Trouble with SFR plots of enzo data
Hey Guys, I've been using yt's star analysis module to produce plots of SFR vs. time to compare the star formation histories across multiple runs. It works well except when it doesn't. I've been working with enzo and for late time files (I believe produced after a run was restarted) the star formation history cuts off and drops to 0 for the earlier times. Weirder still, when I open earlier data files and plot them atop, the earlier results disagree! I attached a plot of this below. Does anyone know what's happening here? Is there a better way to do this? best, Munier The Code: *import matplotlib as mpl* *mpl.use('agg')* *import matplotlib.pyplot as plt* *from yt.mods import ** *from yt.analysis_modules.star_analysis.api import ** * * *def SFR(fName,stroke):* * * * # open file* * try:* * pf=load(fName)* * except YTOutputNotIdentified:* * return False* * * * # calculate SFR* * dd = pf.h.all_data()* * sfr = StarFormationRate(pf,data_source=dd)* * * * plt.plot(sfr.time,sfr.Msol_yr,stroke,linewidth=1)* * return ( sfr.time.min() , sfr.time.max() )* * * *MaxVals = []* *SFR("../FIDUCIAL/DD0005/test_sim_0005","k-")* *SFR("../FIDUCIAL/DD0010/test_sim_0010","k-")* *SFR("../FIDUCIAL/DD0017/test_sim_0017","k-")* * * *plt.xlim((1.27E10,1.30E10))* *plt.savefig("SFR")* -- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450
I forgot to mention, the X-axis is time and the Y-axis is SFR (M_solar / yr) On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Munier Azzam Salem < msalem@astro.columbia.edu> wrote:
Hey Guys,
I've been using yt's star analysis module to produce plots of SFR vs. time to compare the star formation histories across multiple runs. It works well except when it doesn't.
I've been working with enzo and for late time files (I believe produced after a run was restarted) the star formation history cuts off and drops to 0 for the earlier times. Weirder still, when I open earlier data files and plot them atop, the earlier results disagree! I attached a plot of this below.
Does anyone know what's happening here? Is there a better way to do this?
best, Munier
The Code:
*import matplotlib as mpl* *mpl.use('agg')* *import matplotlib.pyplot as plt* *from yt.mods import ** *from yt.analysis_modules.star_analysis.api import ** * * *def SFR(fName,stroke):* * * * # open file* * try:* * pf=load(fName)* * except YTOutputNotIdentified:* * return False* * * * # calculate SFR* * dd = pf.h.all_data()* * sfr = StarFormationRate(pf,data_source=dd)* * * * plt.plot(sfr.time,sfr.Msol_yr,stroke,linewidth=1)* * return ( sfr.time.min() , sfr.time.max() )* * * *MaxVals = []* *SFR("../FIDUCIAL/DD0005/test_sim_0005","k-")* *SFR("../FIDUCIAL/DD0010/test_sim_0010","k-")* *SFR("../FIDUCIAL/DD0017/test_sim_0017","k-")* * * *plt.xlim((1.27E10,1.30E10))* *plt.savefig("SFR")*
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450
Hi Munier,
I've been using yt's star analysis module to produce plots of SFR vs. time to compare the star formation histories across multiple runs. It works well except when it doesn't.
I'm sorry to say that I can't reproduce what you're seeing. While I think a bit more about what might be going on, would it be possible for you to redo your figure where the different lines are distinguishable by color or by line style? Thanks! -- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice)
Hi Stephen, Thanks for taking a look into this. Here's a color coded version. In this plot, I've also set the number of bins so the red line has twice as many as the black (at Christine's suggestion), so it seems this is not a binning effect. It's helpful to note the variations are super well correlated, but it seems like a normalization issue that grows worse over time. On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Stephen Skory <s@skory.us> wrote:
Hi Munier,
I've been using yt's star analysis module to produce plots of SFR vs. time to compare the star formation histories across multiple runs.
It
works well except when it doesn't.
I'm sorry to say that I can't reproduce what you're seeing. While I think a bit more about what might be going on, would it be possible for you to redo your figure where the different lines are distinguishable by color or by line style? Thanks!
-- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice) _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450
Hi Munier, I don't have any idea what is going on here for you, but do other star particle quantities make sense? Total stellar mass, for example? Stephanie On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Munier Azzam Salem < msalem@astro.columbia.edu> wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for taking a look into this. Here's a color coded version. In this plot, I've also set the number of bins so the red line has twice as many as the black (at Christine's suggestion), so it seems this is not a binning effect. It's helpful to note the variations are super well correlated, but it seems like a normalization issue that grows worse over time.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Stephen Skory <s@skory.us> wrote:
Hi Munier,
I've been using yt's star analysis module to produce plots of SFR vs. time to compare the star formation histories across multiple runs.
It
works well except when it doesn't.
I'm sorry to say that I can't reproduce what you're seeing. While I think a bit more about what might be going on, would it be possible for you to redo your figure where the different lines are distinguishable by color or by line style? Thanks!
-- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice) _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450
_______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
I don't have any idea what is going on here for you, but do other star particle quantities make sense? Total stellar mass, for example?
That's a good idea, Stephanie. Munier, can you tell us what the total stellar mass is in the three snapshots - is it monotonically increasing in a reasonable way? What I find curious is how the star formation rate for the last snapshot (DD0017) rises right where the line for DD0010 stops... -- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice)
Hi Stephen (and Stephanie!), The total particle mass increases monotonically during the run. I get it by opening each data file and summing the particle mass at that moment in time. Is their a way to a finer-grained version of this, or get it all from a single data file? best, Munier On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Stephen Skory <s@skory.us> wrote:
I don't have any idea what is going on here for you, but do other star particle quantities make sense? Total stellar mass, for example?
That's a good idea, Stephanie. Munier, can you tell us what the total stellar mass is in the three snapshots - is it monotonically increasing in a reasonable way? What I find curious is how the star formation rate for the last snapshot (DD0017) rises right where the line for DD0010 stops...
-- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice) _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450
Hi Guys, Here is the cumulative mass, plotted from the same three data files. It's clear particles are being lost ... On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Munier Azzam Salem < msalem@astro.columbia.edu> wrote:
Hi Stephen (and Stephanie!),
The total particle mass increases monotonically during the run. I get it by opening each data file and summing the particle mass at that moment in time. Is their a way to a finer-grained version of this, or get it all from a single data file?
best, Munier
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Stephen Skory <s@skory.us> wrote:
I don't have any idea what is going on here for you, but do other star particle quantities make sense? Total stellar mass, for example?
That's a good idea, Stephanie. Munier, can you tell us what the total stellar mass is in the three snapshots - is it monotonically increasing in a reasonable way? What I find curious is how the star formation rate for the last snapshot (DD0017) rises right where the line for DD0010 stops...
-- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice) _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450
Hi Munier,
Here is the cumulative mass, plotted from the same three data files. It's clear particles are being lost ...
Aha! That is kind of what I was suspecting! So this looks like it might be an Enzo problem. I'd recommend trying to figure out what happened there. Perhaps there was an error during a restart or somehow two different simulations got mixed up? Good luck! -- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice)
Alright, I'll take a look. But, I should emphasize that when I open each individual data file, sum the particle masses, and plot, the total mass increases monotonically over time, and agrees well with the decrease in gas mass. It's only when I analyze via the star formation module that I see the jump. On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Stephen Skory <s@skory.us> wrote:
Hi Munier,
Here is the cumulative mass, plotted from the same three data files. It's clear particles are being lost ...
Aha! That is kind of what I was suspecting! So this looks like it might be an Enzo problem. I'd recommend trying to figure out what happened there. Perhaps there was an error during a restart or somehow two different simulations got mixed up? Good luck!
-- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice) _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450
You are doing all this opening of data files and summing particle masses using yt? Open each data file, get the delta(Mstar) and solve for the SFR using delta(t). Does it match anything you are getting using the module? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Munier Azzam Salem < msalem@astro.columbia.edu> wrote:
Alright, I'll take a look.
But, I should emphasize that when I open each individual data file, sum the particle masses, and plot, the total mass increases monotonically over time, and agrees well with the decrease in gas mass. It's only when I analyze via the star formation module that I see the jump.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Stephen Skory <s@skory.us> wrote:
Hi Munier,
Here is the cumulative mass, plotted from the same three data
files.
It's clear particles are being lost ...
Aha! That is kind of what I was suspecting! So this looks like it might be an Enzo problem. I'd recommend trying to figure out what happened there. Perhaps there was an error during a restart or somehow two different simulations got mixed up? Good luck!
-- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice) _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450
_______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
But, I should emphasize that when I open each individual data file, sum the particle masses, and plot, the total mass increases monotonically over time, and agrees well with the decrease in gas mass. It's only when I analyze via the star formation module that I see the jump.
Ah, maybe I'm jumping the gun on blaming Enzo. You can do your own simple tests for the star particle mass like this outside of the star particle analysis module: dd = pf.h.all_data() ct = dd['creation_time'] sel = (ct > 0) pm = dd['ParticleMassMsun'][sel] total_pm = pm.sum() Can you tell me if total_pm makes sense across your datasets? -- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice)
Okay, this is very interesting: I printed dd["creation_time"] for the 10th data dump (last before restarting enzo) and the 11th and 12th (just after restarting). The former has all non-zero creation times. The other two have many, many zeroed out creation times. My theory is this IS enzo's fault, and that it's zeroing out the creation time when it loads in data for a restart run. My ham-fisted method of opening each file and summing all particle masses got around this because I wasn't checking creation time > 0.0. I can get away with this because I do not have live dark matter, but in general this should be fixed (in enzo). On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Stephen Skory <s@skory.us> wrote:
But, I should emphasize that when I open each individual data file, sum the particle masses, and plot, the total mass increases monotonically over time, and agrees well with the decrease in gas mass. It's only when I analyze via the star formation module that I see the jump.
Ah, maybe I'm jumping the gun on blaming Enzo. You can do your own simple tests for the star particle mass like this outside of the star particle analysis module:
dd = pf.h.all_data() ct = dd['creation_time'] sel = (ct > 0) pm = dd['ParticleMassMsun'][sel] total_pm = pm.sum()
Can you tell me if total_pm makes sense across your datasets?
-- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice) _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450
Using the Enzo parameter ParticleTypeInFile sidesteps this, but I believe it is only inconsistently used in yt. On Mar 5, 2013 12:49 PM, "Munier Azzam Salem" <msalem@astro.columbia.edu> wrote:
Okay, this is very interesting:
I printed dd["creation_time"] for the 10th data dump (last before restarting enzo) and the 11th and 12th (just after restarting). The former has all non-zero creation times. The other two have many, many zeroed out creation times. My theory is this IS enzo's fault, and that it's zeroing out the creation time when it loads in data for a restart run.
My ham-fisted method of opening each file and summing all particle masses got around this because I wasn't checking creation time > 0.0. I can get away with this because I do not have live dark matter, but in general this should be fixed (in enzo).
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Stephen Skory <s@skory.us> wrote:
But, I should emphasize that when I open each individual data file, sum the particle masses, and plot, the total mass increases monotonically over time, and agrees well with the decrease in gas mass. It's only when I analyze via the star formation module that I see the jump.
Ah, maybe I'm jumping the gun on blaming Enzo. You can do your own simple tests for the star particle mass like this outside of the star particle analysis module:
dd = pf.h.all_data() ct = dd['creation_time'] sel = (ct > 0) pm = dd['ParticleMassMsun'][sel] total_pm = pm.sum()
Can you tell me if total_pm makes sense across your datasets?
-- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice) _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450
_______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
Munier -- Yes, I think you're exactly right. I would look at New_Grid_ReadGrid.C lines 459+ to see what it actually does with the ParticleAttributes during a restart (creation_time is one of the ParticleAttributes). Greg On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Munier Azzam Salem <msalem@astro.columbia.edu> wrote:
Okay, this is very interesting:
I printed dd["creation_time"] for the 10th data dump (last before restarting enzo) and the 11th and 12th (just after restarting). The former has all non-zero creation times. The other two have many, many zeroed out creation times. My theory is this IS enzo's fault, and that it's zeroing out the creation time when it loads in data for a restart run.
My ham-fisted method of opening each file and summing all particle masses got around this because I wasn't checking creation time > 0.0. I can get away with this because I do not have live dark matter, but in general this should be fixed (in enzo).
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Stephen Skory <s@skory.us> wrote:
But, I should emphasize that when I open each individual data file, sum the particle masses, and plot, the total mass increases monotonically over time, and agrees well with the decrease in gas mass. It's only when I analyze via the star formation module that I see the jump.
Ah, maybe I'm jumping the gun on blaming Enzo. You can do your own simple tests for the star particle mass like this outside of the star particle analysis module:
dd = pf.h.all_data() ct = dd['creation_time'] sel = (ct > 0) pm = dd['ParticleMassMsun'][sel] total_pm = pm.sum()
Can you tell me if total_pm makes sense across your datasets?
-- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice) _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450 _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
Hi Greg, I'll take a look now. I altered the SFR routine to include any particle whose type = 2 (regardless of creation time). And that sort of fixed the jump after the restart (image attached). But the files' data still drift apart, which seems like some sort of corruption in the particle info.
From the graph it seems clear all particle creation times are set to zero during the restart.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Greg Bryan <gbryan@astro.columbia.edu>wrote:
Munier -- Yes, I think you're exactly right. I would look at New_Grid_ReadGrid.C lines 459+ to see what it actually does with the ParticleAttributes during a restart (creation_time is one of the ParticleAttributes).
Greg
On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Munier Azzam Salem <msalem@astro.columbia.edu> wrote:
Okay, this is very interesting:
I printed dd["creation_time"] for the 10th data dump (last before restarting enzo) and the 11th and 12th (just after restarting). The former has all non-zero creation times. The other two have many, many zeroed out creation times. My theory is this IS enzo's fault, and that it's zeroing out the creation time when it loads in data for a restart run.
My ham-fisted method of opening each file and summing all particle masses got around this because I wasn't checking creation time > 0.0. I can get away with this because I do not have live dark matter, but in general this should be fixed (in enzo).
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Stephen Skory <s@skory.us> wrote:
But, I should emphasize that when I open each individual data file, sum the particle masses, and plot, the total mass increases monotonically over time, and agrees well with the decrease in gas mass. It's only when I analyze via the star formation module that I see the jump.
Ah, maybe I'm jumping the gun on blaming Enzo. You can do your own simple tests for the star particle mass like this outside of the star particle analysis module:
dd = pf.h.all_data() ct = dd['creation_time'] sel = (ct > 0) pm = dd['ParticleMassMsun'][sel] total_pm = pm.sum()
Can you tell me if total_pm makes sense across your datasets?
-- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice) _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450 _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450
Hi Munier, Could it also be that the creation times of particles are somehow being corrupted? The star analysis module relies on the creation times to do its summing etc. So is it possible that the same star particle could have different creation times in different outputs. As long as those times are greater than 0, the kind of simple sum that Stephen (and I earlier) showed you would pick them up, but the kind of time-binned analysis that the star analysis module does would show discrepancies. Christine On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Munier Azzam Salem wrote:
Alright, I'll take a look.
But, I should emphasize that when I open each individual data file, sum the particle masses, and plot, the total mass increases monotonically over time, and agrees well with the decrease in gas mass. It's only when I analyze via the star formation module that I see the jump.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Stephen Skory <s@skory.us> wrote: Hi Munier,
Here is the cumulative mass, plotted from the same three data files. It's clear particles are being lost ...
Aha! That is kind of what I was suspecting! So this looks like it might be an Enzo problem. I'd recommend trying to figure out what happened there. Perhaps there was an error during a restart or somehow two different simulations got mixed up? Good luck!
-- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice) _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450 _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
Hey Guys, Matt -- It seems particle type is being printed by enzo for these runs, (and it is consistently set to 2 or "NormalStar"). My guess is the SFR routines aren't using this. Christine -- I think you may be right about the corruption of the particle time, since the two curves that go back to the start of the run diverge over time. I'll report back if any developments happen. On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Christine Simpson < csimpson@astro.columbia.edu> wrote:
Hi Munier,
Could it also be that the creation times of particles are somehow being corrupted? The star analysis module relies on the creation times to do its summing etc. So is it possible that the same star particle could have different creation times in different outputs. As long as those times are greater than 0, the kind of simple sum that Stephen (and I earlier) showed you would pick them up, but the kind of time-binned analysis that the star analysis module does would show discrepancies.
Christine
On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Munier Azzam Salem wrote:
Alright, I'll take a look.
But, I should emphasize that when I open each individual data file, sum the particle masses, and plot, the total mass increases monotonically over time, and agrees well with the decrease in gas mass. It's only when I analyze via the star formation module that I see the jump.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Stephen Skory <s@skory.us> wrote:
Hi Munier,
Here is the cumulative mass, plotted from the same three data
files.
It's clear particles are being lost ...
Aha! That is kind of what I was suspecting! So this looks like it might be an Enzo problem. I'd recommend trying to figure out what happened there. Perhaps there was an error during a restart or somehow two different simulations got mixed up? Good luck!
-- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice) _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450 _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450
Jumping in with my 2c, If there's something wrong with the creation time, the discrepancies would be in the x (time) dimension. It seems that the features of the two curves are well matched in the x, it's the y (Msol/yr) axis that seems to be discrepant. So I would also check into value of y along with the creation time problem. From G.S. On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Munier Azzam Salem < msalem@astro.columbia.edu> wrote:
Hey Guys,
Matt -- It seems particle type is being printed by enzo for these runs, (and it is consistently set to 2 or "NormalStar"). My guess is the SFR routines aren't using this.
Christine -- I think you may be right about the corruption of the particle time, since the two curves that go back to the start of the run diverge over time. I'll report back if any developments happen.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Christine Simpson < csimpson@astro.columbia.edu> wrote:
Hi Munier,
Could it also be that the creation times of particles are somehow being corrupted? The star analysis module relies on the creation times to do its summing etc. So is it possible that the same star particle could have different creation times in different outputs. As long as those times are greater than 0, the kind of simple sum that Stephen (and I earlier) showed you would pick them up, but the kind of time-binned analysis that the star analysis module does would show discrepancies.
Christine
On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Munier Azzam Salem wrote:
Alright, I'll take a look.
But, I should emphasize that when I open each individual data file, sum the particle masses, and plot, the total mass increases monotonically over time, and agrees well with the decrease in gas mass. It's only when I analyze via the star formation module that I see the jump.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Stephen Skory <s@skory.us> wrote:
Hi Munier,
Here is the cumulative mass, plotted from the same three data
files.
It's clear particles are being lost ...
Aha! That is kind of what I was suspecting! So this looks like it might be an Enzo problem. I'd recommend trying to figure out what happened there. Perhaps there was an error during a restart or somehow two different simulations got mixed up? Good luck!
-- Stephen Skory s@skory.us http://stephenskory.com/ 510.621.3687 (google voice) _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450 _______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
-- Munier A. Salem // 845.489.6450
_______________________________________________ yt-users mailing list yt-users@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org
participants (7)
-
Christine Simpson -
Geoffrey So -
Greg Bryan -
Matthew Turk -
Munier Azzam Salem -
Stephanie Tonnesen -
Stephen Skory