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 <[email protected]>: > 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users > >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users
