Victoria,
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.
Bye,
Patrick
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!
Victoria
_______________________________________________
arts_users.mi mailing list
arts_users.mi@lists.uni-hamburg.de
https://mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/mailman/listinfo/arts_users.mi
_______________________________________________
arts_users.mi mailing list
arts_users.mi@lists.uni-hamburg.de
https://mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/mailman/listinfo/arts_users.mi
