Visa resultat

Computational Physics B, TIF035

1. To which program do you belong

Ph.D GU»		3		30%
Ph.D Chalmers»		3		30%
Masters GU»		0		0%
Masters Chalmers»		3		30%
International Masters GU»		0		0%
International Masters Chalmers»		1		10%

Genomsnitt: 2.7

Your own effort

2. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

10 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		2		20%
Around 20 hours/week»		1		10%
Around 25 hours/week»		5		50%
Around 30 hours/week»		2		20%
At least 35 hours/week»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.7

- I realy tries to read through all the materia, did 3 problems.» (Around 25 hours/week)
- 30h/vecka var en rimlig arbetsinsats om man ville fördjupa sig lite mer i teorin än det som togs upp på föreläsningarna. Annars skulle det nog tagit runt 20h/vecka vilket är normalt för storleken på kursen.» (Around 30 hours/week)

3. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

10 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		2		20%
75%»		5		50%
100%»		3		30%

Genomsnitt: 4.1

- All undervisning var välstrukturerad och pedagogisk. Det utgjorde en bra grund för att kunna förstå materialet. Därför närvarade jag vid samtliga tillfällen. » (100%)

Course

4. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		1		10%
The goals are difficult to understand»		0		0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		5		50%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		4		40%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

5. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

9 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		0		0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		9		100%
No, the goals are set too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Good with optional examination ways and that the level of interest is up to the student. » (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

6. The course has had several paths to examination. What is your opinion regarding the choice of examination form?

Not good»		0		0%
It was ok»		3		30%
Very good»		7		70%

Genomsnitt: 2.7

- I was really good, because one was able to choose problems and projects by own interest.» (Very good)
- Jättebra att få fokusera på det som är intressant och relevant för fortsatta studier.» (Very good)

7. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

No, not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		4		40%
Yes, definitely»		4		40%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		2		20%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

8. There have been two code assignments given during the course. In the first you are asked to find the ground-state energy of helium using DFT. What is your opinion regarding that code assignment?

Not good»		0		0%
It was ok»		5		50%
Very good»		5		50%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- In general the problem gave me a lot of knowledge although the coding assignment it"s self was on very low level. » (It was ok)
- Where is the option to say that I did not do the assignment!!??» (It was ok)
- En bra uppgift för att förstå den grudläggande strukturen hos DFT. Uppgiften bör behållas under kommande år.» (Very good)
- Instruktionerna kunde varit något tydligare. Det hade också underlättat med några "checkpoints" så man visste att programmet reptoducerar några kända värden. Hade kanske varit bra med tydligare uppgifter om vem som kunde kontaktas för att få ev. hjälp eller diskutera uppgiften. Alternativt några schemalagda tillfällen för frågor och diskussion.» (Very good)

9. The second code assignment focus on the band structure of silicon. What is your opinion regarding that code assignment?

Not good»		1		16%
It was ok»		4		66%
Very good»		1		16%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Where is the option to say that I did not do the assignment!!??» (It was ok)
- Instruktionerna var bra så när som på hur pseudopotentialen skulle implmenteras. Detta hade varit välgit svårt att förstå utifrån "aggignment sheet" Det hade också underlättat med några "checkpoints" så man visste att programmet reptoducerar några kända värden. Hade kanske varit bra med tydligare uppgifter om vem som kunde kontaktas för att få ev. hjälp eller diskutera uppgiften. Alternativt några schemalagda tillfällen för frågor och diskussion.» (It was ok)
- En bra och rättfram uppgift för att förstå planvågsexpansionen. » (Very good)

10. We used python and the atomic simulation environment (ase) during the computer exercises. What is your opinion regarding the use of python and ase?

Not good»		0		0%
It was ok»		0		0%
Very good»		9		100%

Genomsnitt: 3

- Only good. Prefer it to matlab any day!» (?)
- ASE miljön möjliggör ett flexibelt enhetligt interface för att använda flera olika beräkningsprogram. Nackdelen är kanske dock att det inte alltid känns som att man använder olika program.» (Very good)
- I think a lecture regarding functions and the API in ase would be good, so that we get a broad knowledge about the suite and not just what is taken up during the exercises.» (Very good)
- Praktiskt för ändamålet och intressant att höra talas om och lära sig» (Very good)

11. During the course you have had access to ADA (cluster machine at Chalmers). What is your opinion regarding the use of ADA in this course.

Not good»		1		10%
It was ok»		3		30%
Very good»		6		60%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- Annoying to wait in line when you are not that experienced with the language and therefore make many easy mistakes.» (Not good)
- Often a lot of waiting time, even for small test runs. If ASE and the calculators were installed locally on the studat computers that would help a lot» (It was ok)
- Kul att få testa på att använda större kluster och köra parallellt. » (Very good)
- very good experience using cluster machine. Although at first there were some problems, especially by myself not being familiar with linux based working environment, but then it was very good.» (Very good)

12. How have you experienced of the practical side (queuing time, user account, etc) of using ADA been?

Not good»		3		30%
It was ok»		4		40%
Very good»		3		30%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Far too much queuing time» (Not good)
- In periods it was hard to use Ada as it could take 10 seconds to do a simple "ls" in the terminal.» (Not good)
- Mycket jobb i kön ibland så det tog tid att få igenom jobb. Loginnoden kunde periodvis vara rätt långsam också.» (It was ok)
- No problems» (Very good)
- Inga problem» (Very good)

13. During the second exercise you used the SIESTA code. What is your opinion regarding the use of that particular code?

Not good»		0		0%
It was ok»		7		70%
Very good»		3		30%

Genomsnitt: 2.3

- Easy and fast, gave alots of information and general trends but probably not suitable for articles.» (It was ok)
- Bra. Kan vara lite svårt att få att fungera för vissa användare. Hade varit intressant med någon fördjupande föreläsning ang. SIESTA, DACAPO och GPAW. Bra att valet var öppna koder.» (Very good)

14. During the third exercise you used the DACAPO code. What is your opinion regarding the use of that particular code?

Not good»		1		10%
It was ok»		5		50%
Very good»		4		40%

Genomsnitt: 2.3

- Try to couple the exercise to the ASE environment! Instead of going out and searching in the DACAPO result text files for the total energy etc..» (Not good)
- Bra. Kan vara lite svårt att få att fungera för vissa användare. Hade varit intressant med någon fördjupande föreläsning ang. SIESTA, DACAPO och GPAW. Bra att valet var öppna koder.» (Very good)

15. During the forth exercise you used GPAW. What is your opinion regarding the use of that particular code?

Not good»		1		10%
It was ok»		6		60%
Very good»		3		30%

Genomsnitt: 2.2

- I think people could have had great help of more discussion on convergence. How to converge a system. What are the parameters grid spacing (and scaling with gpts), k-point sampling, Eigenvalue solver, Parrallelization... etc. That would probably have helped when doing the projects.» (It was ok)
- Good because of the level of control one has, i.e. by being able to set most constants and properties. But it sometimes feels like it still is not 100% stable.» (Very good)
- Bra. Kan vara lite svårt att få att fungera för vissa användare. Hade varit intressant med någon fördjupande föreläsning ang. SIESTA, DACAPO och GPAW. Bra att valet var öppna koder.» (Very good)

16. The aim of using several different codes was to allow you to experience different implementations of DFT. Do you feel that this aim was achieved?

No, not at all»		0		0%
Perhaps»		4		40%
Yes, very much so»		6		60%

Genomsnitt: 2.6

- På grund av ASE interfacet kändes det inte fullt ut som att vi använde olika program. Jag vet inte om 3 olika program verkligen behövs. Kanske bara två räcker? Förslagvis Siesta och Dacapo. » (Perhaps)
- The idea was perfect, but perhaps using the most popular codes, like VASP should also be a goal.» (Yes, very much so)
- But lacking totally any info on periodic systems. No band structure calculations, no density of states and no k-point sampling in practice.» (Yes, very much so)
- Det hade varit intressant med någon fördjupande föreläsning ang. SIESTA, DACAPO och GPAW. Lämplighet i olika situationer osv.» (Yes, very much so)

17. The first computer assignment allowed you to use ab intitio molecular dynamics to investigate the reactivity of different elements. What is your opinion regarding that particular assignment?

Not good»		0		0%
It was ok»		6		60%
Very good»		4		40%

Genomsnitt: 2.4

- Where is the option to say that I did not do the assignment!!??» (It was ok)
- The best of all the problems sinc I read lots of material to fully understand everything. It gave me so much. » (Very good)
- Intressant men hade kanske varit bra med tydligare instruktioner alternativt en utgångspunkt i arbetet, dvs. en uppsättning parametrar man visste gav ett vettigt resultat.» (Very good)

18. The second computer assignment allowed you to use a material screening procedure to find a less compressible alloy than Mo. What is your opinion regarding that particular assignment?

Not good»		0		0%
It was ok»		6		75%
Very good»		2		25%

Genomsnitt: 2.25

- Where is the option to say that I did not do the assignment!!??» (It was ok)

19. The third computer assignment allowed you to correlate the electronic structure with surface reactivity. What is your opinion regarding that particular assignment?

Not good»		1		12%
It was ok»		6		75%
Very good»		1		12%

Genomsnitt: 2

- More explanations on the method (NEB) and the interpretation of the results are necessary. » (Not good)
- Where is the option to say that I did not do the assignment!!??» (It was ok)
- Related to the first problem, so...» (Very good)

20. What is your opinion regarding the optional course projects?

Not good»		0		0%
It was ok»		2		20%
Very good»		8		80%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- Bra att själv kunna välja något man ville fördjupa sig i. Omfattningen och kraven på projektet framgick dock inte fullt ut.» (Very good)
- But a lot of problems could have been avoided if treating periodic systems not only in the lectures but practically on the computer labs as well.» (Very good)
- Since we also had a choice to choose our own subject, it gave me very very good opportunity to experience computational approach in a field that I mostly liked. » (Very good)
- Jattebra att få välja projekt i eget intresse.» (Very good)

21. In your opinion how was the connection between lecturers and exercises?

Not good»		0		0%
It was ok»		7		70%
Very good»		3		30%

Genomsnitt: 2.3

- Should be at least one programming lecture» (It was ok)
- Bra koppling mellan föreläsningar och övningar.» (Very good)
- direct connection» (Very good)

Teaching and course administration

22. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		1		10%
Some extent»		3		30%
Large extent»		4		40%
Great extent»		2		20%

Genomsnitt: 2.7

- Lärare hade gärna fått ge mer konkreta exempel under föreläsningarna förutom teorigenomgåmgar. Detta underlättar förståelsen för teorin.» (Large extent)
- Bra struktur på både föreläsningarna och övningarna. Samtliga tre kursansvariga (Göran, Henrik, Anders) är mycket pedagogiska.» (Great extent)

23. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		3		30%
Large extent»		4		40%
Great extent»		3		30%

Genomsnitt: 3

- Bra med upptryckta föreläsningsanteckningar. Ökar möjligheten att fokusera på innehåll.» (Large extent)
- Kohanoff var en utmärkt bok att starta med. Sedan kunde man komplettera med Martin i efterhand.» (Great extent)

24. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		0		0%
Rather well»		6		60%
Very well»		4		40%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- Bra struktur på hemsidan. Dock var det mycket dåligt att inte samtliga föreläsningsanteckningar kom upp på hemsidan även om jag själv närvarat vid alla tillfällen och redan hade dem. Resultaten tog också lång tid innan de blev tillgängliga. Tog det verkligen så lång tid att rätta? » (Rather well)
- Handouts were OK but.» (Rather well)
- Hade öskat tydligre instruktioner i vissa avseenden, se ovan givna kommentarer.» (Rather well)

Study climate

25. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		2		20%
Rather good»		0		0%
Very good»		7		70%
I did not seek help»		1		10%

Genomsnitt: 3.7

- Not that you couldn"t ask for help, but I miss to have a few people assigned that could aid with the exercises kind of like in the Comp Phys A. When Anders was alone you did not want to trouble him with basic question you felt you could find the answer to yourself, which sometimes got a little too slow and made you miss other important stuff.» (Rather poor)
- Samtliga föreläsare och assistenter var väldigt tillmötesgående vid alla frågor. Det var aldrig några problem.» (Very good)
- All the personal related to the course where available most of the time.» (Very good)
- I really appreciate the helps that I got for during the course. I"d always had huge amount of questions which I received very good answers for all of them.» (Very good)
- Alla lärare verkade välkomna frågor» (Very good)

26. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		0		0%
Rather well»		4		40%
Very well»		4		40%
I did not seek cooperation»		2		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

27. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		6		60%
High»		4		40%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- low at the beginning, high at the end» (High)

28. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		6		60%
High»		2		20%
Too high»		2		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- I had 3 courses!» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

29. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		0		0%
Adequate»		1		10%
Good»		4		40%
Excellent»		5		50%

Genomsnitt: 4.4

- Konceptullt är kursen jättebra med introducerande teori samt möjligheten att fokusera på vad som är av intresse.» (Excellent)

30. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

31. What should definitely be changed to next year?

32. Additional comments