Table of information on head-on collision runs
Equal mass case (m1=m2=0.5, M_tot=1.0)
| Init.Seperatio(C,P) |
Resol.(h) |
Crash time |
punc split (Y/N) |
Excision |
Gauge |
Movies |
Comments |
| C=2.3M, P~4.5M |
M/16,M/24 |
didn't |
Y |
. |
1+log,HG(eta=3.1) |
. |
M/32 paper run didn't crash |
| C=2.3M, P~4.5M |
M/12 |
No crash |
Yes |
None |
1+log,HG(eta=3.1) |
[Lapse:
MPEG
]
[Shiftz:
MPEG
]
[Shiftz_zoom:
MPEG
]
[conPhi:
MPEG
]
[HC:
MPEG
]
[HC_zoom:
MPEG
]
[RePsi4:
MPEG
]
[RePsi4_zoom:
MPEG
]
|
/th>
Waveform [PS]
|
| C=2.3M, P~4.5M |
M/12 |
No crash |
No |
None |
1+log,HG(eta=3.1) |
See above line |
See above line |
| C=2.3M, P~4.5M |
M/16 |
running |
N |
None |
1+log,HG(eta=3.1) |
. |
waveform to come! |
| C=4M, P~6.8M |
M/16 |
56M |
Y |
mask too small |
1+log,HG(eta=3.0) |
. |
See line below. Interesting? huh |
| C=4M, P~6.8M |
M/16 |
ran up to 131M |
Y |
None |
1+log,HG(eta=3.0) |
. |
Waveforms[PS] |
| C=4M, P~6.8M |
M/12 |
didn't |
N |
None |
1+log,HG(eta=3.0) |
Comparison bet. split/no-split [alpha][betaz] |
Waveform doesn't look good. Not terrible but should be improved... |
| C=4M, P~6.8M |
M/16 |
didn't |
N |
None |
1+log,HG(eta=3.0) |
. |
Look reasonable |
| C=4M, P~6.8M |
M/24 |
37M |
N |
None |
1+log,HG(eta=3.0) |
How I crashed [alpha:mpeg] [betaz:mpeg] |
. |
| C=4M, P~6.8M |
M/24 |
RUNNING NOW |
N |
None |
1+log,HG(eta=3.0), DISSIPATION |
How I survived the crash with dissipation [alpha:mpeg] [betaz:mpeg] |
|
| C=6M, P~9M |
M/12 |
63M |
N |
None |
1+log,HG(eta=3.1) |
. |
Things go bad around origin, waveform TERRIBLE! |
| C=6M, P~9M |
M/12 |
|
N |
None |
1+log,HG(eta=3.1) DISSIPATION |
. |
waveform terrible; it seems it needs more resolution will see |
| C=6M, P~9M |
M/16 |
31M |
Y |
mask too small |
1+log,HG(eta=3.1) |
. |
MAD gives the same crash time |
| C=6M, P~9M |
M/16 |
66M |
Y |
mask too small |
1+log,HG(eta=11.2) |
. |
Pablo P=10M |
| C=6M, P~9M |
M/16 |
didn't crash;ran to 81M! |
N |
None |
1+log,HG(eta=3.1) |
. |
waveforms looks reasonable indeed! |
General observation
- Aware that there maybe *minimum* resolution requirement for a
given separation for convergence and non-noisy waveforms.
(e.g. M/16 for up to L_prop = 9M, M/12 may be ok for L_prop=4M or so)
-
In non-punc split strategy,
High resolution problems around initial puncture locations
can be
dealt with dissipation.
- (To be clarified further with more data and graphsics, but)
Waveforms seem to indicate
- that initial part of waveforms, often look noisy,
are *really* initial data effect (so I am now less worried with sharp
waveforms for this early part of waveforms..) and
- therefore can be separated from
the *collision* waveforms by farther separation. Given resources this
can be pushed in full speed.
Next tsteps
- Use at least h_finest=M/16, do parameter scanning covering the
range of L_prop = 4.5M (QC0-equiv.) thru up to say L_prop=10--15M
(going beyond Pablo).
- clearly demonstarte separatoin of ID effect from the real
collision waveforms...
Non-Equal mass case (m1=0.25,m2=0.75)
| Initial seperation (C,P) |
Resolution (h) |
Crash time |
punc split (Y/N) |
Excision |
Gauge |
Movies |
Comments |
| C=2.3M |
M/12 |
30M |
Y |
meaningless |
1+log,Gamma Drvier |
. |
. |
| C=2.3M |
M/12 |
50M |
N |
meaningless |
1+log,Gamma Drvier |
. |
. |
| C=2.3M |
M/16 |
14M |
Y |
meaingless |
1+log,Gamma Drvier |
. |
. |
| C=2.3M |
M/16 |
28M |
Y |
with elongated mask turned on later |
1+log,Gamma Drvier |
. |
. |
| C=2.3M |
M/16 |
past 100M |
N |
meaningless |
1+log,Gamma Drvier |
. |
waveform didn't look good. [PS] |