Page 1 of 1

no_errors_for_first_step

Posted: 26 Aug 2011, 15:29
by Max
Dear Michael and collaborators,

when running the following .ele file:

&run_setup
lattice = fermi_bc1on_l00.lte
rootname = run2l
use_beamline = FERMI_FEL1_L00
centroid = %s.cen
default_order = 2
p_central = 9.6
random_number_seed = 040977510,
parameters = %s.param
&end

&load_parameters
filename = run1.param
change_defined_values = 1
&end

&run_control
first_is_fiducial = 1,
n_steps = 2
&end

&error_control
clear_error_settings = 1
summarize_error_settings = 1
no_errors_for_first_step = 1,
error_log = "%s.errors_l"
&end

&error_element
name=ACCT0_L00.02
item=VOLT
type="plus_or_minus"
amplitude=0.015
fractional=1
&end

&bunched_beam
&end

&track &end

It appears that:
the first step is subject to the error in spite of the instruction no_errors_for_first_step = 1
No error_log is created.

Thanks, Max

Re: no_errors_for_first_step

Posted: 29 Aug 2011, 10:22
by michael_borland
Max,

Can you try setting "reset_rf_for_each_step=0" in run_control?

If that doesn't fix it, please send me all the input files so I can run it myself.

--Michael

Re: no_errors_for_first_step

Posted: 30 Aug 2011, 10:44
by Max
Hi Michael,
thanks for your reply. I now have reset_rf_for_each_step = 0,
but the problem is still there. I look at the .param file.
I attach the files.
Best regards, Max

Re: no_errors_for_first_step

Posted: 30 Aug 2011, 12:46
by michael_borland
Max,

The problem is with the summarize_error_settings parameter. Although there is no way to tell this from the manual, it has to be used by itself, as in

&error_control
clear_error_settings = 1,
no_errors_for_first_step = 1,
error_log = "%s.erl",
&end

&error_element
name=ACCT0_L00.02
item=VOLT
amplitude=0.15
fractional=1
&end

&error_control
summarize_error_settings = 1
&end

I modified your file attached it. The file to look at for the error values in the .erl file. The .param file only contains the nominal values without errors.

--Michael

Re: no_errors_for_first_step

Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 06:34
by Max
Hi Michael,
with your correction it now works correctly, thank you very much.
Best regards, Max