Hi,
Even though it may not be popularly used, Wv-reconstruction for PPM+Polytropic EoS doesn't seem to work properly. It gives significantly different result compared to the one with velocity reconstruction. I have seen at least the followings are fine;
2nd order ENO + Poly EoS (cf. crashed with 3rd order ENO) PPM + Ideal Fluid EoS 5th order WENO + Ideal Fluid EoS (cf. No poly EoS supports in WENO)
The tests have been done with Herschel and partly with Noether.
Cheers,
Hee Il
Hello Hee Il,
Even though it may not be popularly used, Wv-reconstruction for PPM+Polytropic EoS doesn't seem to work properly. It gives significantly different result compared to the one with velocity reconstruction. I have seen at least the followings are fine;
2nd order ENO + Poly EoS (cf. crashed with 3rd order ENO) PPM + Ideal Fluid EoS 5th order WENO + Ideal Fluid EoS (cf. No poly EoS supports in WENO)
The tests have been done with Herschel and partly with Noether.
Just to be very sure: you see these issues only when using polytropic EOS, ie Ideal_Fluid EOS is fine? I am asking because for some of the routines there are two copies, a Ideal_Fluid one and a 2D_Polytrope one and only the later would contain the possible bug if you only see it for polytropes. Note that reconstruct_Wv does (by design) give different answers than the direct velocity reconstruction, in particular when the velocities are high. Are the "different" numbers you see "obviously wrong"?
Yours, Roland
Hi Roland,
Yes, the routines of PPM for "poly" are highly suspicious. I can't make comparisons for the different numbers but the star didn't rotate very fast. The evolution pattern (e.g. rho.max) was different, resulting in a black hole with an wrong mass, contrary to the case with the velocity reconstruction. I'm sorry I can't continue the test at the moment but MP5+Ideal EOS was also good without showing any difference.
Yours,
Hee Il
2014-12-05 16:23 GMT+09:00 Roland Haas roland.haas@physics.gatech.edu:
Hello Hee Il,
Even though it may not be popularly used, Wv-reconstruction for PPM+Polytropic EoS doesn't seem to work properly. It gives significantly different result compared to the one with velocity reconstruction. I have seen at least the followings are fine;
2nd order ENO + Poly EoS (cf. crashed with 3rd order ENO) PPM + Ideal Fluid EoS 5th order WENO + Ideal Fluid EoS (cf. No poly EoS supports in WENO)
The tests have been done with Herschel and partly with Noether.
Just to be very sure: you see these issues only when using polytropic EOS, ie Ideal_Fluid EOS is fine? I am asking because for some of the routines there are two copies, a Ideal_Fluid one and a 2D_Polytrope one and only the later would contain the possible bug if you only see it for polytropes. Note that reconstruct_Wv does (by design) give different answers than the direct velocity reconstruction, in particular when the velocities are high. Are the "different" numbers you see "obviously wrong"?
Yours, Roland
-- My email is as private as my paper mail. I therefore support encrypting and signing email messages. Get my PGP key from http://keys.gnupg.net.
Users mailing list Users@einsteintoolkit.org http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Hello Hee Il,
Yes, the routines of PPM for "poly" are highly suspicious. I can't make comparisons for the different numbers but the star didn't rotate very fast. The evolution pattern (e.g. rho.max) was different, resulting in a black hole with an wrong mass, contrary to the case with the velocity reconstruction. I'm sorry I can't continue the test at the moment but MP5+Ideal EOS was also good without showing any difference.
Ok. Would it be at all possible that you attach the actual parameter file that you used? it would be fine to remove analysis etc thorns but very nice if we had a parameter file that demonstrated the issue, so that test runs are possible.
Yours, Roland
Hi,
I made a parfile for the test just by modifying static_tov.par to induce collpase. Please find the attached files. The figure shows manifest difference between ppm+v vs. ppm+Wv reconstruction. For the case of WENO+Ideal gas EOS, the two test lines show nice agreement.
Cheers,
Hee Il
2014-12-05 21:59 GMT+09:00 Roland Haas roland.haas@physics.gatech.edu:
Hello Hee Il,
Yes, the routines of PPM for "poly" are highly suspicious. I can't make comparisons for the different numbers but the star didn't rotate very
fast.
The evolution pattern (e.g. rho.max) was different, resulting in a black hole with an wrong mass, contrary to the case with the velocity reconstruction. I'm sorry I can't continue the test at the moment but MP5+Ideal EOS was also good without showing any difference.
Ok. Would it be at all possible that you attach the actual parameter file that you used? it would be fine to remove analysis etc thorns but very nice if we had a parameter file that demonstrated the issue, so that test runs are possible.
Yours, Roland
-- My email is as private as my paper mail. I therefore support encrypting and signing email messages. Get my PGP key from http://keys.gnupg.net.
Hello Hee Il,
I made a parfile for the test just by modifying static_tov.par to induce collpase. Please find the attached files. The figure shows manifest difference between ppm+v vs. ppm+Wv reconstruction. For the case of WENO+Ideal gas EOS, the two test lines show nice agreement.
Excellent. Thank you very much.
Yours, Roland
users@lists.einsteintoolkit.org
-
Hee Il Kim -
Roland Haas