Changes between Version 27 and Version 28 of u/erica/AccretionModelingBlog
- Timestamp:
- 03/25/18 15:11:42 (7 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
u/erica/AccretionModelingBlog
v27 v28 34 34 === 3/18/18, $\gamma=7/5$, dynamical cases === 35 35 36 ==== Resolving sonic point ==== 37 38 Am running the $\gamma=7/5$ case because the sonic point in this case is located far beyond the accretion radius ($R_s=6>>R_{acc}=.625$). This will enable us to see the generation of accretion shocks in the sim and check the behavior of the accretion algorithm under conditions of supersonic infall. We expect that the accretion algorithm should be fairly 'well-behaved' in the supersonic regime, as any pressure errors generated in the accretion kernel will be unable to propagate upstream and effect the hydrodynamical solution beyond the accretion volume. 39 40 For this run, I made the box bigger than the fiducial case above, but came the same effective resolution. The bigger box now contains the bondi radius ($R_{BH}=30.5$). The following table lists this sims params: 41 36 42 || $\gamma$ || 1.4 || 37 43 || $\lambda_{crit}$ || .625 || 38 44 || $C_{\infty}$ || 1.183 || 39 45 || $R_{BH}$ || 30.5 || 40 || $R_{s}$ || .6101 || 41 || $\dot{M}_{BH}$ || 8646.9 || 46 || $R_{s}$ || 6.1 || 47 || $\dot{M}_{BH}$ || 8646.9 || 48 || $t_{sim}$ || 60 || 49 || $L_x=L_y=L_z$ || 80 || 50 || $mx=my=mz$ || 128 || 51 || $dx_{min}$ || .15625 || 42 52 43 ==== Resolving sonic point ==== 44 53 The final time of the simulation is ~2 sound crossing times, using the sound speed of the gas at the edge of the domain ($C_{amb}=1.283$) and the distance between this edge and the sink particle ($r=40$). 45 54 46 55 47 56 ==== Not-resolving sonic point ==== 57 48 58 49 59 === 3/18/18, $\gamma=1.66$, steady-state case ===