Increase $MIN_GAP from 0.01 cm to 1e-5 cm #852
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ftessier
changed the title
ftessier
approved these changes
Jun 27, 2022
ftessier
force-pushed
the
change-min_airgap_between_CMs
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7d464d0 to
6c2f185
Compare
Set the minimum distance between component modules in BEAMnrc to 1e-5 cm (macro $MIN_GAP). Previously this minimum gap was set to 0.01 cm. Given that the code is normally used in double-precision nowadays, there is no point in leaving such a large value as the default. This change follows for looking into issue nrc-cnrc#773.
ftessier
force-pushed
the
change-min_airgap_between_CMs
branch
from
6c2f185 to
af997eb
Compare
rtownson
approved these changes
Jun 27, 2022
mainegra
approved these changes
Jun 30, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Defines min. airgap between CMs. Given that
we now use double precision, there seems to be no
point in introducing this potential inaccuracy.
In response to looking into issue #773.