ZMT zurich med tech

Hi Matthew, thanks for the additional information. If I understand correctly, there are mainly 3 steps at play here, each of which repeated a certain number of times: Posing the anatomical model to the desired posture Moving the model to the desired position inside the coil Running the simulation What I would do for a workflow like this is: a) Pose the model to the desired posture [in the GUI] b) "Clone As Static" the desired posture [in the GUI] c) Export the posed model to a .sab file [using a script in the GUI, but clicking buttons could also do] a) Starting from scratch, load the coil and load the posed model [using a script] b) Move the model to the desired position [using a script] c) Setup the simulation [using a script] Run the simulation [using a script] (4). Postprocess the simulation [using a script] So to answer your initial question: I still don't know how to Clone As Static from a script, but since I also don't know how to use the POSER from a script I would anyway still have to use the GUI to create each posture (and then the "Clone as static" is only one click away...). Let me know if I misunderstood your workflow, or if you find a better way to achieve it than what I suggested.

How can I get the download code of neuro solver?

@habib Hi, Thank you for your reply. I can understand that if you enable the titration, the software keeps on scaling the field till sees a stimulation. But it also gives us a number for the scaling field. In this case, I am seeing that number to be 0.13. Doesn't it mean that the field has been scaled down to a factor of 0.13 to create the minimum field for stimulation - I was hoping that number to be orders of magnitude higher. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks for looking into this.

@rose your simulations are most likely done with a 1V voltage at the excitation source (that's the default setting). This is perfectly fine from a numerical point of view, but in practice (e.g., if you wanted to compare with measurements) you probably want to normalize your results. In the Far Field Sensor, for example, you can normalize to a Total Available power of 1W (say). This way, you will be comparing apples to apples. That will not change the value for the Gain, though (since it is a power ratio, independent of scaling). This must come from either a difference in some aspect ratio of your dipole, or simply that you did not change the dimensions in the same proportion (1/10th) as you changed the frequency.

@rose, you write "it was a bit different from the theoretical result", but unfortunately I don't fully understand what you did, what you are trying to do, and what you are comparing your results to. Perhaps if you describe (with e.g. screenshots and equations) both what you did and what the "theoretical results" I can try and find why they do not match.

That's great to hear! Thank you so much for sharing your experience. I'll explore the option of implementing something similar for EM simulation.

@hitina please see my answer here

Assuming 'sim' is the acoustic simulation you're interested in and that 'elements' is a list of the elements (gotten from entities = model.AllEntities()) and that 'amp' and 'phase' are numpy arrays with the amplitude, phase values you're interested in assigning: # Print current simulation name print(sim.Name) # Remove all sources before adding them to_del = [] for s in sim.AllSettings: if isinstance(s,acoustic.SourceSettings): to_del.append(s) for d in to_del: sim.Remove(d) # Add sources with correct element and parameters for source_idx in np.arange(len(elements)): source_settings = acoustic.SourceSettings() source_settings.Amplitude = amp[source_idx] source_settings.Phase = phases[source_idx] sim.Add(source_settings, rings[source_idx]) print(rings[source_idx].Name, amp[source_idx], phases[source_idx]) Sorry I'm not providing a full example. Easiest way to do that would be to manually create the whole simulation without the sources (just make all sources as materials), then right click on simulation and select 'To Python...' and then add the lines above to your code You could do something like this to get the elements as a list: src_ents = [] entities = model.AllEntities() for e in entities: if 'Element' in e.Name: src_ents.append(e) Careful, I have no idea how the elements will be sorted in that case but you could use a fixed size numerical suffix and then sort them.

I didn't do Python scripts yet so it is only when using the GUI. But I don't know which action because I realized after quite a time that the error was there, I could run the script anyways :)

Additionally, check the Boundary Settings on the Outside (your first Boundary Settings). Seems you set the potential of the spheres to the same value as the outside boundary of your domain and that's why it's constant outside the spheres and at the domain walls as well (hard to make sense of the problem with the dimensions you mentioned and what's displayed in the plots). Also, when setting Voltage (Dirichlet) boundary conditions, make sure to set a 'reference' (Ground: 0V) voltage somewhere

Thank you @bryn! I will adapt this to my needs.

Thanks @ofli and @bryn! Yes, that's what I'm doing now, I just create them in multiple segments.

Hi I am not sure if these may help. to decrease simulation time (60hrs), you may consider healing the smallest grid. In my simulations, I have time steps usually around 1-3 ps. Anything below 1ps (time step) makes me to revise the model. Modeling cylindrical objects in cartesian coordinates may cause some geometric discrepancies. For example, assume you have a capacitor in one element, which has an only 0.1 mm offset compared to its mirrored counterpart. This means, although you have a capacitor size of a few millimeters, the minimum mesh size would be in the order of 0.05mm! This is terrible for a simulation at 298MHz. To avoid this, I usually model my elements in python environment. Rotating/translating elements manually (without proper snap options) may cause this problem. make sure that all channels have simulation results (I assume multiport simulation) other than that, (These errors may be due to missing simulation result, though) avoid using single port simulations, since you cannot change phases and export results after running a simulation.

@bryn Thank you very much.I had succeeded.

yes, background is treated as "Air".

Dear Liu, Yes, in order to see any losses, you need to set at least a conductivity different to 0. I would advice you to check if you set correct electric properties in the material settings. Best

@Mélina This is close to what I want but not exactly. I still want ARES to say I can use both GPU's but I want to be able to say "for simulation 1 run on GPU0, for simulation 2 run on GPU1" . Is there anyway to do this? I tried messing around with the concurrent jobs number (setting it to 2 or 3 or 1) in ARES but I don't believe it's working correctly as I still am only running 1 simulation at a time in the queue.

Hey there! That's a pretty powerful setup with dual GPUs! To run two simulations at the same time, you can utilize parallel computing techniques to distribute the workload across both GPUs. Since you already know how to designate GPUs for each simulation, you might want to explore frameworks like CUDA or OpenMP, which are excellent for managing parallel tasks. Ensure that your simulation software is configured to support multi-GPU operations and check its documentation for any specific settings related to concurrent simulations. Sometimes, fine-tuning the job scheduling can also help in managing simultaneous tasks more effectively. On another note, if you're interested in staying ahead with technology, check out Quantum AI. They delve into the fascinating world of quantum computing, which has the potential to transform simulation and problem-solving in groundbreaking ways. Best of luck with your simulations!

Hi @bryn , thanks for looking into this. I can reproduce what you write. However, in my case it is a little different because I do press Enter and still it would not update. Unfortunately, I do not know how to reproduce this behaviour in a fresh project. I will hope that the solution to your bug will also fix the bug that I encounter, though. Thanks!

Hi, How do you ensure they are in xy,yz or xz plane. Visually they are but I still face the error?