Changes between Version 18 and Version 19 of u/u/erica/EricasCFIntro


Ignore:
Timestamp:
12/16/13 22:53:15 (11 years ago)
Author:
Erica Kaminski
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • u/u/erica/EricasCFIntro

    v18 v19  
    7272(Note: The inputs in the data files are given above, however, visualization in Visit seems to show both of these values less by 0.5 -- I have to check into this more)
    7373
    74 The effective resolution of this run is 2x higher than the 2D runs. There appears to be some errors forming at the end of the simulation, and have not been able to finish this run at this resolution on the amount of cores I was running it on. Thus this run stops at
     74The effective resolution of this run is 2x higher than the 2D runs. There appears to be some errors forming at the end of the simulation, and have not been able to finish this run at this resolution on the amount of cores I was running it on. Thus this run stops prematurely at t = 4.7 Myr.
    7575
    7676== Here is a movie of the density ==
     77
     78Comparing the 3D higher resolution runs to the 2D lower resolution runs, I see the same global evolution of the NTSI on similar timescales, that is by about 2 Myr, the NTSI seems to collapse back in on itself, with its fingers becoming less prominent. I also see material being contained within the slab region in y-direction, and KH waves appearing at the top and bottom of the flow as before. The major difference between the 2D and 3D runs is that the density grows much more quickly in the 3D runs, leading to stronger cooler and stronger nonlinear density perturbations inside of the collision region. This is in contrast to the 2D run, which seems to instead form a single long filamentary structure. I am not sure if this is mainly due to the resolution or dimension.
     79
     80[attachment:rho3Dcfs.gif movie]