Changes between Version 13 and Version 14 of u/adebrech


Ignore:
Timestamp:
07/06/16 11:38:01 (9 years ago)
Author:
adebrech
Comment:

—

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • u/adebrech

    v13 v14  
    22[[PageOutline]]
    33
    4 = Parameter Space for Planet Sims =
    5 Successfully recreated Run 5 (Aniso) from Jonathan's simulations, after meeting and fixing some of the code. Most runs are taking 5-8 hours with 1 level AMR (did check, optimization flag is set to level 3 in makefile). Used momenta to compare relative strength of outflows, made density movies.
     4= [[adebrech/PlanetSims|Planet Simulations]] =
    65
    7 [[Image(aniso.gif, width=300)]]
    8 
    9 [[Image(aniso_new.gif, width=300)]]
    10 
    11 In comparison to Aniso, changing lambda performs as expected - with lambda = 5, there is a marked increase in the strength of the wind, and with lambda = 15 there is very little to no wind (size of planet changes as well).
    12 
    13 [[Image(aniso_lambda=5.gif, width=300)]]
    14 
    15 [[Image(aniso_lambda=15.gif, width=300)]]
    16 
    17 Changing the mass of the planet wasn't quite as clear. Overall, it doesn't appear to have affected the wind very much. Again, the planet size is related to the mass (since density is also specified). It is hard to see a wind on the smallest (.25 M,,J,,) planet, but momentum plots appear to support its existence.
    18 
    19 [[Image(aniso_pmass=1.gif, width=300)]]
    20 
    21 [[Image(aniso_pmass=.5.gif, width=300)]]
    22 
    23 [[Image(aniso_pmass=.25.gif, width=300)]]
    24 
    25 Changing the temperature of the planet also affects the radius (through lambda). A 5x hotter planet appears to have a stronger outflow at the end, although it takes a significant amount of time to gain significant size (perhaps should run this simulation for longer). A planet with .5 T doesn't appear to be very different, qualitatively, from the original run.
    26 
    27 [[Image(aniso_ptemp=5e4.gif, width=300)]]
    28 
    29 [[Image(aniso_ptemp=5e3.gif, width=300)]]
    30 
    31 Finally (for the moment), changed ambient temperature to lower values. Would also like to explore higher values to see if they have much effect. The 50K, 25K, and 3K runs all have similar maximum momenta, approx. 2x the Aniso run, which seems to suggest a stronger outflow, but the density plots look nearly identical.
    32 
    33 [[Image(aniso_ambtemp=50.gif, width=300)]]
    34 
    35 [[Image(aniso_ambtemp=25.gif, width=300)]]
    36 
    37 [[Image(aniso_ambtemp=3.gif, width=300)]]
    38 
    39 What parameters are best to plot?
     6=
    407
    418= Fluid Approximation of Charge Exchange =
    … …  
    7845
    7946In models with no stellar wind and an isothermal outflow, they find that the sonic surface of the wind is closer to the planet, with a slower radial velocity on the night side of the planet, and a very evident shock in the |v|/v,,s,, plot at various angles. For larger values of gamma, this shock produces a delta T, and the sonic surface is farther from the planet (but still nearer than in the spherically symmetric models). Introducing a stellar wind creates a back-swept profile, but has little effect on the sonic surfaces or mass-loss rate.
    80 
    81 
    82 = Experimenting with AstroBEAR =
    83 Ran OutflowWind simulations with varying parameters. Thickness and wind velocity don't appear to have any effect - perhaps an effect of rescaling? Velocity speeds up the simulation as a whole. The rest are as follows:
    84 
    85 Reference (default parameters, 100 frames, 2 units computational time (conversion?)):
    86 
    87 [[Image(reference.gif,width=300)]]
    88 
    89 Radius increases size of wind, but otherwise has little effect, at least at small values (expected).
    90 
    91 Radius of 2: [[Image(rad=2.gif,width=300)]]
    92 
    93 Increasing density appears to decrease relative density at the center of the front of the outflow (slightly counter-intuitive, but makes sense).
    94 
    95 Density of 5: [[Image(rho=5.gif,width=300)]]   Density of 10: [[Image(rho=10.gif,width=300)]]   Density of 20: [[Image(rho=20.gif,width=300)]]
    96 
    97 Increasing temp. creates a more diffuse cloud at the end (predictably). Temp = 0 appears to cause buggy behavior.
    98 
    99 Temp = 0: [[Image(temp=0.gif,width=300)]]   Temp = 1: [[Image(temp=1.gif,width=300)]]     Temp = 5: [[Image(temp=5.gif,width=300)]]
    100 
    101 Also tried a run at 1000 frames, but definitely overkill for time.