You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Might be as simple as changing the finite difference nabla, but I doubt it. The array flattening of the input space might make this implementation very tricky. It is also unlikely that the performance gain of accessing and adding the potential directly to the underlying data is not possible with a spherical nabla.
3D and 2D would be nice.
A possible solution would be to accept a potential in spherical/cylindrical coordinates, and supply functionality to transform that to a cartesian grid before passing that to the solver.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Might be as simple as changing the finite difference nabla, but I doubt it. The array flattening of the input space might make this implementation very tricky. It is also unlikely that the performance gain of accessing and adding the potential directly to the underlying data is not possible with a spherical nabla.
3D and 2D would be nice.
A possible solution would be to accept a potential in spherical/cylindrical coordinates, and supply functionality to transform that to a cartesian grid before passing that to the solver.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: