼1–2 weeks. Can this be split up into multiple smaller/focused issues? Enhancement feature request Issues requesting a new feature or enhancement wish list 🌠 Desired but not planned features or improvements labels Sep 8, 2017
@namurphy namurphy added this to the Future milestone Sep 8, 2017
@namurphy namurphy added the priority: low Issues & PRs of low urgency and importance that may be deferred until later label Sep 8, 2017
@namurphy namurphy added effort: very high Requiring ≳2 weeks. Can this be split up into multiple smaller/focused issues? and removed effort: high Requiring perhaps ∼1–2 weeks. Can this be split up into multiple smaller/focused issues? labels Sep 19, 2017
@StanczakDominik
Copy link
Member

Actually, you know what I just remembered? Deep down in my list of repositories I have a script that, while pretty crude and brutish, does this very thing. I'll work on adapting it!

@namurphy
Copy link
Member Author

Closed since we have plasmapy.formulary.magnetostatics, including (I think) GeneralWire. See also #1688.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
effort: very high Requiring ≳2 weeks. Can this be split up into multiple smaller/focused issues? feature request Issues requesting a new feature or enhancement priority: low Issues & PRs of low urgency and importance that may be deferred until later wish list 🌠 Desired but not planned features or improvements
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants