Reply To: NIMBY FUD

[jamesr]

In lieu of the google docs link working, can you email me the pdf directly. Cheers.

I wasn’t going to comment on the write-up until I’d read the full paper, but since asymmetric already mentioned it, I too am surprised a two/multi-fluid approach would capture the behaviour properly. The kinetic vs fluid debate rages on in most areas of plasma physics. My own research, for example, uses 3D two-fluid simulations for modelling turbulence driven oscillations in the steep edge density & temperature gradient region of tokamaks, where it wins out over gyrokinetics. It really depends on what assumptions you make to simplify it (I make a lot!!), and what higher moments you include in the energy, heat flux etc to close the set of equations.

The horrible radiation terms are definitely what makes the problem hard, and I guess are the main reason for going fluid rather than PIC.

I can sympathise with Warwick on the numerical difficulties of capturing the shocks properly, thankfully I don’t get those.

I too busy right not trying to write up my thesis, but I’d be interested to know the initial conditions for the simulation (if its not detailed fully in the paper) so it could be replicated in other codes, There is a new rad-hydro code being developed in my department using a new variant of an ALE (Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian) type method, which although aimed at laser-plasma interactions may one day be able to cope with DPF type conditions.