Disk runs

• Temperature = 10⁴ K
• Max mach = ~55
• Soft_radius = ¼ r_Disk

AMR 4

• 0.5 Jupiter Mass disk ​link
  
• 1 Jupiter Mass disk​link
  
• 5 Jupiter Mass disk​link
  
• 10 Jupiter Mass disk​link
  
• 10 Jupiter Mass disk + Accretion​link
  

AMR 5

• 10 Jupiter Mass disk (Time 0-1)​link
  
• 10 Jupiter Mass disk (Time 1-2)​link
  

Convergence test

• blue line 32x32x32x5
• red ilne 32x32x32x4

Tracers

AMR 4 Run comparison

• blue line | tracer
• red line | old expression

Disk Mass accuracy

Thickness = 0.1d0 With a value for thickness option set to 0.1d, disk density is smoothed at boundary with ambient (r>3.9d0).

Thickness = 0.0d0 Obvious increase in mass.

Not 10 M_j mass accountable from radius not being exactly 2e10cm and height not being 4e9cm.

• Actual radius = 3.984376*lScale=3.984376*5e9=~1.99e10
• Actual height = 0.781248*lScale=0.781248*5e9=~3.90e9
• Estimated density for a perfect disk = 3.7754 g/cc

Expected mass given the 3 quantities above: ~9.73M_j which is pretty similar to what we observed.
Verdict: Mass readings are accurate, should change density to adapt to not exact disk dimensions, decision on thickness.

AMR bleeding

Pressure Collapse