Velocity Verlet Integration about arbor HOT 2 OPEN

hi peter,

i'd definitely be interested in seeing your verlet patch. the thing
that stopped me when i toyed with the idea a year ago was figuring out
how to repurpose the euler state variables (since each particle under
verlet just has a velocity and no acceleration, right?). was it tough
to bolt another integrator on top of the existing one?

One compensation for this is heavy amounts of friction

something that's been in the back of my mind for a while now is that a
lot of the jumpiness in arbor's current behavior is probably due to
its dead-simple hooke's law implementation. if the springs had a
damping term i'm sure everything would be much less prone to
exploding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator#Damped_harmonic_oscillator
don't suppose you'd be interested in tackling that would you?

in any case, looking forward to seeing your code,
christian

from arbor.

Hi Christian,

Thanks for the quick reply back. In terms of the euler state variables, velocity verlet integration only requires one extra variable - the acceleration at the previous time step. The rest is just making sure you update your position, velocity, and acceleration in the right order.

Verlet integration is really important for gravity simulators, for there is no friction in outer space so the energy of your system can blow up quite rapidly. I wrote an n-body simulator last semester for a course project. The overall loop (with comments) for Verlet integration can be seen here:

https://github.com/pcottle/gsim/blob/master/glut_example.cpp#L1666

I've only toyed around the idea right now; since there's interest, I'll crank out a patch this weekend to see the performance differences.

Springs with dampening is a good idea, but that's essentially just another way to strip energy out of the system. That might be a bit harder to implement as well, because you would need to know the velocity for each spring in the system relative to the nodes it is connected to. This might reduce the simplicity of the code.

Finally, a video of the project is here if you're interested. Several thousand timesteps later, the particles have the same orbits as they do initially:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_68uPETMJk

Regardless, I'll hopefully have a patch this weekend to show.
Thanks again,
Peter

from arbor.