Footpoint depth when turning on optically thick radiation

[jwreep]

When OPTICALLY_THICK_RADIATION is turned on in HYDRAD, it expects a chromospheric depth of 2.26 Mm. If that number differs, there will likely be a discontinuity in the initial conditions solver. HYDRAD's GUI updates this value automatically, as should pydrad unless there's some future change to HYDRAD's functionality.

That is, if we set config['radiation']['optically_thick_chromosphere'] = True, then config['general']['footpoint_height'] needs to be set to 2.26e8 * u.cm for consistency.

This should either be done automatically, or a warning given to the user that the mismatch may cause issues.

This is somewhat related to #33

[jwreep]

config['initial_conditions']['footpoint_temperature'] = 24000 * u.K and config['initial_conditions']['footpoint_density'] = 4.2489e9 * u.cm**-3 also need to be set to specific values.

[wtbarnes]

Sorry for not responding to this for a bit!

This could either be done at the template level or in the Configure object. There's currently not a clearly defined place to do it in the latter and the former might be a little messy, especially if there are multiple values.

If the latter, this is just a matter of adding some sort of validation layer to the input dictionary itself and maybe warning if some value is already set that is not the expected value.

[jwreep]

config['solver']['minimum_radiation_temperature'] = 24000*u.K and config['solver']['minimum_temperature'] = 4170*u.K also need to be set for consistency. There might be more.

I haven't spent any time yet on how to actually make these changes (incredibly busy the last few weeks), so I'm just noting where there might be issues. I don't have a strong preference, but I would suggest that the values should be updated automatically rather than warning the user, but fully understand if your preference is to simply warn the user.

[wtbarnes]

Noting where changes need to be made is very helpful! Thanks for providing those default values. That is good to know.

I don't have a strong preference, but I would suggest that the values should be updated automatically rather than warning the user, but fully understand if your preference is to simply warn the user.

Sorry, my initial comment was vague. When I said warn the user, I meant that the user should be warned that the value is being updated automatically. That way, they are aware that values that they've put are being automatically overwritten.

[jwreep]

When I said warn the user, I meant that the user should be warned that the value is being updated automatically. That way, they are aware that values that they've put are being automatically overwritten.

One counterargument to this is that we might want to allow for the user to override the defaults. I've been trying to help with some stellar flare modeling, for example, and we've had to modify the chromosphere pretty significantly. There's likely an intelligent way to do this . . .