|For what reason is there any result with a negative yield value?|
And why are these to be rechecked? Seems to make not any sense to me.
|Ok, well its simple, negative yields are those that don't make the minimums for a positive yield.|
The OLD scale, was between -1.8 and -1.1 and then -0.7 and 0 - one was for not enough particles, and the other was for not enough of the right energy elvels.
AS for why they're there in the first place, without them, the client doesn't know how well that simulation was in comparison to others, to build upon. They're rechecked because they're still the best design That they're negative or notis besides the point.
just look at the long-term graphs for the different designs, you'll see many were negative for a while. Its usually a cause for as great a merriment asd you'll find on here, when a lattice finally goes positive.
|My guess is, without running the visual version, is that Negative results are when NO Pions or Muons reach the end of the simulation. The farther back from the end when the last particle leaves the path and gets lost makes it more negative, while the greater number of Pions and Muons that do manage to hang togther as a cohesive bunch and exit the simulation make for Positive results. |
Obviously, a particle accelerator where no particles even make it to the end isn't very useful, but when dealing with Pions and Muons, it's like herding cats to get them down the path and out. They aren't as easy to work with as highly charged and massive Protons or not so massive Electrons.
|Yes, that's right, the negative values enable the design to climb out of its initial "hole" and get to the positive values. I'm a little surprised DecayRotB got stuck at such a low value given it managed to climb out in the first place...|