►
From YouTube: SimPEG Meeting December 1st
Description
SimPEG weekly meeting from December 1st, 2021
A
A
B
A
Sure
my
name
is
joe
nice
to
meet
you
hello,
again,
kind
of
in
charge
of
making
sure
everything
comes
into
syntax.
It's
been
thoroughly
reviewed
and
works
properly
kind
of
like
the
last
goal
post
to
get
through.
It's
not
you're
the
gatekeeper,
but
now
other
than
that.
I'm
just
focusing
on
developing.
C
And
so
I'm
mostly
focused
in
simply
developing
the
first
multiphysics
inversion.
Now
we
are
more
coming
in
with
postgradient
etc
from
other
groups
in
new
zealand.
So
that's
amazing,
but
that's
been
my
main
contribution
to
the
package
and
yeah
I'm
actually
getting
back
to
industry
starting
in
in
january.
So.
E
And
then
I'm
devon,
I
have
various
jobs
with
ubc
jiff,
but
a
lot
of
what
I
do
for
simpeg
is,
I
guess,
I'm
the
guy
responsible
for
most
of
the
tutorials
and
working
on
getting
the
api
set
up
and
that
kind
of
stuff
so
less
geared
towards
research,
but
more
about
kind
of
making.
Sure
people
understand
the
functionality
of
trying
to
make
it
more
accessible.
F
G
D
D
Yeah,
I'm
sorry
I
did
my
phd
with
with
doug
and
lindsey
together
and
yeah
this
day,
I'm
mostly
working
on
airborne
electromagnetics
and
applying
that
into
california
and
groundwater
issues
so
yeah.
I
think
and
sort
of
the
major
developer
of
the
r1d
em
code,
which
is
sort
of
the
major
tool
that
we're
using
for
inverting
the
airborne
em
data
yeah.
So
let's
see
you
here,
cool.
I
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
welcome
you,
craig,
really
nice,
having
I'm
sorry,
I
wasn't
able
to
to
get
in
this
morning,
but
I'm
looking
really
forward
to
hearing
what
you're,
what
you're
doing
and
yeah
these
days.
Geotechnical
work
is
pretty
it's
pretty
front
and
center
with
all
of
these
floods
that
are
happening
here
so
really
interesting.
So
yeah
look.
H
A
F
F
Now
I
don't
have
particularly
strong
opinions.
There's
like
enough
going
on
in
december.
I'd
be
happy
enough
to
like
announce,
tebow's
seminar
and
kind
of
have
that
be
what
we're
pointing
folks
to,
but
if
anyone's
got
a
desire
to
share
what
they've
been
up
to
we
can
we
can
make
this
happen,
so
I
don't
know.
Does
anybody
really
want
to
have
a
synthetic
poster
session?
I'm.
F
A
That's
it.
Okay,
I
don't
know
the
other
announcements
or
anything
so
move
on
to
quick
reports
as
we're
going
through
here.
I
since
last
week,
just
a
few
little
small
updates,
the
cross-grading
stuff
checking
this
stuff
around.
As
part
of
that,
I'm
also
going
through
and
working
on
getting
rid
of
all
of
the
deprecated
items
like
we
talked
about
really.
They
are
now
throwing
errors
parting
people
to
the
right
thing,
so
force
people
to
change.
A
It
it's
taking
a
while,
because
all
the
tests
need
a
lot
of
the
tests
need
to
be
updated
that
we're
using
old
calling
conventions.
So
it's
the
long
process
of
going
through
all
the
test,
folders
make
sure
that
it's
using
updated,
whereas
before
it
was
not
because
it
was,
we
just
left
them
as
they
were
so
they've
tested
both
things
at
the
same
time.
E
A
E
Stand
of
making
a
couple
of
those
tests,
it
seemed
like
the
so
this
was
for
the
electric
source
or
for
the
line
current
source
in
simpeg
doing
time,
domain
dm
and
it
seemed
like
the
if
we
just
did
a
whole
space
and
put
an
electric
dipole.
The
electric
field
produced
by
this
seemed
to
work
pretty
well,
but
the
magnetic
field
being
produced
by
that
wasn't
accurate.
F
E
F
E
Through
after
the
meeting
or
whenever
you
have
time,
but
I
I
already
put
it
in
the
tests
for
simpeg-
and
there
is
a
plot-
it
function,
okay,
so
you'd
be
able
to
just
run
it
and
then
see
the
comparison
between
the
analytic
and
the
numerical
solution.
So
yeah
it's
set
up
pretty
good
to
troubleshoot
all
right.
A
That's
a
that's
about
it.
Yeah
I
mean
also
with
devon
we're
going
through
stuff.
I
know
we
talked
a
while
ago
about
the
properties
over
switching
out
from
that
talking
about
just
generally
what
it
would
look
like.
We
talked
about
looking
at
a
few
different
things,
one
being
one
way
we're
talking
about
the
initialization
of
classes.
D
A
D
F
I
A
A
C
F
C
Yeah,
I
was
gonna
go
for
the
same
thing
like
when
I
ever
like.
When
I
look
at
this
and
you
look
at
okay,
that's
the
thing
that
sometimes
like
you
have
to
really
go
up
the
tree
to
see.
What's
the
actual
argument
that
you
need
to
put
in
and
like
I
was
gonna
have
to
say
like
I,
I
understand
it's
like
kind
of
like
a
between.
C
A
E
A
A
A
C
C
A
F
D
F
A
D
C
E
E
So
then
we
started
working
on
that
and
then
we
want
to
go
and
say:
okay.
Well,
let's
test
things
out
on
on
geoanna.
So
now
it's
like
we're
adding
steps
earlier
which
are
taking
us
further
away
from
our
initial
goal.
I
mean
if,
if
we
think
that
this
is
the
ultimately
the
best
way
to
proceed
that
I'm
all
for
it,
but
it's
just
something
to
keep
in
mind
yeah.
I
think.
E
F
F
C
A
E
E
F
A
G
Yeah
just
been
playing
around
with
a
little
bit
of
part
of
the
simpeg
side
of
things,
was
just
doing
the
worker
just
a
custom
worker
to
sit
on
the
nodes
that
do
all
the
heavy
lifting
yeah.
I
integrated
pi
diesel.
I
found
that
yeah.
If
you
got
any
old
branches
that
you're
still
using
pi
mkl
through
primatte
solver,
something
happened
on
anaconda
and
they
updated
some
of
their
back
end
and
it's
now.
The
mkl
file
is
lib,
lib
mkl,
underscore
rt.1.so,
but
yeah.
E
E
G
Yeah
paid
so
just
yeah,
it
runs
as
well,
so
I've
incorporated
that
now
and
then
yeah.
I
have
it
writing
the
factorizations,
and
now
the
custom
workers
will
find
there.
So
if
they
have
to
run
the
jvec
or
jt
vect
loops
they'll
find
that
factorization
and
use
it.
So
you
get
like
a
two-time
speed
up
and
loops
there
as
well
by
writing
the
factorization
to
disk.
F
F
It's
good
to
sort
of
illustrate.
You
know
where,
where
simpeg
is
used
and
have
that
branding
with
it,
I
think
what
that
does
bring
up
is
that
we
should
have
just
a
bit
of
guidance
on
where
the
simpeg
logo
can
be
used,
how
it
should
be
used,
all
of
that
sort
of
stuff
actually
documented,
and
so
the
jupiter
rowan
pointed
out
the
jupiter
docks
governance
docks
have
a
very
comprehensive
guide,
and
so
we
can
use
that
as
a
bit
of
a
starting
point
and
kind
of
tailor
it
to
our
community.
G
F
D
I
ended
up
updating
that
em-1d
branch,
so
I
made
a
pull
request
to
main
seems
like
there
are
some
errors
in
the
existing
main
branch.
So
I
guess,
although
I
think
that
I
have
some
problems,
I
actually
I
got
a
quick
question
to
joe
because
there
was
an
error
for
the
source
class
and
then
previously
we
used
the
src
list
and
then
now
it's
changed
it
to
source
list
and
that
kind
of
triggered
the
errors.
Is
that,
like
a
is
that
expected.
D
Yeah,
I
don't
know
why,
but
it's
that
yeah.
That
seems
that
was
the
pattern,
so
I
had
to
change
that
src
list
to
source
less
to
psd.
So
I
thought,
like
that's,
really
some
sort
of
updates
that
we've
made
but-
and
the
other
thing
was
that
the
version
of
joanna,
I
think
for
a
certain
system.
It
has
to
use
the
lower
version,
so
that
kind
of
sometimes
triggers
the
error
in
the
in
the
travis
like
that
that
azure
test,
so
it
would
be
nice.
Is
there
any
like
a
reason?
A
A
D
Yeah
yeah,
that's
actually
that's
what
I
did:
okay,
so
yeah
as
long
as
that's
fine.
Okay,
that
sounds
good
yeah,
so
if
either
joe
or
death,
if
you
can
take
a
kind
of
look
yeah
because
I
think
it
most
of
like
all
the
passes
related
to
that
part
of
addition
is
passing
so
yeah.
If
any
of
you
can
take
a
look,
it
would
be
great
and
converge
that
within
this
year
would
be
would
be
perfect.
Now.
D
E
And
then
two
at
least
as
a
self-contained
example,
because
I've
been
doing
that
simple
code,
validations
project
and
so
with
lindsay
adding
galvanic
sources
to
the
em
simulations
wanna,
compare
1d,
analytic
and
and
like
a
3d,
octree
yeah.
That
would
be
useful
for
that
that
project,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
anyone
else
has
something.
That's
very
tailored
to
a
particular
research
thing
that
they're
doing.
J
J
J
So,
and
another
thing
is
a
question
for
you
guys,
so
how
do
I
implement
objective
functions?
Consists
of
the
three
part.
One
data
misfit
terms
and
second
is
regularization
terms,
and
the
third
part
is
also
is
another
terms.
So
just
wondering
is
any
easiest
way
or
the
fast
way
to
implement
such
objective
functions.
So,
based
on
my
understanding,
I
just
I
needed
to
generate
a
new
file.
A
J
H
H
D
A
A
A
A
H
A
H
A
A
H
Well,
first
of
all,
you
know
make
sure
that
I
move
all
my
my
data
points
out
of
the
out
of
node.
If
I'm
right
on
a
node,
I
mean
in
real
cases
in
real
life
scenarios,
that's
probably
never
going
to
happen,
but
for
the
synthetic
case
it
would
right.
So
you
need
to
have
a
check
that
you're
not
on
the
node
and
second,
you
need
to
be
draped
onto
the
active
cells.
H
You
cannot
have
data
points
in
the
air
because
the
field
is
discontinuous,
so
you
need
to
have
all
your
points
draped
on.
Basically
those
are
the
two
checks
that
need
to
do
under
the
hood
and
also
the
1d
seems
like
the
1d
values
that
we
use
quite
important
right.
The
kind
of
that's
kind
of
like
follow
devin's
defense
lead
on
this
and
kind
of
have
to
put
a
connectivity
that
makes
sense
for
the
for
the
1d
boundary
boundary
condition.
H
H
E
H
H
A
E
D
Yeah,
I
I
don't.
I
don't
really
see
the
case
because
d
you're
not
just
inverting
the
the
single
value,
you're
inverting,
the
matrix,
so
as
long
as
the
determinant
of
the
matrix
is
not
zero
so,
but
I
think
that
would
not
happen
because
the
once
you
got
an
orthogonal
component,
there
shouldn't
be
like
a
zero
determinant
of
that
matrix.
I
guess
so.
I
think
it
it
shouldn't
be
okay,
it
shouldn't
happen.
D
G
Joel
and
I
were
running
a
little
few
like
the
unit
test
there
and
yeah,
we
are
finding.
If
you
move
the
model,
you
could
have
it
fail.
If
you
just
like
position
the
mesh
a
little
differently
yeah,
it
would
fail,
but
again
it
was
if
it
lined
it
up
that
it
wasn't
that
perfect
scenario.
I
guess
it
kind
of
happens,
but
there
I
still
either
agree
with
dom.
There
should
probably
be
a
little
bit
of
protection
just
in
case
because
it
is,
it
seems
like
it
is
a
possibility.
D
H
E
H
E
Know-
and
there
was
the
fact
that
the
fact
that
I,
like
I
hacked
my
my
mkl,
so
that
pimax
solver
would
find
the
mkl
library
instead
of
using
pi
diesel.
So
I
did
some
hacky
thing
on
my
computer
to
get
that
to
work.
I
need
to
upgrade
to
the
latest
the
latest
solver
that
we're
implementing
in
cipe,
so
that
that
one's
on
me,
but
there's
definitely
other
stuff.
H
Yeah
I
tried
both
installation
and
the
solution
was
the
same.
So
that's
that's
not
a
yeah.
I
tried
the
cg
solve
also
right
just
as
a
as
a
test,
because
I
wasn't
sure
if
it
was
parties
or
something
else
and
man.
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
have
done
iterative
solvers
on
this,
but
not
so
stable
eh
need
to
solve.
You
need
to
solve
a
lot
and
even
then
the
simulations
are
not
are
not
very
consistent,
so
I'll
stick
to
parties,
though
till
further
notice,
all
right.
I
I
G
I
Oh
okay,
because
that
would
be
really
that
would
be
really
interesting,
not
only
from
a
numerical
point
of
view,
because
now
you
have
to
worry
about.
You
know
zeros
in
phase,
but
also
yeah,
just
actually
from
a
scientific
modeling
viewpoint,
because
you
know
many
years
ago
when
we're
acquiring
empty
data
through
the
nelson
batholith.
I
Then
there
was
some
questions
about
the
phase
which,
for
a
number
of
stations,
was
very
compatible
between
stations,
but
it
was
just
blasting
out
of
phase
and
then
the
question
is,
you
know
what's
causing
that?
Are
these?
You
know
just
currents
that
are
kind
of
sweeping
in
from
the
mantle
or
whatever,
which
then
brings
us
back
to
the
boundary
conditions,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
if
we're
testing
the
mt
problem,
that
would
it
would
be
really
nice
to
get
high
quality
data.
I
E
E
G
H
G
H
H
A
A
The
way,
I
think,
the
way
that
I
was
I
was
trying
to
do
it
was
I
had
a
like
one
mesh
that
worked
very
well,
and
I
just
moved
that
mesh
around
for
each
for
each
different
station
and
if
it
didn't
work
bother
about
trying
to
overlap.
I
just
did
the
whole
volume
averaging,
like
the
volume
averaging
operation
between
them.