The warning about normalization is common, so that's known. But not the error. The error should in principle be tracked down, but I have no time for that. In addition, there should hopefully be a new version of the RT4 interface at some point where the normalization not will be an issue (the guys in Hamburg is working on this, but will take time before the work is done).

So let's see if there is a workaround. Are you using the robust option? If not, try it.

Some time since I run RT4, but I think I had nstreams=8, robust=1 and auto_inc_nstreams=16. Try something like this. But note that the normalization warning is then swept under the carpet and the accuracy of some calculations could be a bit poor.



On 2019-02-08 20:31, Victoria Sol Galligani wrote:
Hi! I'm having some trouble running RT4 with 2 stokes dimensions and azimuthally random frozen particles (with dielectric properties calculated from the maxwell garnett formula) for frequencies up to 170 GHz.

For small particles there are no problems, but when I increase particles (still fairly small particules, diameter = 300 um), I start getting errors abour the scattering matrix normalization:

Bulk scattering matrix normalization deviates significantly
from expected value (13.4591%, resulting in albedo deviation of 0.105869).
Something seems wrong with your scattering data  (did you run *scat_dataCheck*?) or your RT4 setup (try increasing *nstreams* and in case of randomly oriented particles possibly also pfct_aa_grid_size).

Could not increase nstreams sufficiently (current: 18)
to satisfy scattering matrix norm at f[3]=166 GHz.
Try higher maximum number of allowed streams (ie. higher auto_inc_nstreams than 19).

Trying with higher number of nstreams, or trying to use auto_inc_nstreams takes me to the following error:

Assertion failed: (p < mpr.mextent), function operator(), file /Users/victoria.galligani/Work/Software/ARTS/arts_DEC2018/src/matpackV.h, line 374. Playing with the angular grids yields the same errors. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions ? Has anyone encountered this before? I have been trying also different versions of ARTS. Mainly arts-2-3-1171, but also arts-2-3-849.

Thank you in advance!


arts_users.mi mailing list

arts_users.mi mailing list

Reply via email to