Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1799207 times)

Offline Devilstower

  • Member
  • Posts: 23
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 6
As an interesting note, since in these threads we've talked about the possibility of violations of CoE and CoM, there's an article in IO9 today concerning a bit of physics that was once considered an inviolable ruleó parity.

http://io9.com/the-experiment-that-overturned-a-basic-law-of-physics-1715265897

Until 1956, parity conservation was believed to be one of the fundamental geometric conservation laws (along with conservation of energy and conservation of momentum). However, in 1956 a careful critical review of the existing experimental data by theoretical physicists Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang revealed that while parity conservation had been verified in decays by the strong or electromagnetic interactions, it was untested in the weak interaction. They proposed several possible direct experimental tests. The first test based on beta decay of Cobalt-60 nuclei was carried out in 1956 by a group led by Chien-Shiung Wu, and demonstrated conclusively that weak interactions violate the P symmetry or, as the analogy goes, some reactions did not occur as often as their mirror image.


With the experiments showing parity violation in the 1950s, CP-symmetry was introduced to restore order. Only...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation

In 1964, James Cronin, Val Fitch and coworkers provided clear evidence (which was first announced at the 12th ICHEP conference in Dubna) that CP-symmetry could be broken. This work won them the 1980 Nobel Prize. This discovery showed that weak interactions violate not only the charge-conjugation symmetry C between particles and antiparticles and the P or parity, but also their combination. The discovery shocked particle physics and opened the door to questions still at the core of particle physics and of cosmology today.


Just a reminder that CoE and CoM were once partners with another "absolute" law. Do I expect either CoE or CoM to fall to microwaves bouncing about in a copper cone? Not really. But I can dream. You get a Nobel Prize, and you get a Nobel Prize, and you...





Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5913
  • Likes Given: 5253
...Just a reminder that CoE and CoM were once partners with another "absolute" law. Do I expect either CoE or CoM to fall to microwaves bouncing about in a copper cone? Not really. But I can dream. You get a Nobel Prize, and you get a Nobel Prize, and you...
There is a fundamental difference with parity or CP symmetry.  The fundamental difference is that CoE and CoM apply to everything: they apply in Quantum Mechanics, they apply in General Relativity and they apply in Continuum Mechanics.  While CoE and CoM have been around and verified from immemorial times, since they governed mechanics in the world we experience: the macro  world, CP symmetry was just postulated as something to explain the world for which we have no intuition: the micro world of Quantum Mechanics. The EM Drive copper cone is in the Macro world of Continuum Mechanics, where CoE and CoM rule. There is a tiny little opening in that the microwaves inside the frustum are photons governed by quantum particle-wave duality.  But, the energy in the EM Drive is so tiny, that it is nowhere near the energies of a particle collider looking at new and interesting effects, and way smaller than the energies involved during the Big Bang when all forces were unified.   Moreover, the EM Drive researchers conduct experiments at these tiny energies at room temperature, and not near zero degrees, where interesting things (Bose-Einstein condensates, etc.) happen.  The motion of the center of mass of the copper frustum itself is fully expected to abide by CoE and CoM.
« Last Edit: 07/02/2015 06:09 PM by Rodal »

Offline ZuluMoon99

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • UK
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 35
I took a quick look through the MEEP source code and didn't see any assembly optimizations. By identifying bottlenecks and hand writing SIMD assembly routines, you can often improve performance on the order of several hundred percent (it's my day job). If you folks have a set of representative input data, I'll try to take a look with a profiler in search of low-hanging optimization fruit.

Kitsuac & Meep users

to make things even more confusing, for me at least there is another version at :

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/wily/+source/meep

[last updated on 30Jun15]

Version meep 1.3-1, maintained by "Thorsten Alteholz"

I was wondering which one to go for and try and install?

[I have in no way the math skill as demonstrated in this Thread by others but am willing to help out in doing Meep runs if asked - Two Laptops running Linux Mint].

Regards

Offline VAXHeadroom

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • Whereever you go, there you are. -- BB
  • Baltimore MD
  • Liked: 255
  • Likes Given: 151
The higher density views are uploaded.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfkVzeXVub2NpTm5fanZTTTdrLXNiT3VHaV9FYnB6TVpDUmJsWjRQbEUwdE0&usp=sharing

These Meep runs were made at resolution = 250 which is 2.5 times higher than previously uploaded views. These are the 14 final time slices of a 32 cycle run. 14 images for each view, separated by 0.1 cycle of the drive frequency 2.45 GHz. The Gaussian noise bandwidth of 2.45 GHz * .025 was used which seems reasonable for a magnetron. The 58 mm dipole antenna was located parallel to and 1/4 wavelength from the small end plate, excited with the Ez field component.

Included are two models of the 10.2 inch NSF-1701 cavity, one using copper and the other using Perfect metal.

I expect questions.

Looking forward to seeing somebody make movies from these higher density runs !

On it.

First cut at a POVRay 3D animation.  Let me know what anybody would like to see changed (slower/less/no rotation, less transparency, more loops etc). Personally loving this :D

 

EY-EZ video



EX-HX video



HY-HZ video


Emory Stagmer
  Executive Producer, Public Speaker UnTied Music - www.untiedmusic.com

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
I took a quick look through the MEEP source code and didn't see any assembly optimizations. By identifying bottlenecks and hand writing SIMD assembly routines, you can often improve performance on the order of several hundred percent (it's my day job). If you folks have a set of representative input data, I'll try to take a look with a profiler in search of low-hanging optimization fruit.

Attached find a control file that is representative. It seems that the Harminv module is slower than the normal continuous wave generation. To run the code, first change the extension from .txt to .ctl. See my system's run command at the end of the file. Three dimensional runs are by far the slowest so they could use some help.

Luck, and thanks.

aero
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline DrBagelBites

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Orlando
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 68
Just had a thought, would there be interest for an IRC channel for this topic? Unless one has already been setup for it.

It would allow more direct and immediate contact, if desirable. Let me know, and I can set it up. :)

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1291
  • Likes Given: 1741
In free space, the effective rest-mass of EM energy is

m = U/c2 = hbar*w/c2

In the PV Model, mass is highly dependent on the refractive index. So, is it unreasonable to assume that part of the non-linear affect going on that causes such a large force is that the speed of light is much slower near the small end of the frustum, such that;

m(v) = U/v2 = hbar*w/(c2*(1 - (wc / w)2)

IF this is true, it makes an enormous difference in CoM for the energy being displaced. IMO, it is but I have no "proof" other than this is how it works in GR and PV for gravity.

Todd

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
@Dr. Rodal,
Yesterday while reading this document
http://meepunits.wikia.com/wiki/Meep_unit_transformation_Wiki
I found this comment in the code for example 2
Quote
(define-param srctype Ex) ;direction of the source current
It had never dawned on me that the x on Ex was the direction of the current. I have been alligning my Ez source antenna in the y direction thinking that in the real world, it couldn't matter. But maybe in the numerical model world? I changed direction of the antenna in the NSF-1701 copper model to the z direction, still using Ez as the source current and made a resonance run in Meep.

The antenna direction does not change the resonant frequency but it increased the quality factor Q, by 40 times.

I have since ran and uploaded the full set of .csv files, naming them zCopper .csv to differentiate them from the previously named Copper .csv files. They appear to have much larger numbers than before. You may wish to look at them.
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5913
  • Likes Given: 5253
@Dr. Rodal,
Yesterday while reading this document
http://meepunits.wikia.com/wiki/Meep_unit_transformation_Wiki
I found this comment in the code for example 2
Quote
(define-param srctype Ex) ;direction of the source current
It had never dawned on me that the x on Ex was the direction of the current. I have been alligning my Ez source antenna in the y direction thinking that in the real world, it couldn't matter. But maybe in the numerical model world? I changed direction of the antenna in the NSF-1701 copper model to the z direction, still using Ez as the source current and made a resonance run in Meep.

The antenna direction does not change the resonant frequency but it increased the quality factor Q, by 40 times.

I have since ran and uploaded the full set of .csv files, naming them zCopper .csv to differentiate them from the previously named Copper .csv files. They appear to have much larger numbers than before. You may wish to look at them.

That sounds very interesting.  I am calculating the Poynting vector field based on the previous data, and got some interesting results , hope to report shortly.  I am double-checking my results before posting.

Offline jmossman

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • San Jose, CA
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 171
I took a quick look through the MEEP source code and didn't see any assembly optimizations. By identifying bottlenecks and hand writing SIMD assembly routines, you can often improve performance on the order of several hundred percent (it's my day job). If you folks have a set of representative input data, I'll try to take a look with a profiler in search of low-hanging optimization fruit.

Attached find a control file that is representative. It seems that the Harminv module is slower than the normal continuous wave generation. To run the code, first change the extension from .txt to .ctl. See my system's run command at the end of the file. Three dimensional runs are by far the slowest so they could use some help.

Luck, and thanks.

aero

For those willing to look at profiling Meep for performance bottlenecks, I believe Meep utilizes BLAS and LAPACK libraries.   These libraries can be optionally replaced (at compile time) with GPU optimized versions;  other pre-existing optimized libraries may also exist.  Also the choice of compiler and compiler optimizations can have non-trivial impacts on floating-point performance.

For example, I had done a quick search a while back for GPU-enabled BLAS and LAPACK libraries and listed a few URLs that I found:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1391641#msg1391641

For those who aren't familiar, modern 3D graphics involves lots of floating point matrix math.  As a result, modern GPU (i.e. Graphics Processor Unit = 3D graphics cards) are *REALLY* good at floating point math.  The newest $$$ GPU's contain thousands of smaller floating point engines for parallel processing.  The tough part is "moving" the data around efficiently, but that's where the GPU-optimized BLAS and LAPACK libraries should come in handy.  For only a ~$200 PCIE graphics card, I suspect most people would see a significant increase (40+%) in their Meep performance if matching GPU-optimized libraries were used....  the tough part is the newer GPU's can require very large power supplies and therefore may not be feasible for older systems.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5913
  • Likes Given: 5253
I calculated the Poynting Vector Fields

 

from the prior csv Meep data files.

**************************************************************************


Dipole radiation of a dipole vertically in the page showing electric field strength (colour) and Poynting vector (arrows) in the plane of the page. [from Wikipedia]
**************************************************************************

There is a strong, definite Poynting vector from the small base towards the big base, which means that the energy flux is from the small base towards the big base.  This would mean, that in order to satisfy Conservation of Momentum, the copper cone needs to move in the direction towards the small base to balance the energy flow in the opposite direction.  Alternatively, the Poynting vector field may all get dissipated into heat at the big base.

The Poynting vector seems to be strongly associated with the RF feed from the antenna.

The Big base is at the left and the Small Base is at the right for the xz and the xy plane views.

The yz plane view is looking at one of the bases.

Before anybody gets excited about this intriguing result, this maybe a coincidence.  We need to check other time steps to see whether this flow is consistent or whether it reverses like a sinusoid function in time.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2015 02:38 AM by Rodal »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Before anybody gets excited about this intriguing result, this maybe a coincidence.  We need to check other time steps to see whether this flow is consistent or whether it reverses like a sinusoid function in time.

Well, if it averages out to zero, at least we have a vibration to start the thrust.  ;D
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5913
  • Likes Given: 5253
Before anybody gets excited about this intriguing result, this maybe a coincidence.  We need to check other time steps to see whether this flow is consistent or whether it reverses like a sinusoid function in time.

Well, if it averages out to zero, at least we have a vibration to start the thrust.  ;D

Those Poynting vector results are for the cases "Copper" (the original csv files here:  https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfmkxNm1Ha1YxR1NZU2ZjUUpBUVVGV0M4QUVxaGYySEVFam5jVzdRYy0tSWs&usp=sharing from your message http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1398791#msg1398791).

Can you also give me csv files for a couple IMMEDIATELY prior time steps ?  Or would you need to re-run the case to do that? (If that's the case, I would RE_RUN It exactly the same, as we have a lot of time invested in this case, and that's better than starting with another model)
« Last Edit: 07/03/2015 01:32 AM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5913
  • Likes Given: 5253
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************

Another forum where the EM Drive is discussed has had some commotion during the last couple of days due to one of the moderators stating that the other forum should not be a place to debate whether the Em Drive works, arguing that debate is contentious, toxic, and unproductive.  This situation has now been corrected in the other forum, as the moderator has resigned. 

I want to use this opportunity to strongly re-state again that skeptical views of the EM Drive as an experimental  artifact have always been and will continue to be encouraged in this NSF forum. This NSF forum is not a place to promote companies with a financial stake in the EM Drive (Mr. Shawyer's SPR, Fetta's Cannae, or any other such company with financial interests).  All posts should concentrate on scientific and technological facts, and they are open to scientific debate . 

Science requires a healthy dose of skepticism.

Quote from: George Santayana
Skepticism, like chastity, should not be relinquished too readily.

**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
« Last Edit: 07/03/2015 11:56 AM by Rodal »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Before anybody gets excited about this intriguing result, this maybe a coincidence.  We need to check other time steps to see whether this flow is consistent or whether it reverses like a sinusoid function in time.

Well, if it averages out to zero, at least we have a vibration to start the thrust.  ;D

Those Poynting vector results are for the cases "Copper" (the original csv files here:  https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfmkxNm1Ha1YxR1NZU2ZjUUpBUVVGV0M4QUVxaGYySEVFam5jVzdRYy0tSWs&usp=sharing from your message http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1398791#msg1398791).

Can you also give me csv files for a couple IMMEDIATELY prior time steps ?  Or would you need to re-run the case to do that? (If that's the case, I would RE_RUN It exactly the same, as we have a lot of time invested in this case, and that's better than starting with another model)

No, I don't need to re-run the case to get more time slices. I have time steps 0 thru 13 in the h5 files. But lets be sure what you want to see before I make and upload the files. (I could upload all 14 in perhaps a day's time.) But you would be looking at time slices at the base only. Another option would be to look at a single time slice but look at slices of the cavity from large to small end, or left to right or front to back. There are a lot of those. More than I could generate or you could look at but we could pick and choose judiciously. 248 slices perpendicular to the x axis, and 265 slices parallel to it, in both y and z directions. Of course some of those x slices are outside of the cavity (look at a .csv file to find where the slice should start and end.) Same with y and z which cut "off-center" slices parallel to the x axis.

And do look at the zCopper .csv files. It is exactly the same model except for the antenna being rotated by 90 degrees. I have the same data set for both copper cases. And the signal is much stronger in the zCopper data set.

I believe I mis-spoke. I did upload y and z central slices already so you have more than just the large end view which is at x = -100, zero being the center of the cavity. Which makes it about row 225 of the csv matrix in the y and z views.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2015 02:18 AM by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5913
  • Likes Given: 5253
Before anybody gets excited about this intriguing result, this maybe a coincidence.  We need to check other time steps to see whether this flow is consistent or whether it reverses like a sinusoid function in time.

Well, if it averages out to zero, at least we have a vibration to start the thrust.  ;D

Those Poynting vector results are for the cases "Copper" (the original csv files here:  https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfmkxNm1Ha1YxR1NZU2ZjUUpBUVVGV0M4QUVxaGYySEVFam5jVzdRYy0tSWs&usp=sharing from your message http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1398791#msg1398791).

Can you also give me csv files for a couple IMMEDIATELY prior time steps ?  Or would you need to re-run the case to do that? (If that's the case, I would RE_RUN It exactly the same, as we have a lot of time invested in this case, and that's better than starting with another model)

No, I don't need to re-run the case. I have time steps 0 thru 13 in the h5 files. But lets be sure what you want to see before I make and upload the files. (I could upload all 14 in perhaps a day's time.) But you would be looking at time slices at the base only. Another option would be to look at a single time slice but look at slices of the cavity from large to small end, or left to right or front to back. There are a lot of those. More that I could generate or you could look at but we could pick and choose judiciously. 248 slices perpendicular to the x axis, and 265 slices parallel to it, in both y and z directions. Of course some of those x slices are outside of the cavity (look at a .csv file to find where the slice should start and end.) Same with y and z which cut "off-center" slices parallel to the x axis.

And do look at the zCopper .csv files. It is exactly the same model except for the antenna being rotated by 90 degrees. I have the same data set for both copper cases. And the signal is much stronger in the zCopper data set.
If you want to save time, we could start by looking ONLY at the plane that has "Y" as normal (the x z plane).

Please post csv files for

Exy, Eyy, Ezy, Hxy, Hyy, Hzy,   (I need all 6 to compute the Poynting vector)

for 3 time steps immediately preceding the last time step for which you already have the csv

Yes, I will look at the zCopper files when i have a chance.  Thanks

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Before anybody gets excited about this intriguing result, this maybe a coincidence.  We need to check other time steps to see whether this flow is consistent or whether it reverses like a sinusoid function in time.

Well, if it averages out to zero, at least we have a vibration to start the thrust.  ;D

Those Poynting vector results are for the cases "Copper" (the original csv files here:  https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfmkxNm1Ha1YxR1NZU2ZjUUpBUVVGV0M4QUVxaGYySEVFam5jVzdRYy0tSWs&usp=sharing from your message http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1398791#msg1398791).

Can you also give me csv files for a couple IMMEDIATELY prior time steps ?  Or would you need to re-run the case to do that? (If that's the case, I would RE_RUN It exactly the same, as we have a lot of time invested in this case, and that's better than starting with another model)

No, I don't need to re-run the case. I have time steps 0 thru 13 in the h5 files. But lets be sure what you want to see before I make and upload the files. (I could upload all 14 in perhaps a day's time.) But you would be looking at time slices at the base only. Another option would be to look at a single time slice but look at slices of the cavity from large to small end, or left to right or front to back. There are a lot of those. More that I could generate or you could look at but we could pick and choose judiciously. 248 slices perpendicular to the x axis, and 265 slices parallel to it, in both y and z directions. Of course some of those x slices are outside of the cavity (look at a .csv file to find where the slice should start and end.) Same with y and z which cut "off-center" slices parallel to the x axis.

And do look at the zCopper .csv files. It is exactly the same model except for the antenna being rotated by 90 degrees. I have the same data set for both copper cases. And the signal is much stronger in the zCopper data set.
If you want to save time, we could start by looking ONLY at the plane that has "Y" as normal (the x z plane).

Please post csv files for

Exy, Eyy, Ezy, Hxy, Hyy, Hzy,   (I need all 6 to compute the Poynting vector)

for 3 time steps immediately preceding the last time step for which you already have the csv

Yes, I will look at the zCopper files when i have a chance.  Thanks

Ok- That will give you 4 tenths of a full cycle which I believe will be from the final half cycle of the 32 cycle run. I'm sure it will be actually. The h5 files output starts "after" time = 30.7 periods, the  run time is set fo 32 periods and Meep stops as soon as the simulated time exceeds the run time. That should be the same time step that the 14th time slice is written to the h5 file.
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5913
  • Likes Given: 5253
Before anybody gets excited about this intriguing result, this maybe a coincidence.  We need to check other time steps to see whether this flow is consistent or whether it reverses like a sinusoid function in time.

Well, if it averages out to zero, at least we have a vibration to start the thrust.  ;D

Those Poynting vector results are for the cases "Copper" (the original csv files here:  https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfmkxNm1Ha1YxR1NZU2ZjUUpBUVVGV0M4QUVxaGYySEVFam5jVzdRYy0tSWs&usp=sharing from your message http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1398791#msg1398791).

Can you also give me csv files for a couple IMMEDIATELY prior time steps ?  Or would you need to re-run the case to do that? (If that's the case, I would RE_RUN It exactly the same, as we have a lot of time invested in this case, and that's better than starting with another model)

No, I don't need to re-run the case. I have time steps 0 thru 13 in the h5 files. But lets be sure what you want to see before I make and upload the files. (I could upload all 14 in perhaps a day's time.) But you would be looking at time slices at the base only. Another option would be to look at a single time slice but look at slices of the cavity from large to small end, or left to right or front to back. There are a lot of those. More that I could generate or you could look at but we could pick and choose judiciously. 248 slices perpendicular to the x axis, and 265 slices parallel to it, in both y and z directions. Of course some of those x slices are outside of the cavity (look at a .csv file to find where the slice should start and end.) Same with y and z which cut "off-center" slices parallel to the x axis.

And do look at the zCopper .csv files. It is exactly the same model except for the antenna being rotated by 90 degrees. I have the same data set for both copper cases. And the signal is much stronger in the zCopper data set.
If you want to save time, we could start by looking ONLY at the plane that has "Y" as normal (the x z plane).

Please post csv files for

Exy, Eyy, Ezy, Hxy, Hyy, Hzy,   (I need all 6 to compute the Poynting vector)

for 3 time steps immediately preceding the last time step for which you already have the csv

Yes, I will look at the zCopper files when i have a chance.  Thanks

Ok- That will give you 4 tenths of a full cycle which I believe will be from the final half cycle of the 32 cycle run. I'm sure it will be actually. The h5 files output starts "after" time = 30.7 periods, the  run time is set fo 32 periods and Meep stops as soon as the simulated time exceeds the run time. That should be the same time step that the 14th time slice is written to the h5 file.

I should look at least to a 1/2 cycle, so that means that I need at least 4 time steps immediately preceding the last one then for


Exy, Eyy, Ezy, Hxy, Hyy, Hzy,   (I need all 6 to compute the Poynting vector)

in each of them
« Last Edit: 07/03/2015 03:46 AM by Rodal »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2588
John Henry Poynting is smiling I swear under that mustache.
 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/John_Henry_Poynting.jpg

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Dr. Rodal,

I have generated csv data sets for time slice 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 and uploaded them to the csv folder. Time slice 13 is the same data set as you have been working with, but now they are all named consistently and in the same place.

It only takes a few seconds for h5totxt to run, and about 2 minutes to upload each time slice data set so I spend more time fooling around structuring the folders and moving files than actually running the computer.

Enjoy.

Added: As you can see from my time numbers, I could generate and upload time slices 0 thru 7 without to much trouble. It gets easier as I do it repeatedly.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2015 04:52 AM by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Tags: