Hi Matt, thanks for the quick reply. I'm using simple data from the enzo Collapse Test (27). It seems is mainly related to the size of the sphere I'm taking... but I don't know.
Here following a piece of my script:
pf3=load("DD0003/DD0003") c3= pf3.h.find_max("Density") sph3 = pf3.h.sphere(c3, (100, 'pc')) prof3.add_fields("H2I_Density") prof3.add_fields("H2I_Fraction") prof3.add_fields("Radius")
d_ax2.loglog(prof3['Radius'], prof3['H2I_Density']/prof3['Density'], lw=1.5, linestyle='--', color='r') d_ax2.loglog(prof3['Radius'], prof3['H2I_Fraction'], lw=1.5, linestyle=':', color='y')
Thanks in advance Stefano
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Matthew Turk firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:14 PM, email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Hi Guys, I did a simple test with enzo and I tried to plot a radial profile of the chemical species fractions with YT.
The problem is that if I use the YT function which intrinsically plot the fraction for a species, let's say H2I_Fraction (as usual), and compare
with a direct evaluation of the mass fraction:
I obtain some slightly different results, mostly at large radii.
Anyone might explain this discrepancy!? This happens with all the
Without knowing what "data" here is, or how you generated it, it's tough to say.
Thank you in advance Stefano_______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list email@example.com http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
yt-users mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org