I cannot set up the tracker correctly in either of these parameter files.

The "pt_loc_" timeseries all display the (0,0,0) position at all times.

The 'NaNMask' data is probably corrupted by simulation shutting down, as I cannot open it.

What are the "mesh grid variables" exactly that I should use in this diagnostics and in which thorns should I look for them?

Here's part of the log (common for both simulations in the PunctureTracker part):

mesh grid variables" that

[...]
INFO (GRHydro): Setting up the atmosphere mask: all points are not_atmosphere
INFO (PunctureTracker): Tracking punctures...
INFO (PunctureTracker): Puncture #0 is at (17.3774,-0.0975486,0)
INFO (PunctureTracker): Shift at puncture #0 is at (0,0,0)
INFO (AHFinderDirect): proc 0: searching for horizon 1/1
INFO (PunctureTracker): Setting spherical surface 0 centroid from puncture #0 to (17.3774,-0.0975486,0)
1 0.022 | 6.0400998 | -nan -nan | -nan -nan | 2516 3089 | 0 0
INFO (CarpetTracker): Setting position of refined region #1 from surface #0 to (17.3774,-0.0975486,0)
INFO (CarpetTracker): Refined region #2 (depending on surface #1) is inactive
INFO (PunctureTracker): Tracking punctures...
INFO (PunctureTracker): Puncture #0 is at (17.3774,-0.0975486,0)
INFO (PunctureTracker): Shift at puncture #0 is at (-nan,-nan,-nan)
ERROR from host nid00681 process 0
while executing schedule bin CCTK_EVOL, routine PunctureTracker::PunctureTracker_Track
in thorn PunctureTracker, file /lustre/tetyda/home/topolski/Cactus/arrangements/EinsteinAnalysis/PunctureTracker/src/puncture_tracker.cc:204:
-> Shift at puncture #0 is (-nan,-nan,-nan). This likely indicates an error in the simulation.

I'm also sending the initial data to confirm the initial guess for the puncture.

Best

niedz., 22 sie 2021 o 08:59 Samuel Tootle <tootle@itp.uni-frankfurt.de> napisał(a):

Hi Konrad,

The matter looks reasonable in all the iterations until the end, so that's good. Have you looked at the mesh grid to see if both objects are being tracked properly? You asked about this being a possibility in your first note, but didn't mention if you looked at the grid or not.

Cheers,
Samuel

From: Konrad Topolski <k.topolski2@student.uw.edu.pl>
To: Samuel Tootle <tootle@itp.uni-frankfurt.de>; Einstein Toolkit Users <users@einsteintoolkit.org>
Date: Aug 21, 2021 23:20:30
Subject: Re: [Users] BHNS simulation issues - Hamiltonian constraint violations and general problems

Hi Sam

I am sending the pictures of the density in a few iterations.

Something indeed goes very bad (and possibly in the wrong direction pretty soon from the start).

But before a chunk of the NS turns into atmosphere it doesn't look like it would end up like that.

This is rho.maximum:

0 0 0.00181508688452629
16 0.4 0.00181562065714772
32 0.8 0.00181716349263237
48 1.2 0.00181971188439579
64 1.6 0.00182322915996771
80 2 0.00182773078378139

And this is rho.average:

0 0 1.23447090415481e-07
16 0.4 1.2346439769246e-07
32 0.8 1.23490260581956e-07
48 1.2 1.23521771090518e-07
64 1.6 1.23554773904041e-07
80 2 1.23584518348538e-07

sob., 21 sie 2021 o 23:03 Samuel Tootle <tootle@itp.uni-frankfurt.de> napisał(a):

Hi Konrad,

Have you checked the import of the ID from the hydro point of view (i.e. plot rho in for the first iterations). If you see drastic changes in the NS density in the initial iterations, it usually means the EOS manager isn't configured correctly which routinely results in the NS "vanishing" thereby destroying the solution and the evolution.

Cheers,
Samuel

From: Konrad Topolski <k.topolski2@student.uw.edu.pl>
To: Einstein Toolkit Users <users@einsteintoolkit.org>
Date: Aug 21, 2021 22:30:57
Subject: [Users] BHNS simulation issues - Hamiltonian constraint violations and general problems

Hi all

I am trying to run a BH-NS simulation using at least one of some (and sometimes more) unofficial thors.

That would be Kadath for the initial data and possibly THC for hydro evolution.

I'm trying to run the simulation either with GRHydro or with THC.

In both cases I believe that the initial data gets imported correctly - I have looked at some simple visuals which I'm attaching to this mail.

However, as the simulation proceeds, huge hamiltonian constraint violations occur and e.x. the lapse gets driven to 0 globally. This can also be seen.

How can I help this? Is it because the puncture is not tracked correctly? Trying to set up a PunctureTracker at the location of the black hole yields a failure very soon, as the shift at puncture is said to be (nan, nan, nan).

I'm sending the .par files, outputs (.out), errors (.err) and visualization (.png).

Best regards

Konrad

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@einsteintoolkit.org
http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users