[WIP] Add support for electron impact ionization in binary collisions (DSMC module) #5388
Conversation
| // Product species include the ion | ||
| // TODO: as an alternative, we could use the runtime attribute `ionization_level` for this species | ||
| m_num_product_species = 3; | ||
| m_num_products_host.push_back(2); // electron species: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I attempted to fit impact ionization within the DSMC framework, but I now realize that this is making the book keeping complicated:
The amount of memory to be allocated (in SplitAndScatter) after the first pass (Executor, that checks which type of reaction is occurring for each pair) will depend on the type of reaction for each pair. (Because, if a pair does impact ionization, we need to allocate space for the scattered electron, the produced electron and the ionized species, whereas if a pair does one of the other reactions, we allocate space only for the scattered electron and the scattered target.) As a consequence, the offset (in SplitAndScatter will depend on the type of reaction.)
To simplify things, here I will always allocate space for the ionized species and the new electron, but if the reaction is not impact ionization, I will set the ID of the ionized species and the new electron to invalid.
| auto& e_ux1 = soa_products_data[0].m_rdata[PIdx::ux][product1_index+1]; | ||
| auto& e_uy1 = soa_products_data[0].m_rdata[PIdx::uy][product1_index+1]; | ||
| auto& e_uz1 = soa_products_data[0].m_rdata[PIdx::uz][product1_index+1]; | ||
| ParticleUtils::RandomizeVelocity(e_ux1, e_uy1, e_uz1, up, engine); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Need to do the transform back to labframe for e_u
Note: could we do binary charge exchange in the same way?
TODO:
SplitAndScatterfunctor