Update 2/5

Simulation Status

WASP-12b, w/ stellar rotation
Running 75/150 frames complete, ~3.5 days remaining


Rotating Frame
Run # MP (MJ) Flux (phot/cm2/s) Status
1 0.07 2x1013 Complete
2 0.263435 2x1013 Complete
3 0.263435 2x1017 Unqueued
4 0.07 2x1017 Unqueued


Non-rotating Frame
Run # MP (MJ) Flux (phot/cm2/s) Status
1 0.07 2x1013 Complete
2 0.263435 2x1013 Complete
3 0.263435 2x1017 Unqueued
4 0.07 2x1017 Unqueued

Run 3 testing

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~adebrech/PlanetIonization/visit0011.png

Looks like we need to take a different tack. The ambient is still ionizing too quickly and creating a shield in front of the planet. Lowering the flux (and therefore the density requirements) is one option - to get an idea of how much, look at the recombination timescale:

For (one unit of time), need ~5x10-15 g/cm3 of (fully ionized) hydrogen. With a flux of 2x1017, the ambient medium is at about 10-14 g/cm3. So reducing just one order of magnitude, to a flux of 2x1016, may be sufficient to solve the ambient recombination problem, since it would increase the recombination timescale to about 10x the simulation timescale.

Another option is to consider other adjustments to the ambient profile. If we were able to start the exponential profile farther in and still get a sufficiently low density at around Rp, that seems like a good option, but I can't seem to fiddle the profile into such a shape.

Run2 side view

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~adebrech/PlanetIonization/Run2_rot_side_full0000.png

Run2 top view

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~adebrech/PlanetIonization/Run2_rot_top_full0000.png

Other analysis products?

  1. Movies (as above)
  2. JC’s streak images that show flow pattern?
  3. Total Mass loss rates
  4. Back flow rates?
  5. Observations of the kind in Carroll-Nellenback ea 2016?

Comments

No comments.