GeoSci.xyz SimPEG, 4 Aug 2021

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: SimPEG Meeting August 4th

Description

Weekly SimPEG meeting from August 4th, 2021

A

So hello, everyone, nice to see you all again, as always, I've stuck to the notes if you like uh get started on a few agenda items here. So after we get through the quick reports on things, I'd like to do a pr status update, so we can go through and look at all the pr's and if they need assignments, we'll review our assignments, we can have people on sale that volunteer to do that and get things going.

A

um Also, some announcements tebow is going to be doing a seminar soon for the for august. Tivo was the date that we decided on for that.

B

uh I think this just send a email with a calendar invitation and it's for thursday 12 at.

A

B

On that note actually, so I think I don't think she sends a newsletter yet and that's gonna be part of the newsletter, but she also asked uh joe and I that, uh if you guys have uh updates that you would like to share and contribute to the newsletter, just send a message on slack or to lindsay directly. So it's added to the newsletter.

C

So devin were you going to kind of take charge of the newsletter I kind of forgot, where that was.

D

uh I don't recall agreeing to do this, but I could.

C

Oh well, I might be mistaken just that somehow I kind of thought we discussed you know some time ago um about you may be taking over, and then you were concerned about it being a little bit time consuming and then lindsay was trying to convince you that you know basically it's just providing a format and people providing stuff and but somebody to coordinate and send it out on a regular basis. Anyway.

C

uh We can talk about that later, but somehow, having one person that is kind of in charge of this, so that it's it kind of happens on a regular basis would be good.

A

Okay, all right and we so lindsey had a. I dropped the link to that newsletter in there that lindsey put up on slack. I dropped it in the notes for you guys.

A

Let's move on to some quick reports here, so I've basically finished going through the discretized talks to finish that this morning, um just was writing up here before the meeting gets started to push up there. So I'll have noted things and they're just kind of like conventions that should try to stick to um some notes, but right so this is. It was like kind of my running track of things that I had seen like just okay, well, to make a consistent style for that work that we're using so it'll, be nice, they're.

A

Looking very nice all together, like that, there's a lot of stuff in there. That looks very I'm very happy with the discretize and the way discredited stocks.

E

Are going to look.

A

Oh, that's good.

E

D

One one thing that's also gonna speed up um working with simpeg uh is getting getting that similar. uh I guess extensions and formatting and all that stuff so that uh that website will build.

D

And then I can just get rolling on that. Okay.

A

It's like the docks take have started to take a while to build themselves, but it looks so much nicer than it did in my opinion, like it's so much, it's much easier to follow and, like all the information is there that you want yeah. It's.

D

Yeah, it's it's so much easier to figure out. What's going on.

A

Yeah so we'll get headed in and then we can get. Then we should revisit your the tutorials.

D

Yeah we'll see how much uh needs to really be revisited, because the descriptions of a lot of functions uh functionality is really it's a lot better. Now.

E

D

But I still would like to keep them in some capacity just with the language of oh god. I have no idea what I'm doing and how does this fit into the grand scheme of things like that's.

E

D

Sort of what those tutorials need to be, we don't we've now kind of figured out well yeah in the in the doc strings. We now have uh explained what the syntax is for constructing the stuff and applying it, and that doesn't really need to be in there anymore.

A

Right, I just think I think I'll, probably just take a nice a quick pass through. We can, you know, add some links where appropriate and remove things where appropriate, add things where it's appropriate. Just I think I'll, probably just take a quick pass through and it'll be great.

D

um Yeah, okay, I guess I was thinking. uh I wouldn't well you. Actually you want to wait until the api stuff is done before we. You don't really want to add that to the the pr. Do you no? No, no! Okay, so I mean you can look. I don't even know if I'd bother looking at it yet because it's it's gonna be a few weeks away.

A

Yeah, I'm just saying like we need to revisit that now that the api is api. Documentation is finished, yeah for sure.

A

Okay, other than that I know I still need to upload some more youtube videos, I'm sorry! If I'm behind again, I always forget about them. Could it be done.

F

A

Or not, I'm not even sure. No I've tried to look up ways to automatically upload them from zoom to youtube. I haven't found anything like it would be really nice if they just like, went up there and no one had to worry about that, but I will look into it some more. Maybe it's changed.

A

John, I have to go up there next.

G

uh Yeah, nothing too much uh yeah! I didn't get to the pull request stuff this week. I finally got my cluster run up and running, so I've been playing with that uh yeah having some good success there, um joe yeah you're. Definitely right about it's just that that simulation object, even if you're just storing the operators. It just seems that when you get to the big enough problem, it still is a it's a big graph like it's you're, passing around a lot of data. So what I've done is I've.

G

Just I've made pretty much made like a full or I guess, like a sub simulation like the tile simulation. I just made a light version of it. That's just pretty much like a json file that sends and then it each worker loads up it's its tile. So it's I've kind of changed the tiling so that it's now its own worker and it's just concerned with its own data and it loads it up on that other server or that other node computer.

G

Each node is just a tile and uh you just send it uh or what I'm working on right now is you just send it that? Should that change in the model vector so that, if you ever need to call it the fields or you want to calculate j kind of thing, you just send it to those workers and they they spin it up and kubernetes is actually really nice. For that. I was trying to do a simple version with ssh just ssh into them and running individually, but I yeah they're they're.

G

I swear that I I I hooked up every or set up everything that it's identical, but there's still like it's not finding certain stuff in sim tag. It's saying that, like the das get field isn't there. But when you look at the thing it's clearly there, so kubernetes is just a lot nicer because then you just spin up an image and there you go everything works um but yeah. um Hopefully I was maybe gonna do maybe or maybe october.

G

I should have uh quite a bit of stuff to show uh maybe I'll sign up for that one and expand on this uh using distributed computing for the inversion. Oh.

A

Right here, what it was like helpful is it like? Is it speeding it up.

G

Like a lot to do it that way, yeah, it's not only speeding it up, but well. I guess it's still using a lot of ram but yeah it. So far. I've got uh like a two time speed up, but I've only got three nodes right now: hooked up.

H

What the change john! Because I thought we already done it- that the the worker was only caring about its own simulation. What what had to change! I guess I'll! I can look at the code. We don't need to go through.

G

Yeah, it's still like when you, when you want to send it to those workers, it still has to send that whole simulation object, even though that it's concerned with that. Well, I guess I guess I have a little bit of a different problem where, when we were doing it, we were able to do the like submeshing, we didn't send a global mesh to it all the time and with with diaz, I have to send the global mesh so you're, not really it's a big size.

G

You got to send this this huge mesh and simulation to every every worker, whereas what we were doing with the oak tree you get, you can lighten the load a bit to everything.

H

Yeah but again, why why are we sending the mesh where we could just store only the operators? That's what I was saying right. Oh.

G

Sorry yeah, I guess in that case, even with the storing the operators like, I tried the full um that full uh data set that we had from um yeah that one that we worked on. I don't know if I can pass on the name or not um yeah. I tried that whole one again on the new simulator on the news. Tiled simulations and the graph is just huge. It's like 40 50 gigabytes, even though we're only storing the operator operations, somehow that's getting sent, or it's still being generated.

G

Maybe it's on that worker over there, but something coming back. Yeah, that's kind of where I'm at right now is just kind of mapping where everything is coming from and where everything's going but yeah so far, I've found is yeah we're, depending on sending a lot to those workers. Still even the another. Funny thing, though, is it seems that the frequency domain stuff is working better.

G

It doesn't actually make as big of a graph which kind of confuses me, but uh again uh I'm looking into it and see.

I

John compared to what oh sorry, compared to what, like you said, frequency domain works better to the dc.

G

Yeah yeah, the the problem I'm dealing with right now is the dc. I find that the the frequency domain stuff is working really good, even on a single machine, local cluster, uh it runs pretty. It runs comparable to what's out there uh for sure, especially 3d, um but yeah the dc code. For some reason it just doesn't want to parallelize not on a local machine anyways. It there's too much thread. Even if you try to put everything to a single thread, there's still some crosstalk going on or something or it's blocking.

G

So then I threw it onto the individual nodes, and things are looking better now.

I

Maybe I'm not sure the only difference that I can see the dc code, it the it passes when you're passing the right-hand side, you pass all the vectors, so it actually generates a large matrix and then apply the a in, whereas the frequency frequency so potentially, I think that's for a small problem that actually makes a speed up but um yeah but you're when you're dealing with a really large problem that I think d, that right-hand side at the end like it actually changed it to a dense matrix and then yeah then applied so potentially that could be a place that that could be a problem.

I

I don't I don't know, but.

G

I know that that's a good point soggy! I didn't. uh I overlooked that uh yeah. Exactly the right hand, side is huge compared on the dc. Well, yes,.

I

Yeah right then white you can play um loop over, but anyway it is generated and stored in each source class. So yeah, I I'm not sure it's the best, but uh but but that's the same case even frequent domain. It is stored in a source class. So if that's causes a problem, you probably just generate them on the fly but um yeah it's uh yeah. It's just a just a point.

G

Oh, no, that's cool um yeah! I'm gonna! Take a look at that. uh I bet you. That is where the big plug is for sure.

G

Nice thanks son.

J

A

E

K

D

uh Yeah sure so um I guess there's a couple of things. One was these uh validations. I was doing for the time domain codes and uh I mean lindsay, took a look at my some of the scripts that I had and then she just did a simple step off uh and that result seemed to be stable, but I'm not doing anything unreasonable with time stepping and it should be stable because it's just using backward oiler. So there's something in there. That's kind of suspect and we haven't really investigated it yet.

D

But that kind of uh opened up to me just looking at pieces of our our time domain em code and our em code and kind of looking for ways to improve it and looking for ways to kind of fill in all the different kind of sources and receiver types you could use with all of the different choices and discretization.

D

So I'm kind of going through right now and and documenting the theory, because we're going to need that for um for simpeg when we get to the the api for that, um but yeah I've kind of been been going in and doing that. So I'm sort of in the process of testing stuff trying to get the theory, seeing if there's a better way to do anything, see if anything's missing. That would be really useful.

D

uh That kind of stuff.

C

Devon, if you said it seems to work fine for a step off, but has problems elsewhere, if you, if you just started it with like basically with us, like with a step on and just kept, that constant, constant and then turned it off, does that make any difference.

D

Yeah, that's the one that breaks, which is that was effectively what I was doing before.

D

So I had a long pulse.

D

Okay and the part, that's strange, is it's not just like the whole thing goes, haywire it's at the early time channels and mid-time channels.

D

uh Everything was fine and then, when it got to uh below a certain um order of magnitude, it was unstable, so that and that kind of leads back to maybe what uh what joe was saying about, checking the accuracy of the solve, because if you have a unit step off the magnitude of the response, I think is going to be it's going to be higher than for a square pulse and it's going to be larger.

D

The longer your pulse is. I also think that, maybe at later times it kind of bends down a little bit for a square pulse, but I I I'd have to check that.

E

um So it's it's like.

A

The size of it is more related to like the slope of the ramp-ons and ramp-ups.

E

No, the like the ddc and stuff.

D

It's I have to go and take a look and see what the numbers that came out of her simulation were. Okay,.

A

D

I started out with a I started out with: let's see you can imagine the time stepping scheme I chose if, if you had just a step off, you'd start with really small time steps and then you would go to larger time steps at the the last time channels, and so I did a mirror image of that and the on time is the same length as the off time.

D

So uh I have you when you turn when you have the step on uh you're, using kind of some more course time, stepping, because that's not impacting your response as much as right before the step off. So it's kind of like coarser time steps you get the step on and then it gets finer and finer and finer step off you're still using fine and then getting coarser.

D

Does that kind of make sense to.

E

Everyone yeah, but it seems like the opposite way that you should be doing that. So you think that.

A

E

A

To step on, you need to have finer discretization there and you can let it go longer and longer for guests to right to the step-off, and you need to have finer discretization again.

D

I think just doing like this, you would say just do a a mirror or sorry.

L

Like an equivalent one.

I

I don't know, though I think it's if you are measuring like at just the off time and then if the purse is large enough, let's say like I don't know like if you're measuring 10 millisecond it first with this like 10 millisecond, I think you probably don't need to actually discretize the ram bond much so you can do pretty course.

D

That's what you thought, because that part's not impacting my response as much as as I get near and nearer to uh to the yeah yeah.

I

The only only case is like when you got very short perks, so actually likely that rampant makes a large impact into your off time. That's probably where you need to do what joe suggested, but uh it seems like you're trying to emulate the step off with the large duration of the pulse. Then, uh if that's the case, I yeah it's it's unnecessary in general, I think that's what I have tested when I was just testing like how to generate like a just using the long period of step to approximate the step off.

D

Yeah because I I need to do that, based on my comparison, for how td auction version one works, but I'm a little bit.

I

Confused like uh if step off works like uh why, like I do, have a problem with just putting a like a certain period and then see that's matching with this step off. Is that is that something that you're having a problem.

D

Well, I just I should be able to simulate a square pulse right.

I

But then that's not the case. It's.

D

Not matching yeah and, and assuming that well I mean backward euler- is stable. I wasn't expecting that at those late time channels I would have some some craziness.

D

Right, it's a stable time stepping method and it was accurate over the range of the early and mid-time channels and then, as you go to the late time channels, there's still a prominent signal. However, it wasn't.

L

Stable, maybe you.

I

Check like the the the like a divergence of b, is actually zero. I think that's sometimes a problem like and that error is actually stacking up as you as time. Sort of time goes up because if you have a small error there, then, after a single time step it stacks and then that kind of accumulates.

I

So I like, I think we made sure in that just a conductivity case. We make sure that, but I'm not sure in when you actually get when you're actually applying like a large magnetic permeability, I'm not sure that's actually well tested. I don't know. I think if that seems that the case that you're trying so a potential place where we're getting a large error is that could be the place, and I think that the ubc code does extra things.

I

I guess to correct for um that to make sure that they'll divergence of b is equal to zero. I think uh I'm not sure exactly. I think I remember hd hd td dude, like that kind of things, extra extra sort of.

D

It's true: there's there was a little there. There is a little uh matrix that gets added. I guess to uh to do that and then all it says it has something to do with hanging nodes, but there was some additional consideration in the in the ubc codes. Yes,.

E

D

To work the best for for high uh magnetic permeability but version the version two code which uses uh an electric field. Formulation works, super super. Well, so I mean in the end I'm kind. These are kind of all the things I'm diving into. So what is the best discretization for solving certain types of problems? It's kind of what we want to know so that we can lead people down the right path when they start using this package.

K

Good! Luck on that yeah.

A

Yeah, I still think you should like, if you're doing that, step on it needs to be discretized finer at where it steps on, because the like, that's where the field is changing fastest right.

A

So in order to get a good like initial, because it changes very quickly at the beginning of the time at the beginning of the step on right, the field changes very quickly. So if you do that very coarsely, you're not going to get an accurate like start point for the step for the step off.

D

Yeah but then I mean won't if I, if I discretize it coarsely or more coarsely at that time, then it's basically like saying: oh I'm just kind of doing more of a ramp as opposed to a true step on and if you're far enough back, it impacts the the uh the data much less uh then, as you get closer to the step off.

D

So I'm not sure in the context of like the 3d time domain em, but in terms of doing a lot of this with uh with 1d codes and things. This has worked.

D

A

My inclination is the other way. Well you, when the field isn't changing right, you don't need to discretize it. Finally,.

I

um Try that I think I still think that you don't have to uh because the this pdf that's the feature of the bdf like, even if you got actually wrong initial, like a timestamping like you, do a very poor job on initial timestamping, but actually accuracy gets converging as you go later time, so uh I don't know try. I think, I'm not 100 sure. That's that's my intuition, so you can check.

D

But you meant yeah. You mentioned something interesting, though, about the the b field, not necessarily having having some kind of small error, because it might not be completely divergence free and then, as the the signal to that error ratio gets worse.

D

I

It yeah, so we do sort of that by using the vector potential uh when they're generating the source term but yeah, but then it's not necessarily still like in in when you're calculating the b field by solving the pde. We don't really make sure that so um yeah, I don't know, what's what could happen with the uh large permeability.

K

A

So, let's move on to don at this tip report here, so we can get.

H

A

Status afterwards,.

H

Yeah, so I've been exploring uh ways to be able to go from surfaces like a dxf to a black model. It's an operation that we have to do fairly often right and I was relying on gocat before, and I was trying to look for an open source uh way to be able to do this. So we had vtk. If you guys remember right.

H

Tkc were using btk for this, but there were some weird uh behaviors that if the surface were not closed, and so I found this try tree mesh package that does ray tracing and it's actually quite quite fast. So I recommend you guys to look at it if you have to do that operation um and then otherwise, uh I've been diving back into the the desk potential fields uh modules, because um we need to deliver things and uh it was not giving the same result as before so some efficiency there.

H

So john, I don't know if you, um if you're touching our tiled simulation branch, but uh I've been working on our fork and now I would have some pretty good updates uh to uh to push back uh yeah.

G

I think I made maybe like a a minor update so yeah. It should be all good. I've been mostly just kind of chewing away at the mtpr, because once that's done, then I just have to concentrate on the dash stuff, perfect.

H

Yeah, so I will do then a pull on my branch to see what you did and then yeah send it back cool it should fix. uh You should fix some good stuff for grab mag cool.

C

Dom you were saying you're talking about a deliverable. What was the context of that.

H

uh Well, we promised that we would give access. uh You know an analyst hookup to uh to the latest simpag. You know basically update from the old version to zero, 14 and plus uh by the end of um I think by october we said so. I just need to make sure that uh simp x014 runs fast and gives the output that we used to have right so yeah. That's uh that's deliverable.

H

That's it for me.

A

All right, let's see, there's any other quick reports, if not we'll do a quick pr status and try to assign some reviews to people.

A

So I'm just going to go through them on the simply repo right now.

A

I'm just gonna do a quick status on them and see where they're at he's reviewing them.

H

Hey for sure, I need to switch off uh joe, but uh paying me man if you want me to be in uh an editor on any of these guys, um just flag.

A

I think the only one I wanted to ask you about really quickly was the um xiao long have the celebrate or the cross radio.

H

A

Yeah the depth waiting function.

H

A

Just look at it again take a look at it again, I'm not sure if you added sufficient testing for it, but also because you and I had talked about the issue with normalizing by volume.

A

So how you want to proceed with that right, because we talked about how the sensitivity waiting like you have to not multiply by volume in the regularization, whereas the other ones you do.

H

Right you want to do this on this pr or we. uh I would just probably split that right.

A

Yeah, we should definitely split it. I just want to make sure that we first we still addressed that somehow did we end up making another an issue with that? I don't remember.

H

I don't remember either, but um I would say, let's just make, you know, make a decision for this one in line with what we want to do, basically always normalized by volumes and then uh and then um we can readjust the other regs after in a separate pr. That.

A

H

A

Okay, that was it.

H

Okay, have a good week, guys.

A

Okay, so I'm just gonna start at the most recent one and go from there, um so the number 1027 replace mp matrix by regular nd arrays, I'm not sure where so is it just failing on the code coverage right now it looks like it's just failing on code coverage for the diff. um This was.

A

I know I put in some reviews here and tebow. I thought you had left some comments on it as well, because it like deter the changes like you'd major made, originally never through errors, but I feel like they should have it's very minor yeah.

B

Yeah, I think, mike your comment. Yeah, it seems like this code is not like the part of the code that I wrote that was modify is like not not tested and yeah like, so that was like the analytic for the mt 1d that we uh I transferred from my uh from one of my very first projects in simpek to to compare and uh with the work that uh soggy and they did with the leading edge. But I'm not sure it's been used since then, and we didn't write any tests.

B

So it's probably something that we have should have on a to-do list at the moment.

A

Okay, um yeah from what I've seen it looks like it was done like the over was done correctly from matrix to array there. um I couldn't, I didn't see anything else so.

F

I mean eventually you you move that to tijuana probably.

A

Yeah, so I think it's probably that one is probably trying to pull in now.

F

And the second part with the viscose remnant, I think this one is tested, so that should work.

A

Okay, so that one looks really good gravity examples that the next one 10 24, I'm pretty sure that was just added example or added text into there saying that a little bit of detail and tutorial about the right-hand coordinate system.

D

Yeah I'm finding people are coming in to the gravity example every few months and then saying this, isn't the convention that I like to use and then they change it and then somebody gets mad and they change it back. Then they get mad and they change it back.

A

I it's, fortunately, it hasn't changed back. It's been consistent like with this impact, coordinate system, but we do keep getting people that think it's wrong so it'll, be I'm glad that you added it that should be fine um yeah. The standard deviation, one.

A

I think that's all that one looks all good right now. Great, that's just a very! It was a really simple change.

A

I'm happy with it.

A

um Okay, pgi improvement.

B

That's a draft, I'm not sure if we want actually to do that, but I know that yeah that uh you can write things as draft in github. So I actually that's what I I don't worry about.

A

B

Don't worry about.

A

It whenever you're ready, we'll put reviewers on it.

B

A

um See lindsey has an update receivers.

A

M

F

On that one, I think.

M

A

To be updated, the master it is.

F

Only documentation, yeah.

A

That one's fine, uh okay, total vector map dom mark that.

B

Is in progress so yeah we we're still not very happy with what we're getting it's kind of. There is some like uh yeah, some uh weird things happening like this. It's a difficult problem.

B

Okay, I think he's implementing uh what he saw in that uh from that man and also where, like it's mvi, but you regular, it's cartesian mvi, but you regularize on the unfitted.

A

All right: okay, uh let's see, there's a remove deck coat and somebody's pretty small.

F

Yeah, that's something we stumbled upon when soggy and I work together on the integration. I just, I think it's two lines that were not used and then a few other things. Okay,.

A

I

Speaking of that, joe, like a line interval code, this kind of works, like both tensor, is that are you kind of confident now the line integral code for like the.

A

I

Yeah the generating like where we used that to generate the current density, like uh do you remember mike, was asking us to provide like oh. How do we generate that wire loop, like a wire wire line, source.

A

Yeah we can, we can generate wire line sources on tree meshes now.

I

Yeah, so do you like it? You kind of now confident that, like because there were a bit of issues when um you first implemented that into.

A

Electric code, like that, the only issue I see right now is that it still doesn't like. I don't think it handles if a line crosses uh like cells that change level.

A

I think that's the only issue that I unders that I saw I I wasn't and I'm not quite sure how to get around that so right now, it just throws an error if it crosses levels.

D

A

All right, like the cell, should be all at the same level.

F

It's also an inherit problem that we have with voxel-based code right because it's an it's an average of our cells anyway. So it's if you're, not if you're, too close, it's not precise, probably in indifference to to finite elements where you can neatly form your cells along the source. In our case, that's just impossible.

F

So there is some averaging error all the time and you just have to be a decent distance away. I think.

A

Okay, okay, um so it's moving on fix for issue 771, I think, is this something still to do with.

A

So this is definitely an old, wrapper or old thing, but I think it has something to do with the.

A

Initial, like dfts kiss, and that it like it, uses that solver.

A

A few people put in a few fixes for it. It had something that was more to do with.

A

A

And what I saw is more to do with.

A

People not necessarily understanding what it was doing, um we're gonna have to. I think, we'll have to take a look into this closer, but I don't my initial thought on this. One is that having a.

A

Iterative solver there isn't going to help.

B

Yeah actually joe, um so um we like, we haven't, we have an even older pr for that 771 issue. Yeah.

E

B

Worked on geo that it might be look better, but I'm not sure like yeah it's and it's it's nor pr, so I'm not sure how it works. Now,.

A

Yes, but I I don't think that one's correct either because it like forms the dense matrix and then does the inverse matrix.

B

Yeah yeah yeah.

I

I think uh yeah we haven't used gauss newton. Almost at all. I think.

A

Yeah yeah, so I'm not sure where we can we're gonna. We should probably revisit that and see where it is actually happening like that and get it more in line with the an.

E

Exact cause whatever solver.

A

That we mostly use.

I

Maybe actually it's probably worthwhile to deprecate that gaussian newton. I think because yeah, I'm not sure why, like uh like you, can basically use it in exact. An exact gosh newton, always sure you like make sure you increase number of cg to make sure you solve well and then then what you get should be almost equivalent to the.

A

Okay, gaussian, we I mean we should definitely do something with that. I'm not sure what we can do right now, either way like both those things I don't think are good solutions to it. Looking at them, um the next one extend base source for poland dc or minor extensions um soggy. Would you mind looking through this one number 10 7.

A

I think he's made it like. It was the thing where you're kind, of implementing a multiple receiver for.

M

Tc uh yeah I could. I could do that. It's been a while. Okay.

A

M

Yeah I'll do that my my thoughts.

A

A

It'd probably be better to.

A

Have it be a separate class, and rather than having pull and diveables depend on.

E

A

But if it works, fine- and you know you're happy with the demos I'd be fine to accept it.

A

That pointing function model details- I've always talked already talked to them about that. One.

A

Simulation mt part one: where are you at with that john.

G

I just gotta write some more tests, uh just the yeah, the code coverage is just failing still so there's uh I started to go through it a little bit. I.

E

See what I need to do.

G

So um yeah I'll work on it for sure, okay cool! No I'm just don't worry.

A

It's just coming to everything.

G

A

G

Wanted to play with my question last.

A

Cross gradient, jointed version. I know I've been going through it a bunch, so I still got some stuff to put on. There should get that in I'm working on that. One.

A

Okay, add license and copyright to every pi file. This needs to be updated for the new files that are in. I think I I'm still I'm so in favor of adding the copyright to every file, but we need to get this back, updated.

F

But you could, you could just put the one liner. ah He has put that here.

F

Yeah. I think it's a necessity. Yeah.

F

Just if someone copies it out a file from from your code.

F

What is what is it's, the mit right impact, yeah.

A

F

And it wouldn't be too long, but yeah.

F

What I don't like too much is having the year in all of them. I have it in mind too, and then you have to update it all the time and it's sort of painful.

A

J

License itself.

A

A

So right now it was just as like a copyright, 2013 everything right.

A

Every every file had that same.

F

Which is, I think, it's not legally watertight, but the hyphen isn't either. You should have all the years where changes were done and it's stupid. Yeah.

A

F

I think 200 there. Probably there are no predecent in in court. But what of stuff would I read about licensing 2013 2020 and if you put that on a file that would have been created in 2015 you're already in the gray zone, because you're right in 2013, when this file didn't exist yet so.

F

I think that the license type is the important thing.

F

Maybe even the license type and the link just impact that xy set would make more sense just that. If someone copies it, you would see it from the file. What license is it under and where could you find more information? Where does it come from originally.

A

So next that we've got the emg 3d integration- that's that's still just a draft yard. You guys are still working on that one mate, yeah yeah yeah.

J

We actually need to revisit soon.

I

Memory linkage stuff, but other than that most of things are working. It can be used. Yes, yeah. We can.

E

I

We just need to fix that and add the magnetic receiver well, we do have, but that we need to just need to make sure that pass the order test and take it present.

I

But then yeah it'll it'll come together. We'll show some cscmtn version at some point.

A

So then, the next one there is the representation for survey, sources and receivers. um I know we kind of let that one get off.

A

F

Probably there is it's only for two cases. Ideally it would be for any source and receiver, but then it's a.

E

F

A

um I I don't, I think I might have pushed a change or two in there you'll put some changes here. Yeah. I think I was.

A

Decently, happy with it, I just update it and make sure it passes.

A

Okay, so there we have this examples mt1b from about two years ago, now we're almost to the end of them. um What do we? We have? We have one tmd examples in there right now, because it's no longer needed because, right now, it's just a um it was like literally a tutorial or example.

A

So, I'm assuming that we added a tutorial for the one tmp it's empty at some point.

F

It also itself says work in progress, so I guess it was never fully finished.

I

Yeah, I think it's just probably worthwhile to replace um like not all of them, but just put simple like I want example using the analytic analytic function. I guess that's pretty.

A

I just wasn't sure if we had we had that.

M

A

Doesn't seem like we have a any of the like a tutorial for 1d em, yet so I'm gonna leave it there for now. If you want to use it to build off of it, go ahead.

F

I don't know if actually the last one can be closed or not, or it's probably heavily outdated.

F

I think lindsay started a google docs at some point and then it also got outdated.

F

Yeah she started the google docs, so yeah.

M

A

Yeah, I was just not sure what to do with that one. Yet, since it was such a while.

F

Ago, I don't think it has been changed, so the original issue sort of still stays, but.

F

Yeah, it's not yeah.

F

Maybe when, when the what we talked about, when simpac does the inversion seminars, then there will come a good, a good summary of what is an inversion, that they can slap to the same peg talks yeah.

I

What do you think soggy? I think it's all come. Maybe I'll come together at some point. I think that is also working hard on writing inversion module as like it's a text, but uh I think that's more kind of providing a theoretical point of view of how simple or how the inversion works. So maybe that can be related to this at some point: change something but yeah. I think we could just let it open, although that's.

I

Realize that you closed that that em-1d stuff um do you think I was like good enough to be merged or what was sort of your intentions? I was kind of revisiting and wanting to make sure like.

E

I

Wanted to actually merge that kind of as soon as possible, which.

K

One uh it was number: where is that, let me see um it is merged. Thirteen thousand thirteen, oh, is it merged. I.

A

Might have I didn't yes.

I

I

You closed 18 hours ago.

I

Which one 9 13 9 6 3.

A

Nine six eight.

F

Three: nine six: three, it's a huge one of merchants in simple game. One d into simpek.

A

A

That might have been an accident. I don't know.

I

Sounds good, then, can you reopen and yeah um yeah it's kind of timely, so I'm working on writing a book about em induction for groundwater, and uh I want to actually use this tools um and as a separate resources for the book. So I want to make sure all um all the functions of uh that we have is working. I think it's actually working. All of them are working. It's passing the test. um I just need to make sure like update the tutorials that devin generated.

A

um I saw you it updated a uh sorry. I didn't mean to close that one. I don't know how that happened.

A

um Of course, might just going to miss click. Thank you for bringing that up.

C

A

To add a sign like a sign difference there.

I

Oh, that was my mistake like uh I, no I they were like. uh That was my. That was my band there's. No, there were no problem. Okay, so I had to like I was playing with like the signs and.

A

Yeah just make sure we get the all the tests back in there.

I

Yeah, I think the except the height, I think it's all of the tests are passing. I think.

A

I would love to get a derivative test in.

I

There um right the the difficulty is now the the current current version has. Actually you use like a you, find all the unique pairs of sources at the same height uh then.

I

Like then, I then yeah, then I need some sort of index like that. uh Like that said, oh it's, a single height like so yeah I've had before, but now it's somewhat ambiguous. um So I, I think, all the functionality I think it's working, but they just kind of bit of a logistic problem. How are we going to set it's an it's a it's, a problem, inverse problem because we can set like number of heights for each of the source, but that's.

E

I

We need to think about a good way to index. Okay, we're still inverting for single height um that I wasn't 100 clear how what's the good way to go? Oh, it should be pretty simple just using the.

A

Like um I just map between the topography, I got typography xyz said to there's to the source location.

A

That should be all it needs.

I

A

I

Like uh we need something what like similar to what that did like, uh so we need some sort of reference height and then everything is relative like so, we got you're just inverting for reference height and then other.

A

I

My point is that all you.

A

Needed was like all we need is a like: a matrix opera like the like an interpolation thing that goes from the quantity defined in space to the location of each source, yeah. That should be it.

I

Yeah, so I was hoping we could deal with that a little bit later, because, uh although it's actually probably simple but need some thoughts, I think and and then it's probably need extra parameters in survey class like like. I'm not sure. So, um if you, if you have a great idea, we could we could just implement quickly and merge, but I thought it's not necessarily important.

A

It'll, just my thought would be: okay, just use like a. um However you have your mesh defined like you can have like a 2d mesh. If you have them have the sources in 3d like in on a plane right, you just have a 2d mesh and then just use an interpolate to source location.

A

That's all you have to do.

I

A

I

So anyway, so that's uh that's where mi.

A

um And then so, then, we'll just need to go through and just parse out the things we talked about getting into syntax quickly, right.

I

I think it seems like you've already done the parsing things out. uh That's.

A

Yeah, we just need to remove some of the other stuff for now, so it's not just floating around in the code base.

I

All right right, yeah we could. We could remove some of.

K

I

B

A

I think that's all of them. Thank you guys for sticking around thanks. Everyone have a good one, see you next week.

C

Thanks guys, soggy do you have a moment to.