Repository navigation
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Two corrections to the loop-source section of
3_diffusion_fields/em_diffusion.md, both found by checking the chapter against the MATLAB scripts that produced its figures.The prefactor of the loop-source electric field.$\mu/(8\sqrt{\pi},t)$ ; the correct value is $\mu/(8\pi t)$ , and the pre-integration form was missing a $4\pi$ inside its square root.
eq:Exloopandeq:EyloopcarriedThe two loop figures. The$(x,z)$ panels plotted $-E_y$ : the script computed the field with the two Gaussians in the reverse order from $(x,y)$ block of the same file used the order the equation has.
eq:Eyloop, while theThe$(x,y)$ panels plotted $E_x^2+E_y^2$ under a colour axis labelled V/m and a caption naming $E_y$ . They are regenerated as $|\boldsymbol E|$ , which is what the body text describes, and the caption now names the magnitude.
That last point had a consequence in the prose. The text read that the field "has decreased by six orders of magnitude, which seems to suggest that the decay is faster in the$(x,y)$ -plane for fixed depth than in the $(x,z)$ -plane", and explained the difference by the horizontal distances. The six orders were three orders squared. With the panels showing $|\boldsymbol E|$ , both pairs drop by the same three orders, and the two sentences are replaced by the reason the rates agree: the field falls off as $t^{-5/2}$ at every position once the diffusion distance exceeds the loop size. Measured $\mathrm{d}\log|\boldsymbol E|/\mathrm{d}\log t$ is $-2.435$ at $z=0.5$ m and $-2.434$ at $z=10$ m.