Fourier acceleration runs and results.


facc-070607, facc-070608        Preliminary.


facc-070610, facc-070612        Study for Lattice 07.
  1.  Parameters
      kap=0.1249, lam=1e-4, y=0.05, nf=3*2, nx=(12,12,12,24), vev~~1.0, dt=0.5
  2.  AC vs m_FA, ns=05 - figure, data
  3.  AC vs m_FA, ns=10 - figure, data
  4.  Force profiles not calculated.


facc-070827                     Double-check Dani's large lattices.
  Results are not pretty.  Screwed by the erroneous k=0 correction to mc.


facc-070906                     *The* study.
  1.  Parameters
      kap=0.122195, lam=1e-4, y=0.35, nf=3*1, nx=*, vev~~0.85, dt=*, ns=5*10, 
      dt adjusted for each run to give r_acc~~80%.
  2.  m=0.5x has k=0 "correction" to mc -- discard them.
  3.  AC vs L - scaling.png, scaling.dat
      AC measurements for m=0.5 are pretty good; but give critical exp't of
      1.8(2) -- sigh.  AC measurements for m=inf are not so good; these too 
      yield a critical exp't of 1.8(2).  The fact that for some of the m=inf
      cases, there are substantially non-zero correlations at very large t
      (e.g., G(1000) = 0.20(2)) can only mean that large autocorrelations have
      far-reaching effects?


facc-071015                     Figure out the k=0 problem.
  determined that problem was only in calculation the force profile -- *not*
  in the MD.  It is essential to add Fpsi and Fphi before taking absolute
  values.  In fact, it is probably best to monitor dphi and dpc step-wise.