So if I run w/ robus=0 or rubust=1 with sizes like De_snow = [200 *300*]*1e-6, things run well, but If I use, say De_snow = [200 *350*]*1e-6, I run intro trouble, with robust=0 I get the error I was dealing with before:
Run-time error in method: RT4Calc Could not increase nstreams sufficiently (current: 16) to satisfy scattering matrix norm at f[3]=166 GHz. Try higher maximum number of allowed streams (ie. higher auto_inc_nstreams than 16). and with robust=1 I get this new f_grid / surface_reflectivity length error. Strange, right? On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:54 AM Patrick Eriksson < patrick.eriks...@chalmers.se> wrote: > Victoria, > > No idea about this? Does this happen for a case that worked with > robuts=0? Or maybe robust=1 makes some other problem to appear? > > Freddy: You had some problem with RT4? Do you remember if it was this? > > Bye, > > Patrick > > > > On 2019-02-11 20:55, Victoria Sol Galligani wrote: > > Thanks Patrick!!! When I use robust=1 I get > > > > The number of pages in *surface_reflectivity* should > > match length of *f_grid* or be 1. > > length of *f_grid* : 1 > > dimension of *surface_reflectivity* : 4 > > > > What is the robust condition that can trigger this error? > > > > Thanks Patrick! > > > > On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 5:22 AM Patrick Eriksson > > <patrick.eriks...@chalmers.se <mailto:patrick.eriks...@chalmers.se>> > wrote: > > > > 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 > > <mailto: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
