Ian, thanks a lot for your help.
Cheers, Bruno
Il giorno mer 3 nov 2021 alle ore 16:39 Ian Hawke I.Hawke@soton.ac.uk ha scritto:
Yes; the "difference" is that the "num_flux" in the two cases are different (one will contain the lapse, the other not, as undensitized) [I think]. So the implemented case with the explicit averaged lapse at each interface should directly approximate the standard form, but effectively uses a different reconstruction approach for gauge vs the rest of the flux.
I have memories of trying both approaches when playing with WENO reconstruction early on, and it making little difference. There should be no problem with scaling by any term that does not explicitly depend on terms within the hydro state vector.
*From:* Roland Haas rhaas@illinois.edu *Sent:* 03 November 2021 15:31 *To:* Ian Hawke I.Hawke@soton.ac.uk *Cc:* carpetx-developers@einsteintoolkit.org < carpetx-developers@einsteintoolkit.org> *Subject:* Re: lapse terms in Whisky's fluxes
CAUTION: This e-mail originated outside the University of Southampton. _______________________________________________ Carpetx-developers mailing list Carpetx-developers@einsteintoolkit.org http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/carpetx-developers