# Meeting Update 01/26/2015 -- Baowei

- OutflowWind fixed a bug found when running symmetric profiling for different s. Here's the updated results for figure1,2 and small/large lambda… Looks better.

Fig1 from AstroBEAR updated | ; | |

Fig 1 in Stone&Proga | ||

Fig2 from AstroBEAR updated | density symmetric lambda=5; temperature symmetric lambda=5; density, asymmetric lambda=5;temperature, asymmetric lambda=5;density symmetric lambda=50; temperature symmetric lambda=50; | |

Fig2 Stone&Proga |

- Growth rate analysis for AblativeRT. Too long to run Rui's script with the 3D data. Regenerating a small data set for him… Will modify his script to read in hdf5 directly…

# Meeting Update 01/26/15 - Eddie

### 3D Mach stems

Ambient temperature lowered to 1250 K leads to a Mach number of 10 for the moving clump. Resulting emission is more complex.

### 2D Mach stems

For gamma = 1.4, still have not found a steady state Mach stem wider than the one in the d = 5.5 case. The "dimple" is more pronounced, but the reflection shocks go away.

### Oblique Shocks

With the angle at 50 deg, this run should form a Mach stem.

# Idea gas binary, no cooling

Computational temperature unit is 2000 K. The gas emitted from primary is 2000 K. Mass of secondary is 0.5 SM, mass of primary is 0.8 SM but has radiation power. Separation is 7 AU. gamma = 1.01, which means very isothermal, but not exact.

Max temperature is about 6700 K, minimum is about 1760 K.

This sim region is 24 AU by 24 AU, if we extend to 100 AU by 100 AU, the minimum temp will drop below 1000 K probably.

# Meeting update

- Have been going through my runs and organizing the information I have on them into pages

- Have been writing a 2.5 self gravity [http://astrobear.pas.rochester.edu/trac/wiki/u/erica/CylindricalGravity page on the fixes for ticket 150

- Working on plots for Friday's meeting with Marissa,

# Meeting Update 01/20/2015 -- Baowei

- OutflowWind
The 2D tests with asymmetric temperature shows the night side density is higher than the spherical-symmetric case while in Stone&Proga09, it's lower…Also tried different values(from 0.01 to 1000), the results are similar…
- night side density blog:bliu01132015
- large density;temperature; total energy :

- Update from LLE: still working on checking the growth rate of interface for 3D. Have to copy the data over to their machines as the gdl on alfalfa doesn't work well with their idl code…

- resistivity & viscosity development: Got the modules for astrobear1.0 from Shule. Will take a look…

# Meeting Update 01/20/2015 - Eddie

### 3D Mach stems

Haven't done that much since last Thursday. See my most recent blog post: ehansen01152015.

I'm waiting on a new run that has Tamb = Twind = 1250 K. This will make the moving clump effectively at M = 10 as opposed to 5 in my previous runs. So we'll get to see how higher Mach number affects the evolution of the clump and its emission.

### 2D Mach stems

I have a couple of more runs for the maximum Mach stem formation angle study. If you recall, I'm trying to find the limit at which I get the widest possible Mach stem with the reflection shocks intact. For the gamma = 1.4 case, this appears to be somewhere between clump separation distances of 4 and 5.5 rclump. The new runs have d = 4.25 and 4.5. I will post those images/movies soon.

I also completed a single clump run, so that I can redo my bow shock shape calculations.

### Oblique Shocks

I built an Oblique Shock problem module with the intent of studying Mach stems. I have a pretty good set up that generates regular reflection perfectly, but the Mach reflection runs still look a bit dicey.

### Other Stuff

- Hope to finish my Qual brief this week
- In regards to the new machines that we want…I got Dave's email about the financial system being all messed up. I think we can hold off for another month or so on the larger, more expensive visualization machine, but I really think we should get Zhuo a new workstation asap despite the financial system's woes.

# 3D Mach stem update

These are the base parameters that I have used for previous simulations. The ambient temperature could be lowered if we want higher Mach numbers for the clumps.

Ambient/Wind | Clumps | |
---|---|---|

density (1/cc) | 1e3 | 5e5 |

velocity (km/s) | 27.2644 | 0, 10 |

temperature (K) | 5e3 | 10 |

So the density contrast is 500, and the clumps are initially in pressure equilibrium with the ambient.

We are in the reference frame of the slow clump, which is why the ambient is moving and the slow clump is given velocity = 0. Thus the slow clump has a Mach number of approximately 3.66, and the fast clump is at approximately M = 5.

The total simulation time ~ 50 years.

The clump separation is 3 clump radii.

I have completed 2 runs: the base run described above, and a run with twice the clump densities. Thus the higher density run has a nclump/nambient ratio of 1000. Below are the emission maps from the 2 runs at 4 different inclination angles: 0, 30, 60, and 90 degrees.

We do not have to continue with runs that have different density contrasts. Perhaps it would be better to study how clump separation and velocity affects the emission. I have a grid of runs below that we might try:

Clump Separation (rclump) | Fast Clump M |
---|---|

3 | 5 |

3 | 10 |

6 | 5 |

6 | 10 |

So this is just 4 runs to start. I would want to leave the slow clump alone, so it would remain at M = 3.66. The exact numbers can change, but I was basically thinking of doing what I already have + investigating a faster clump + investigating a clump that is farther away.

Also, do we want to move the clump so far away that it does not travel through the slow clump's wake? Or perhaps this is desirable, and we want to see an even closer approach?

# OutflowWind: 2D Tests

Deprecated the point_mass and planet_radius parameters. point_mass is the planet_mass which is the mass of the planet. rho as the air density and radius as the position of the outflow boundary. Try to produce the figure 2 in the Stone&Proga paper…

For this set up, the night side(theta=PI) is off and doesn't show the inflow. And the density at the night side is higher… Not sure if it's a parameter issue…

## 0.6 Jupiter Mass

Fig 2 Reproduced | symmetric density; symmetric temperature; asymmetric density; asymmetric temperature | |

Fig 2 in Stone&Proga09 |

Corresponding Fig 1, the Temperature is in unit of

. Temperature value matches with Stone&Proga09 paper.Fig 1 reproduced | ; |

Fig 1 Stone&Proga09 |

# Meeting Update

Last week I worked on fixing the code for the colliding flow figures, self gravity ticket, and documentation.

The newest papers figure page is here:

https://astrobear.pas.rochester.edu/trac/wiki/u/madams/CollidingFlowsFigures

# Reference

Some references that may be referred in the fall back shell paper.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A%26A...353..583O

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ARA%26A..40..439B

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014apn6.confE..59M

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370.2004N

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600

# OutflowWind: 2.5D Tests

Test the OutflowWind module and make sure the results agree with Stone&Proga 2009.

- Test with no initial temperature profile

In the version of the outflow object in the code I use, some lines involving energy has E=pressure while others have gamma7*pressure. Modified them all to E=gamma7*pressure though need to double-check with Jonathan…. Added lTempProfile flag in Outflow object. The following is a 2.5D test results for high(10000K) and low(100K) temperature with point mass = 0.1 Jupiter mass. The ambient temperature are 100K and 1K correspondingly. The results shows the planet material escapes for 10000K while are bounded by the point mass for 100K.

T=10000K | Density Movie;Temperature Movie |

T=100K | Density Movie;Temperature Movie |

- Parameter comparison with Stone&Proga 2009

To compare with the results and parameters used in Stone&Proga paper, we need to double-check the planet_density together with planet_mass, planet_radius and point_mass(?) and temperatures. In the current code it specifies the density, mass & radius separately (in the current default data files, density value is ~35% off) and use the planet mass to calculate the important parameter

in Stong&Proga (another important one is the planet density ) around origin. I'm modifying the code to set the planet mass & radius only then calculate the density which is probably a better way and hopefully will be more accurate to compare with the paper. No sure if I should include the point mass when calculating the density…

# Meeting Update 01/12/2015 - Eddie

### 2D Mach stems

See recent blog post: ehansen01092015

New results for gamma = 5/3:

I changed the density scale because I think this scale more clearly shows the Mach stems and post-shock regions. It appears that all 4 runs have Mach stems, but I only expected d = 12 and d = 11 to have them. It may be just because these separations are too close to the critical values. The d = 13 Mach stem shrinks and is very close to regular reflection which is expected. The d = 10 Mach stem grows and may be approaching the other limit where the bows merge. I'll have to run more models with d < 10 and d > 13 to really see the upper and lower limits.

I think it will be difficult to quantitatively prove or support Pat's calculations on maximum Mach stem formation angle. However, these simulations do clearly show, qualitatively, that a maximum angle does exist which explains why Mach stems grow and then disappear once the intersection goes above a certain angle.

It might be true that Mx approaches 1 at the triple point when a Mach stem just barely forms with the reflection shock still intact. This is at the maximum angle limit where the widest possible Mach stem forms. For this reason, I will be doing some more runs with gamma = 1.4 in hopes of finding and confirming this limit. So my runs will have separation distances between 4 and 5.5.

### 3D Mach stems

I completed a 3D run that will serve as the base comparison model. The emission map result is below:

This does look different than the previous run which can be seen at ehansen11252014. Fixing the initial ionization fraction changed things, but I don't know how much it is responsible for the differences.

Our initial plan was to explore the secondary bows that form behind the moving clump. I will investigate this by changing the clump velocity and/or the clump density. To start, I have a run going with twice the clump density.

This study will be somewhat slow moving because these runs each take about 2.5 days on 120 cores on bluehive. The files are also quite large (~500 GB per run), and disk space is limited on our local machines. For this reason, I will probably not save all of the chombos, so I will only show emission maps which come from the much smaller BOV files. Unless, anyone has a better idea to work around these issues?

### Other Stuff

- I have made progress on some development things that I will share tomorrow.

- I started working on my Qualifying Brief, but I need to focus more on that for the next couple of weeks.

# CollidingFlowsFigures page is updated

New beta, CDM and spectra plots for shear 0 case where done:

Also did some slight reformatting and added some links.

# finished 2D Mach stem runs

Finished runs for gamma = 1.4 cases. See ehansen01052015 for more details.

The d = 5.5 case is the only one that I feel confident in saying forms a Mach stem, and the d = 6.5 case clearly does not. This is consistent with my previous work on minimum Mach stem formation angles.

Despite this, it would appear that the reflected shock (the shock that is reflected at the triple point) does not have a lateral Mach number > 1. This is unexpected, and I'm not sure what it means.

I expected to see a Mach stem in the d = 4 case, but it's hard to tell is this is one or not. One thing that we might need to consider here is what happens to a Mach stem if the reflected shock hits the clump.

Below are the same plots with slightly larger domain for d = 4, 3 since the bow shocks were at the edge of the previous images.

# Meeting update

- Handed new code off to Marissa for the column beta maps. This is taking projections of the field, 'inverse beta', rather than taking projections of pressure and magnetic energy individually https://astrobear.pas.rochester.edu/trac/wiki/u/erica/CF_BetaMaps

- Recalling some fourier stuff from last meeting before fixing up that code, https://astrobear.pas.rochester.edu/trac/wiki/u/erica/CF_spectra

# 3D OutflowWind Module

Fixed bugs in 3D OutflowWind Module. Here's the low-res results (middle section). High-res testing is still running and will be posted soon…

Temperature | |

Density |

Movies: Temperature and Velocity; Density and Velocity; Long Time: Temperature and Velocity; Long Time: Density and Velocity

# Maximum Angle for Mach Stem Formation

After last week's conversation with Pat, I started testing his calculations for the **maximum** Mach stem formation angle. My recent paper on Mach stems verified the **minimum** angle. If we look at both equations graphically, we can define a region where Mach stem formation is possible:

Below is a table of the critical angles for a few cases of gamma.

gamma | Min Angle | Max Angle |
---|---|---|

5/3 | 37.38 | 41.81 |

1.4 | 41.65 | 58.05 |

1.2 | 47.67 | 69.73 |

1.01 | 68.73 | 85.92 |

For my paper, I had graphically determined the shape of the bow shock for a few cases of gamma (could not do this for gamma = 1.01). This allowed me to convert minimum angles into maximum separation distances.

I used Pat's formula to determine minimum separation distances. If the clumps are closer than this minimum distance, the bow shock becomes a smooth continuous shape with no Mach stem. Below is a table of critical separation distances in units of clump radii.

gamma | Max Separation | Min Separation |
---|---|---|

5/3 | 12.47 | 10.79 |

1.4 | 6.20 | 3.62 |

1.2 | 4.58 | 1.81 |

Note that the gamma = 1.2 case has a minimum separation distance < 2 which cannot be tested. A separation < 2 means that the clumps are overlapping.

So I plan on testing the gamma = 5/3 and 1.4 cases. I have a set of 8 runs queued up as follows:

run | gamma | separation | Mach stem? |
---|---|---|---|

A | 5/3 | 13 | No, above maximum |

B | 5/3 | 12 | Yes |

C | 5/3 | 11 | Yes |

D | 5/3 | 10 | No, below minimum |

E | 1.4 | 6.5 | No, above maximum |

F | 1.4 | 5.5 | Yes |

G | 1.4 | 4 | Yes |

H | 1.4 | 3 | No, below minimum |

Below is what I have so far for run H. It seems consistent with what we were predicting, but we need the other runs to determine if Pat's formula is correct.

Pat also wanted to look at lateral Mach number plots. I generated a couple snapshots using two different scales: