Changes between Version 30 and Version 31 of 1DPulsedJets

Timestamp:

03/05/12 15:41:56 (13 years ago)

Author:

ehansen

Comment:

—

1DPulsedJets

@@ -157 +157 @@
 So the big question is, why does it appear that we need way more resolution than is predicted from the cooling length? Perhaps it has to do with how the refinement is being triggered.  So I will try a resolution of 400, but with no AMR and see if it does any better than the 400 effective resolution which used 2 levels of AMR.  With this run I got Tps = 40.59 x 10^3^ K.  So there really was not a significant difference from AMR to fixed grid.  
 
-My next idea was to revert back to just DM cooling instead of the new Z cooling.  Perhaps, the Z cooling routine is not implemented quite right, and there is some "double counting" for cooling strength or something like this.  So here is a smaller data table where I used DM instead of Z.  The improvement column is the decrease in relative error from the comparable Z cooling run.
+My next idea was to revert back to just DM cooling instead of the new Z cooling.  Perhaps, the Z cooling routine is not implemented quite right, and there is some "double counting" for cooling strength or something like this.  So here is a data table where I used DM instead of Z.  The improvement column is the decrease in relative error from the comparable Z cooling run.
 
-||= Effective Resolution =||= cells/lcool =||= Tps (10^3^ K) =||= Relative Error (%) =||= Improvement =||
-||= 800 =||= 85.43 =||= 47.65 =||= 18.28 =||= 6.81 =||
-||= 1600 =||= 170.85 =||= 51.37 =||= 11.91 =||= 8.07 =||
-||= 3200 =||= 341.70 =||= 53.30 =||= 8.60 =||= 6.94 =||
-||= 6400 =||= 683.40 =||= 53.98 =||= 7.43 =||= 4.80 =||
-||= 12800 =||= 1366.81 =||= 54.14 =||= 7.16 =||= 1.61 =||
+||= Effective Resolution =||= cells/lcool =||= Tps (10^3^ K) =||= Relative Error (%) =||
+||= 100 =||= 10.68 =||=  =||=  =||
+||= 200 =||= 21.36 =||=  =||=  =||
+||= 400 =||= 42.71 =||=  =||=  =||
+||= 800 =||= 85.43 =||= 47.65 =||= 18.28 =||
+||= 1600 =||= 170.85 =||= 51.37 =||= 11.91 =||
+||= 3200 =||= 341.70 =||= 53.30 =||= 8.60 =||
+||= 6400 =||= 683.40 =||= 53.98 =||= 7.43 =||
+||= 12800 =||= 1366.81 =||= 54.14 =||= 7.16 =||
+||= 25600 =||= 2733.61 =||= =||= =||
 
-The DM cooling gets closer to what I expect but the Tps is still a little low.  In both cases, Tps seems to be converging to some other value different from my expected value of 58.3123.  However, when I do a run with no cooling, I get post-shock temperatures reaching 58.3123, and some even higher...closer to 60.75 with just 100 cells and no AMR.  
+The DM cooling gets closer to what I expect but the Tps is still a little low.  In both cases, Tps seems to be converging to some other value different from my expected value of 58.3123.  However, when I do a run with no cooling, I get post-shock temperatures reaching 58.3123, and some even higher...closer to 60.75 with just 100 cells and no AMR.  So I decided to take a closer look at the adiabatic case to see if I could figure out the discrepancy.  Again, here is the data for no cooling:
+
+
+||= Effective Resolution =||= cells/lcool =||= Tps (10^3^ K) =||= Relative Error (%) =||
+||= 100 =||= 10.68 =||=  =||=  =||
+||= 200 =||= 21.36 =||=  =||=  =||
+||= 400 =||= 42.71 =||=  =||=  =||
+||= 800 =||= 85.43 =||=  =||=  =||
+||= 1600 =||= 170.85 =||=  =||=  =||
+||= 3200 =||= 341.70 =||=  =||=  =||
+||= 6400 =||= 683.40 =||=  =||=  =||
+||= 12800 =||= 1366.81 =||=  =||=  =||
+||= 25600 =||= 2733.61 =||=  =||=  =||
+
+You can see that these simulations actually give higher than expected post-shock temperatures.  If I used these values as the "correct" values then the post-shock temperatures from the cooling simulations are even further off.