Changes between Version 73 and Version 74 of u/erica/2DShockedClumpsSNR

Timestamp:

01/31/18 13:03:23 (7 years ago)

Author:

Erica Kaminski

Comment:

—

u/erica/2DShockedClumpsSNR

@@ -91 +91 @@
 [[Image(Mach_comparison_earlier.png, 75%)]]
 
-In viewing an animation of these different runs, the bow shock of the M=1.5 run seemed to still be evolving quite rapidly at this point, in that it was expanding away from the clump at a much higher rate than the other runs. This made me wonder if a better comparison of the bow shock thickness would be when (if) the bow shocks came to some steady-state configuration with respect to the upstream flow. The next set of plots shows these 3 runs at a later time, at which it seems the M=10, and 100 have reached a near steady state. The M=1.5 seems to still be expanding by this point.
+In viewing an animation of these different runs, the bow shock of the M=1.5 run seemed to still be evolving quite rapidly at this point, in that it was expanding away from the clump at a much higher rate than the other runs. This made me wonder if a better comparison of the bow shock thickness would be when (if) the bow shocks came to some steady-state configuration with respect to the upstream flow. The next set of plots shows these 3 runs at a later time, at which it seems the M=10, and 100 have reached a near steady state (and produced similar bow shock widths). The M=1.5 seems to still be expanding by this point.
 
 [[Image(Mach_comparison_later.png, 75%)]]
@@ -106 +106 @@
 === Run 5 - Mach Comparison (Mach 100 vs. 200 vs. 300) === 
 
-Produced similar results as the previous set of mach runs.
+Produced similar results as the previous set of mach runs (i.e. no significant difference between the bow shock thickness in the different runs).
 
 === Run 6 - AMR tests ===