Miles Mathis' Charge Field
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Possible Charged Particle Field

4 posters

Page 6 of 15 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10 ... 15  Next

Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:37 pm

This is why it is a good idea to do a Fetch before you commit. That will show you what is on the GIT server but won't actually Pull them down. Then you can decide if you want to pull them down or not (but you usually should, I can't think of any reason not too, but there might be one).
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:49 pm

.
No Joy.
Requesting a pull from your line, with the 'Rebase instead of merge' checkbox checked, I received the following error.
Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 7sepst13
The graph is unchanged.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:28 pm

You may need to Abort the Rebase before you do anything else. Go to the Action menu and near the bottom there is an item to Abort rebase, if that is enabled (not grayed out) then select it and let it do its thing. This should put you back to where you were before that pull and rebase.

The error has occurred because you still have changes that are not committed. Either commit them (but don't push) or stash them (this removes them from the files but you can add them back when you want to). Then try to pull and rebase again.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:43 pm

.
'Abort the Rebase' is greyed out, and not a option.

I haven't made any additional changes that I'm aware of. The uncommitted changes at the top seem to refer to your octahedron changes, not mine.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:58 pm

Nah, it definitely refers to your changes. Click on the Unsaved changes item in the graph to see if there are any. If so, then stash them (or deal with them however you want) and try the Pull and rebase again.

If all else fails, you can always clone from GIT again.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:01 pm

.
Thanks again Nevyn, I re-cloned, committed and pushed my changes. I must learn to do a better job with Git, I'll try a few tutorials.  

Jared, Sorry to step on your post and cause a ruckus.  
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:10 pm

Cool. That is often the easiest way to get out of a bind.

I just wanted to mention that I don't want you to feel obligated to work on this app. You can take a break any time you want. Sometimes I just don't feel like working on my apps, so I don't. If I feel like watching a movie, but know that I should be fixing some bug, then I'll just watch a movie and maybe get to that bug afterwords, or maybe not at all. I might not get back to it for a week or more, sometimes months. We don't have any deadlines or any pressure that we don't put on ourselves. I certainly don't want to put any pressure on anyone. If you have the desire to work on it, then go ahead, but if you don't, then don't force it. We'll get it done eventually. No rush.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:48 pm

.
Aside from a few small embarrassments like today, everything's great, thank you very much. Knowing one can re-clone is a real relief, but it's also a pretty crude tool to rely on.

This project is perfect, something I've always wanted. I intend to devote a great deal of time to it in the future - but you're the boss. I'm extremely happy to be working with you, but at present I'm a bit of a burden, a cross between Sancho Panza and the Sorcerer's apprentice (Mickey Mouse). Eventually I'll get out of the learning mode and make some real contributions.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:30 pm

Found a bug in the charge force calculations that caused some serious issues. Nothing has been working very well since the start and I was dismissing it as equatorial interactions when an attracted particle got close. Turns out it was just crappy math.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:15 pm

.
Correcting bad math is good progress. Can't wait to see it.

I received a new Windows 10 update last night and nothing is working well. I was ready to commit my own changes (I'm still on the icosa but I'd like to cover all the configurations before playing with gravity), checked BitBucket and found you had changed -1 back to 1. I committed my changes without a push. I tried Fetching and Pulling for minutes on end with no outcome. Ok, something new, I'm receiving an atlassian log-in request every minute I'm in Scourcetree, I may need to go back to them for another bug fix.

Now I'm taking a break.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Sun Sep 09, 2018 4:27 am

I have added the ability to stop a Particle from moving and/or spinning. This allows you to remove one of them to focus on the other. You can set it on a per particle basis. There are some new scenarios that make use of it by stopping the neutrons from moving so that we can see the spin effects from the charge emission of a proton.

It sounds like you need to reset your credentials in SourceTree. Goto the Tool menu, select Options and then click on the Authentication tab. From there you can edit your account or remove some saved passwords. If you edit the account don't change anything except for the password. The rest has been working so it should not need to be changed.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:27 pm

.
The Good/Bad Status Update.

Good Status. Thanks. My SourceTree (Bitbucket) is working again. I checked the SourceTree Authentication tab - it was empty. There were no Bitbucket credentials in my Windows Credential Manager either (a previous problem). I cleared the desktop of everything except SourceTree, did a Fetch, caught and replied to the first Atlassian log-in request. I think I’m back to normal.

Bad Status. We have a conflict. My next step would be to pull your changes – carefully unselecting the ‘commit merged changes immediately’ option, followed by a Push. I haven’t tried it yet, because I don’t think it would be pretty. I noticed your latest change is adding the new Scenario group Unmoveable, beginning at line 356 in Test.html. In my commit I’ve added the function drawIcosaSurface at the same location. If I Pull your changes now, then I will need to resolve the conflict. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that involves a Source Tree resolution tool, something new. Or I can re-clone again, and Commit my changes to Test.html when Unmoveable is already in Test, with no conflict.  

Thanks for your continued attention and patience. I’ll await your direction.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:25 am

A merge conflict can be difficult to fix. It can be very easy too, and it should be in this case, but it will be made difficult because I can't see anything.

What you need is an application that shows you the differences between 2 files and allows you to select what you want to merge. The one I use at work is a professional product and so it costs money. There are free ones available though. I have asked around the office and you can try to use one called KDiff3 (http://kdiff3.sourceforge.net/). You have to tell SourceTree to use it. Open the Action menu, select Options and go to the Diff tab. On there you will see the lower section called 'External Diff / Merge'. On that part, there is an option to select an 'External Diff Tool'. Drop that down and select KDiff3. I'm not sure what else you will need to do. Maybe tell it where the executable is or it might be able to figure that out on its own.

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Merge-10


Once that is done, you can right-click on files that have a merge conflict and hover over 'Resolve Conflicts' and then select 'Launch External Merge Tool'. This will open up KDiff3 with the 2 files.

KDiff3 will present you with 3 panes. The right and left panes will contain the 2 files (which one is which I don't know, you should be able to figure that out by looking at the content of them as one will contain my changes and one will contain yours). The center pane is where you merge things together. You can select the sections that are different in the 2 files and move them into the center version. In this case, you want both of our changes. Once you have the center file looking correct, save it and close KDiff3. Then SourceTree will pick up the changes and you should be able to continue with the merge (Action menu). If not, you might need to select the file, right-click, hover over 'Resolve Conflict' and then select 'Mark Resolved'. Then continue with the merge.

Alternatively, you could create a new branch and commit your stuff to that and then create a Pull Request so that I can merge them together. I think you can only create a Pull Request from the BitBucket website. If you can't see where to do that, then just let me know and I will merge them without it. A Pull Request is just a formal way of asking someone to merge your work. Since it is just the 2 of us, we can forego the formality.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:21 am

I think I have misunderstood. I thought you had pulled my changes, but on a re-read of your post above, it doesn't seem like you have. In that case, this isn't really a problem. You should be able to Pull with the rebase option checked (if your changes have been committed but not pushed). Don't worry about line numbers. The apps work all that out by comparing content, not lines. It should be able to figure out how to put those 2 together because we have not changed the same section of that file. In fact, we have added new content rather than change existing code. Things get difficult when we both change the same thing. Then you, or I, have to decide which one to keep or which parts of each to keep.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:46 pm

.
Alternatively, you could create a new branch and commit your stuff to that and then create a Pull Request so that I can merge them together…
What can I say? if there’s a way to screw something up, I will. Starting with the fact that I missed your most recent excellent direction, 'pull with a rebase'.

Insead, I put myself on the commit and made it into a branch, origin/featureIcosaSurface. I went to Bitbucket and made a pull request for the branch - I hope it went to you. I went back to sourcetree and tried to reposition myself at origin/master at the top and found I was merging my new "branch" and your subsequent work. Luckily, just this morning I had downloaded and viewed a couple of kdiff3 tutorials. You'll be happy to hear I was able to resolve the conflicts, as you said, our work was separate content. Unfortunately, no joy; Pulls and Pushes resulted in errors. Now I’m a push and 6 pulls behind, realizing that the feature is now the master. My head is lost somewhere.

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 10seps10
The status looks grim. I think I need a detailed map with instructions on how to get out.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:13 pm

.
Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 10seps11
If it's any help, here are the staged files. I understand that I would delete the orig file.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:24 pm

I can't see why you have 1 push. The branch starts from the 'Corrected phi calculation' commit, which I pulled a few days ago. All commits on the blue branch (master) are mine and make up the 6 pulls. I can't see anything for you to push. I am a bit concerned about the top red commit, which has a tag for master on it. I guess that is the 1 push, but that should be on a new branch (which the other 2 tags show). I got 2 emails this morning: one for a commit and another for a pull request. I'll have a look tonight and see if I can merge them together.

By the way, you forgot to add a / to the branch name in between 'feature' and 'icosahedraSurface' so it became one word. No big deal. I will try to merge these branches such that that branch will disappear (unlike how I merged my previous branch which kept it as part of the history). It doesn't matter either way, but this is more of an accidental branch rather than a separate piece of work.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Tue Sep 11, 2018 1:58 am

I have fixed up that merge conflict and put your changes on to master. Everything seems to be working, but check your stuff in case I missed something.

KDiff3 was a bit different to what I am used to. I might try another one if I need a merge tool again.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:03 pm

.
Current status. Hallelujah. Thank you Nevyn. Given my previous standing of one Push, 6 Pulls, and two uncommitted files (the products of my kdiff3 conflict resolution) – I re-cloned. One small problem (?), it appears the origin/featureIcosahedraSurface is the current main branch.

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 11seps10
Should I try to delete the branch - featureIcosahedraSurface branch; or leave it alone?

////\\\\\/////\\\\\/////\\\\\////\\\\\/////

There was mention of a charge interaction math correction. I delayed posting until I had something better to discuss, happy to review the scenarios.

There are significant changes visible in LatticeBodies 02, 04, and 05. I described the 3 vertical neutron proton pairs on the left edge of lattice 04 recently. The neutrons above those protons are given initial spins but not an initial velocity. Now, as before, the neutrons begin to approach the protons’ north poles in a downward z direction. There’s no change in the neutron’s x, y, and z spin reversal errors: single changes, or bouncing between spin angles while the neutrons descend. Something new, the protons’ emissions do not stop the neutrons from colliding into the protons. Half the lattice’s particles exit, stage down. Lattice 05 also blows out the bottom. Lattice 02 now makes a more vertical blast pattern.
 
Unmoveables. You create particle arrays so neatly, in three lines given initSpinTest - more to study. I see that you didn’t add the Unmoveables to the default list //initFct = Scenarios, was that intentional?

Unmoveable 01. A proton at (0,0,0) and unmoveable neutron at (5,0,0). I saw no neutron motion.

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Unmove10
Unmoveable 02. After having looked at the three unmoveable scenarios: arrange about Y, Z, and X; this scenario makes better sense, it's shown above. Three neutrons in near equatorial positions, spinning in response to the uneven charge they receive due to their latitude positions – very difficult to achieve. The emission strength is off course highest at the equator. The emission field strength felt by the neutrons at lattitudes above or below the equator will fall off at some rate. That difference in field strength received should cause the unmoveable neutrons to spin. Unfortunately, we will note that using a fixed number of charge point samples involves a mathematical certainty, sampling can cause undesirable side effects and/or artifacts. As I understand it, the higher precision particles were created specifically to minimize such artifacts.

Unmoveable, arrange about Y. A proton at (0, 0, 0) is surrounded in the Y plane by a ring of 16 unmoveable neutrons 5 units away. The neutrons are within the proton’s emission field; the neutrons start rocking, then tumbling. The tumbling looks quite natural.

With CP precision selected, every other neutron in the ring: front, back, left, right and the four positions directly between them remain stationary - they do not react to the emission field. With CP precision selected, the stationary neutrons are receiving ‘balanced’ charge. The other neutrons are spinning in reaction to the spin imbalance caused by the particle’s precision selected. Since none of the unmoveable neutrons can be pushed out of their positions, I would expect all the neutrons would remain stationary until small differences begin to accrue to new stable positions at varied spin angles, or slow random spins. After a while, more than a minute or two, the neutrons begins experiencing spin reversals - bouncing between spin positions. The reversals last for a while, then stop as the neutrons resume their natural looking tumbling. Infrequent, intermittent spin reversal errors.

With Icosa precision selected, only the four particles in the F,B, L, R positions remain stationary. After some time, the tumbling icosa particles also display intermittent spin reversal errors. With the other higher precision selected, the particles’ spin motions appear lifelike. The same intermittent spin reversal errors are present, although they are harder to see.

Unmoveable, arrange about Z. 16 neutrons in a z-plane ring (16 at the top) around the proton at ( 0, 0, 0 ). With CP selected– Above (16 ), right (4), below(Cool, and left (12), positions remain stationary. The 4 particles directly between them (2, 6, 10, 14) move very slowly, even stopping in new positions for long periods of time – just what I would expect.

On the other hand, why would particles 2,6,10,14 move very slowly or not at all? Also, positions: 1, 3, 5, … , 13, 15 all spin at the pretty much the same rate, that doesn’t seem to make sense, so I check the charge density values.
CHARGE_DENSITY = [100, 90, 75, 50, 30, 10, 5, 2, -5, -15, -30];
I believe the charge density shown is a vertical (latitude) profile. The pole emission value of -30 is a third the magnitude of the equator’s 100. The greatest differential (-30)-(-15) = -15 occurs near the pole, so that complicates things like a faster spin near the pole. I would expect to see particles 1,7,9,15 (near the pole) spin at one rate while particles 3,5,11,13 (near the equator) will spin at a higher rate, but I’m not certain. Or that particles 2,6,10,14 would move more vigorously, not less. That logic makes me believe the neutrons are not properly representing the vertical profile you’ve created.

Unmoveable, arrange about X. Same as Z. 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15 appear to me to be spinning at the same basic rate (I’ll experiment with those values later); 2,6,10,14 are spinning more slowly, or stationary at new spin positions; 4,8,12,and 16 are perfectly stationary. The higher precision particles are the most responsive.

Those negative charge field values could use some discussion. If I understand things, the particle's emission profile needs tweeking. Aside from the infrequent intermittent spin reversals, the motions look good. Any agreement? Or am I seeing things?

P.S. I received notification of the completed Pull request yesterday, but didn't notice it till just an hour ago.
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:19 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Added P.S and corrected 2 typos.)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:21 pm

SourceTree looks correct to me. The tags are just saying that the featureIcosahedraSurface branch is at the same position as master, which is just what we should expect from a merge of those two branches. Yes, you can delete that branch. It is not needed anymore. I'm not sure if I deleted it from GIT (which would be under the REMOTES section of the left hand panel, the BRANCHES section represents only the branches that you have checked out). If you don't want it anymore, then it can be deleted from both. Everything is on master now, so there is no danger in deleting them.

Airman wrote:You create particle arrays so neatly, in three lines given initSpinTest - more to study.

Definitely look over initSpinTest, which is the guts of setting up these scenarios. It takes advantage of the ThreeJS classes that we are working with to place all of the particles. Essentially, it creates a Vector3 to represent the first position (this can be anywhere on the circle that it creates, but it is easiest to put it on 1 dimension only) and then creates a Quaternion that is a rotation about the axis we want the circle to be around. Then, for each Particle to be created, it sets the position using the current value in the Vector3 and then rotates that vector to the next position. Simple and effective.

What that function doesn't do, by design, is change the orientation of those Particles so that they point towards the center. I didn't want that for these tests, but it would be good to create another version that does. It isn't quite as simple as rotating a vector, but pretty close. Give it a try if you want to.

Airman wrote:Something new, the protons’ emissions do not stop the neutrons from colliding into the protons.

Yes, that was the problem that I fixed and had previously thought was the protons equatorial emission pushing the particle away once it got close. Now the attraction holds right up to the collision. It has broken a few scenarios, or at least, they don't behave the same way they did before. Broken is probably not the right word, but it is what I thought when I ran over all of the scenarios for testing and saw that a lot of them don't work the way we are used to. Sometimes, we have to change our expectations and not fall into the trap that it must look the way it did when we created the scenarios. It can be a difficult thing to do sometimes.

Airman wrote:I see that you didn’t add the Unmoveables to the default list //initFct = Scenarios, was that intentional?

A bit of both, really. I did see all of those commented out functions to set the initial one to be used, and wondered if I would bother adding the new ones to it and was leaning towards not doing so. In the end, I just forgot about it. Now that we have the menu, those lines are not really needed anymore.

Airman wrote:Unmoveable 01. A proton at (0,0,0) and unmoveable neutron at (5,0,0). I saw no neutron motion.

That is the intended outcome. Since the neutron is right on the equator of the proton, it should receive equal amounts of charge on both sides which cancel each other out.

The rest of the scenarios currently show problems. Not in the scenarios themselves, but in the way the neutrons react to the protons charge field. I think you have covered it quite well. I placed neutrons just above the equator line expecting them to keep gaining spin, but they don't. There are still problems in the spin algorithms and these tests were designed to help see what that might be. I haven't spent anymore time with it though.

For a bit of fun, temporarily change those neutrons into protons and watch how they all push on the center proton.

Yes, the charge density values can certainly be discussed. I played with them a bit after creating these new scenarios and ended up with the reduced attraction that you have shown above. I even tried removing the attraction as I think that is part of the problems that we are trying to fix.

It has pushed me towards the idea of creating a new Force to represent the ambient charge field. I am thinking that it will create some virtual boundary that represents the volume of space around a particle that ambient charge can come from. For all other particles that are within that boundary, it will calculate how much of that boundary they block and create a vector to represent that. The vector will be the opposite of what the ambient field would do, that is, it will point outwards, not inwards, because the ambient field represents a constant force from all directions. Other particles block that, so it is the same as an attraction towards those particles that is equal and opposite to the force of the ambient field.

It also shows the need for gravity. I will be very happy to remove those attractions from the charge density array once we can do so.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:02 am

CHARGE_DENSITY = [100, 90, 75, 50, 30, 10, 5, 2, -5, -15, -30];

Something else I did was to reduce the number of items that represent an attraction. This pushes the change-over point from equatorial emission to polar attraction further towards the poles.

There are 11 items in the array and only 3 of them represent an attraction, therefore, the polar attractions only represent 11/3 of the 90° angle between equator and pole.

I also removed the 0 sections. There used to be a small section between equator and pole that had no repulsion or attraction. I was trying to get the repulsion back when the attracted particles gets close, but it was a lost cause.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:33 pm

Before we get too far into a discussion about that charge density array, I probably should mention that I am trying to get rid of it. I want an equation that does the same job and I think I have found some good leads for finding one. However, a discussion would still be good, because I need to find the right equation and it might help me to see what it needs to do a bit better.

How would we find the correct equation for that? Ideally, we would pull it out of some sort of experiment, something like a scattering experiment. It might be worth looking over Miles papers on scattering and any others we might be able to find from the mainstream to get a feel for what the charge profile might look like and what equations are being used to describe them.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:04 pm

...about that charge density array ...
Nevyn, I just saw your comment. Here's my quick reply.
The maximum emissions in our charge profile currently occur at the equator, that's a mistake.
Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Charge11
These pictures show that maximum missions occur at +/30. That's the profile we should match.
When there are two profile peaks instead of one, there is a stable region between the two peaks - like the rings of Saturn. That's something I had to immediately throw out there.

Ambient space will be comprised of particles and antiparticles. Does our space include antiparticles?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:02 pm

I did model that +-30° at first, but soon dropped it because we are dealing with particles, not composite bodies. When moving through a planet, charge has time to create the profile you see above. It is caused by lots and lots of collisions. But a particle doesn't have any of that. It has 1 collision to redirect an incoming charge photon, so there is no time and no reason for it to create the +-30° peaks. Those charge profiles are created by streams of particles, not single photons like we have.

However, I have an abstract class called ChargeProfile, with one sub-class called SimpleChargeProfile (that I want to change the name of to reflect that it is a charged particle profile). So we can create multiple ChargeProfile implementations to reflect different scenarios. I don't want +-30° peaks for a particle, but I do for a planet, so we create a version for planets and moons and stars, etc (composite bodies).

No, we don't have anti-particles because we don't have any spin on the charge photons. The code can support spin from charge, but it isn't being used right now.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:53 am

.
I apologize for many typos.

I would hope this sim could demonstrate orbital behavior, aka the relationship between charge and gravity. I know that gravity operates over vast distances, that is, with respect to the size of the particle. Maybe the sim can provide better understanding. In my opinion, equatorial emissions wreck orbits. Your explanation "1 collision to redirect an incoming charge photon" doesn't necessarily suggest that the resulting  emissions are primarily equatorial. It seems to me that single collision, redirected matter, is more likely redirected from somewhere between the pole and the equator, when arriving from above or below, similar to the +/- 30 deg lats. You may say particulate matter doesn't orbit or that gravity is useless at the Particulate matter level. What a killjoy.

Thanks for the +/- charge profile alternative - for the sake of a general class.

I looked at the the rest of the scenarios. Not to inventory them, I was mainly looking for changes and to re-familiarize myself with them. I'll be starting on the dodecahedron configuration next. 

Two body 02, two protons with an initial vertical separation of 10. This is included as the gold standard. The 2 protons can bounce every ten seconds for several minutes without errors.

Two body 02-s1 and Two body 02-s2 are not stable. After a single collision, the two vertical (and y-spinning) protons cannot maintain their common spin axes. The top neutron goes through series of constant spin reversal errors which make these two scenarios difficult to watch.

Two body 03. Two protons with an initial vertical separation of 10, the bottom proton is rotated 90 degrees about the x-axis. I don’t recall the bottom proton also picking up an x-spin before.

Two body 03-s1. Same as 03, but the the bottom proton has a y-spin. This scenario seems to run the same as previously. As in 02-s1 and 02-s2 the top neutron goes through series of constant spin reversal errors.

Three body 01, and Three body 02, three protons in a column, with slightly different yet similar symmetrical spacing are both broken as with Proton Stack 03 below.  

Three body 03, protons above and below, with a neutron in the middle – closer to the top proton. The neutron gently collides with the top neutron, and then follows the proton off the top

Three body 04, and Three body 04-02 Two protons, above and below an offset neutron. The neutron begins by moving more in line with the proton poles. Interesting collision variations, including vertigo - It doesn’t last long,

Three body 05, top and bottom protons, a middle neutron is given a horizontal offset, and Three body 06, top and bottom neutrons, a middle proton is given a horizontal offset. Both scenarios are changed, but don’t seem broken.

Four Body 01-04 are all interesting.

Proton Stack 03 - three protons in a vertical column, is definitely ‘broken. Involving the overlap collision error. The column of three cannot maintain separation, followed by a three-way collision, where they seem to come to rest for a while. Up close you can see how the particles are overlapped and getting closer to each other – more and more, until the collision ‘ends’, usually sending one proton up or down at a good speed, and the other two – which may still be locked together in collision, go the other way.

Proton Stack 04 is better behaved than 03, but it too suffers from the overlap collision error. The vertical column of 4 protons go through series of bounces – maintaining their average separations for about a minute or two before a collision overlap (or two) error occurs, a short build-up time, then break apart from overlap error collision with enough energy for the particles to usually exit the screen up and down.

Proton Stack 05. This scenario suffers from the same problem as 03. All 5 of the initial protons collapse together and sit there – overlapping more and more - till the collision error ends, with higher velocity separations.  

Proton Stack 06. This configuration can also last for a minute or two – a fine executive’s toy – before it needs a reload or restart.

All in all, the 3 and 5 proton stacks (and three body 01 and 02) appeared the most 'broken'. The top or bottom ends quickly blow off. The larger stack splits with greater energy. These two scenarios can last longer if they are slightly modified - by moving the middle proton away from the exact center and unsynchronizing the collisions.  
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:57 am

What I will do is change the current SimpleChargeProfile class to take in an array of values to use in the constructor, instead of it using the constant CHARGE_DENSITY. The default will still use that constant, but it will allow us to override it if we want to.

I will then create a template, which will be commented out, of the classes that would be needed to create a new version. Then you can copy that template code, paste it outside of the comment and tailor the class names and the code in them for your specific needs. I will thoroughly document it to help you see what needs to be done and why.

The cdm.js file is getting quite large and cumbersome to work in. I think I will create another JS file to store the implementations and leave the abstract classes in cdm.js. This way, we can keep related implementations in the same file so that they are kept separate from all of the other implementations. I might create a template JS file that contains the main structure of a complete implementation to make it easier to create new ones.

I also want to change the name of the CDM module. It is currently called ChargeInteractionModel, which is just too much to type. Lazy? Maybe, but I find it a pain to work with. This will effect the test.html file, not cdm.js even though that is where the change will be made.

It is good to refactor your code once in a while to make it more readable and maintainable.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:06 am

Airman wrote:Two body 03. Two protons with an initial vertical separation of 10, the bottom proton is rotated 90 degrees about the x-axis. I don’t recall the bottom proton also picking up an x-spin before.

I saw this a few version ago. I did not add it in there, and was wondering why you did. When I fixed the spin bug recently, I noticed that it went back to normal behavior. Well, it didn't spin, at least. Not sure what caused that. I'll check it again if you are still seeing it. I thought it had fixed itself.

Airman wrote:Four Body 01-04 are all interesting.

I think these scenarios work better after the spin fixes.

Airman wrote:Proton Stack 03 - three protons in a vertical column, is definitely ‘broken. Involving the overlap collision error.

Yeah, not sure what is going on there. I expected them to bounce off, but it seems the attraction is overriding the bounce.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:03 am

Jared Magneson wrote:I'm curious about the spikes though - they look great and can be a useful tool I'll likely import to my video style if that's okay. But could they be made to match the charge profiles of the proton and neutron? I don't know much about that. It looks like they're pretty uniform currently.

Also, what about transparency in the shaders? Would it be useful or possibly to turn the charge transparency down a bit, say 75% or something, as a visual reference? To emulate the field instead of implying (perhaps) discrete particles?  Just an idea!

I have created a way to visualize the charge profile of a particle. It isn't quite what you mentioned, but it works fairly well. It would be great to render the charge field as a fog, or gas, but that is extremely expensive and could not be done for an arbitrary number of particles. What I have done, is to create a sphere that samples the charge field of a particle and applies a color to each vertex to represent the value at that point. Red indicates repulsion and blue indicates attraction.

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Charge11

You can create it at any distance from the particle. I tried to create multiple spheres at different radii, but it didn't work. There is also a problem in the way I have created the geometry that causes a weird problem when you zoom inside of the sphere. It works from the outside though, and that is actually the only way it should render but it seems ThreeJS is not listening to that setting.

There is a new menu called Graphics that contains some switches to enable/disable various parts of a particle. The spikes are disabled by default now and you have to turn them on if you want to see them. None of these settings are saved so if you refresh the page or go to a different scenario then it will revert back to the defaults.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:17 pm

I also updated my site with the new version: https://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/cpim/test.html
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:36 am

I've made a few improvements to the charge calculations and they seem to work better. Having the ChargeProfile sampler to visualize the charge field is helping a lot. I can see the results of the math and where it breaks down.

I'm trying different ways to generate the CHARGE_DENSITY values so that I can generate larger arrays. The larger the array the smaller the angle from equator to pole that each value in it represents. It sets the precision of the emission. I'm using different equations to calculate the values and trying to get some curves into the way the values increase and decrease in size. For example, I'm using a sine function to generate values between -1 and 1 which provides pretty good accelerating and decelerating slopes.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:49 pm

.
Hey Nevyn, it’s impossible to keep up with you, I haven’t seen your latest changes yet. I’m wrapped up in my current effort of cleaning up the Sphericals group programming, particle placements, vertex radials, and edge lines. I want to change the orientations of each so as to ensure the poly’s top center face, above the center proton will be parallel to the y-plane. Right now, for the three Spherical group configurations (6, 12 and 20), above the central proton’s north pole is either an octahedron vertex, icosa mid-edge or dodeca mid-edge. Plenty of exercises in programming and spatial thinking. I’m still using Cartesian coordinates, but I’ll be more than happy to switch to polar coords, as with initSpinTest.

With respect to your latest post, I know what you’re talking about. Here’s a quote from an old post of mine - a dual lobed charge profile:
LongtimeAirman on Sat Oct 17, 2015 3:49 pm
https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t128-simple-orbiter-2#976
Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Dfield10
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:17 pm

I have refactored a lot of stuff. This will make it difficult for you to merge your changes in. I suggest you create a branch from wherever you currently are and commit to that. Then we can try to sort it out.

I pulled a lot of the code from cdm.js out into their own JS files. This makes it easier to work on and find things. That shouldn't impact you too much, but the changes to test.html will. All I have changed in there is to rename the module from ChargeInteractionModel to PIM. You could try to make that change on your own code before you commit it. Just replace all occurrences of ChargeInteractionModel with PIM. Oh, it also now imports the new JS files, but that should merge in easy enough.

Let me know if you have any trouble. I should have coordinated this with you to avoid these issues, sorry.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:21 pm

The initSpinTest function doesn't really use polar coordinates, it just uses trigonometry to rotate points around. All coordinates are still cartesian.

Once you have the latest code changes, have a look over the scenarios. I think some of them work better now that the charge field is more precise and accurate. Unfortunately, it didn't fix any of the spin reversals, but it has affected them.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:31 pm

.
The screen goes black - RADIUS is not defined.
Ok, I'm looking. Here's a fat bug. I have the CP (default) precision and ran through the unmoveable set everything looked the same.  Running Unmoveable - ArrangeAboutY configuration. When I switch precision to icosa precision, the screen goes black. My Firefox console reads.

THREE.WebGLRenderer 88 three.js:21191:3
ReferenceError: RADIUS is not defined[Learn More] charge-point-engine.js:416:7
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:37 pm

Sorry. Fixed that.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:50 pm

.
Looks good Nevyn. I ran some of the simulations' current and previous versions side by side. The current version always ran at a slightly higher fps number. It’s hard to be certain, but I believe your changes have significantly sped up the action, the action also seems smoother. I can see increased acceleration when approaching proton poles.

By running collision test 03 I can see that the proton emissions are now slightly stronger; previously, maybe one (or none) of the protons on the left surface didn’t experience a collision, now there are five or six protons left stationary after their emissions turned back the approaching neutrons.

The Charge profile graphic effect works nicely, especially when used with Charge emission.

Since the Charge axes graphic effect need not be on, please let the user know which Precision button is currently selected (or in effect).

When one wishes to leave the Charge axes on, it is very inconvenient to have to reset the precision (?), then turn on the charge axes, in that order, whenever one changes the scenario.

Refactoring eh? Given all the changes involved in creating your new break-out documents, I believe your re-launch went very well.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:45 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:Looks good Nevyn. I ran some of the simulations' current and previous versions side by side. The current version always ran at a slightly higher fps number. It’s hard to be certain, but I believe your changes have significantly sped up the action, the action also seems smoother. I can see increased acceleration when approaching proton poles.

The forces are definitely smoother. Once I could see the charge profile, I saw that it wasn't working quite as well as it did in my head (funny how that happens). Improving the math to control the equator to pole calculation helped immensely. It is also the increased precision of the charge emission. Using the generated values (using sine at the moment) I am generating 100 values. That is 100 division in 90°, so each value represent 0.9°. The best thing about that precision is that it doesn't include an increase in time to process. We could have 1000 values and it would be just the same.

LongtimeAirman wrote:By running collision test 03 I can see that the proton emissions are now slightly stronger; previously, maybe one (or none) of the protons on the left surface didn’t experience a collision, now there are five or six protons left stationary after their emissions turned back the approaching neutrons.

That does work better now. I hadn't looked closely at the collision scenarios because I didn't want to see those ugly collisions. I was only thinking about the first 2 scenarios and forgot that the third was a bit different.

LongtimeAirman wrote:The Charge profile graphic effect works nicely, especially when used with Charge emission.

I love that ChargeProfile sampler! It is helping so much, I wish I had thought of it sooner. It is always good to find a way to visualize the math, if you can.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Since the Charge axes graphic effect need not be on, please let the user know which Precision button is currently selected (or in effect).

Good idea. Not sure how to do that at the moment.

LongtimeAirman wrote:When one wishes to leave the Charge axes on, it is very inconvenient to have to reset the precision (?), then turn on the charge axes, in that order, whenever one changes the scenario.

Yes, that is annoying, so I have fixed it up and it saves it to the URL.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:02 pm

I have changed the way the Precision menu is built and added a * next to the currently active precision.

Updated my site with the latest changes too.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:06 pm

And made it use bold text too.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:21 pm

.
Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Stat5s10
Sorry Nevyn, I’m getting errors trying to Push or Pull – an incomplete merge (?), after committing the dodecahedron. You can see the neutrons accelerate very smartly (clear curving paths!) at and then away from the central proton in this scenario.

Anyway, the uncommitted errors aren’t mine, I left enough of the change so that you can see that. Is this change a merge product? Please tell me what line to go to and what to Pull/push next, I re-cloned over a problem similar to this previously.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:43 pm

You should be able to pull my changes with rebase turned on on the dialog box. This will get my changes and merge them on top of your changes.

You may need to Abort the previous pull in the Action menu. Unless you only did a Fetch, then you won't have to do anything other than pull with rebase.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:01 pm

.
_You have not concluded your merge (MERGE_HEAD exists).hint_ Please, commit your changes before merging.fatal_ Exiting because of unfinished merge_

I had fetched and pulled.

Neither of us is the author of the uncommitted changes at the top line in the Sourcetree pic.

Abort isn't an alternative (its greyed out), I tried resolve conflict - restart merge; it asked, am I sure, I said Ok, but nothing changed.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:28 pm

.
Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Stat5s11
I tried rebasing and recceived the error I shared previously. After another thrashing here I am.

True statement, you're the only person I've ever asked directions from.
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:44 pm; edited 1 time in total

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:35 pm

If you still have those changes in a separate file, or can pull them out easily enough, then it is probably easier to re-clone the repo.

Try to get into the habit of Fetching before committing. That way, you can see if I have pushed any new commits before you add yours, and can pull them down more easily. I am trying to get into the same habit and still forget at times because I am used to working on my own, either as a project (at home) or as a branch (at work).
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:00 pm

.
Yes Sir.

Ok, I'm back. I'll need to re-enter my latest changes after a bit, I'm a couple of chores behind.

How did you use the charge profiler effect to improve the emission field?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:39 pm

Just by being able to see the charge field as it transitioned from equator to pole. I could see where it didn't look right. There were some strange looking edges at the boundary between repulsion and attraction, so I knew the math wasn't working as I thought it should.

The problem was that previously I was only looking at the Y axis and assuming the equator to pole relationship from that, but that doesn't take the extension into the XZ plane (equator) into account. Now it is using trig functions to calculate the actual angle, dividing that by PI/2 to convert it into a value between 0 and 1, and then using that to find the appropriate charge density value in that array (which is now calculated from a sine function).

Note that it only works out 90°, from equator to one pole, and the upper and lower halves are mirrored.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:41 pm

I'm not sure if I made it clear, but the object used to calculate the charge emission is being used by the sampler, hence why I am calling it a sampler. So the charge profile is a true representation of the charge emission calculations, at some specified radius from the emitter.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:23 pm

.
The charge sampler seems like a light bulb.
 
I added the dodeca init20PointSphere03. I also added for-loops to all the spherical particle placements, vertex radials and surface edge line scenarios/functions to make the programming slightly better.  

I think we have a new bug, a very recent change (like today) has strengthened the proton emission TOO MUCH. Neutrons are accelerating into the proton poles almost faster than we can see. Now, in Collision test 03, none of the neutrons can collide with a proton. The energetic proton has broken initSixPointSphere01.  
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:40 pm

.
Gremlins.

Now things are again working as they were earlier today - the super proton bug is gone. Collision test 03 and initSixPointSphere01 are working 'properly'. I'll keep an eye out and let you know if I see it again.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:40 am

I have made some serious changes that are going to effect you because I have totally overhauled the scenario mechanism. The main HTML file was getting way too large and cumbersome to work in. So I have created a more formal idea of a scenario that allows us to use separate JS files for a scenario group. You can have multiple groups per JS file to.

I have created a new branch to house it until you are ready. Let me know when you have all of your changes pushed to GIT and I will try to merge them into the new way of doing things.

Have a look at the branch to get a feel for what I have done. I added a template file that provides the outline of a new scenario file and documentation on what to do inside of it. It is called AddScenarioTemplate.txt and can be found in the new js/scenario folder. This is the folder to put any scenario JS files to keep them together and separate from other files. Makes them easy to find.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Possible Charged Particle Field  - Page 6 Empty Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 15 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10 ... 15  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum