Better Interface for 51BiPolytrope Stability Study
This is Part 2 of an extended chapter discussion. For Part 1, go here.
Discretize for Numerical Integration (continued)
General Discretization
Fourth Approximation
Let's assume that we know the four quantities, , and and want to project forward to determine, . We should assume that, locally, the displacement function is cubic in , that is,
|
|
|
|
|
|
where we have four unknowns, . These can be determined by appropriately combining the four relations,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The difference between the first two expressions gives,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the difference between the last two expressions gives,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Summary #1:
In terms of the coefficient, …
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hence, from the first of the four relations, we find that,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, from the third of the four relations, we can evaluate the coefficient, ; specifically,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
That is,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Summary #2:
In terms of the coefficient, …
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is test ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.01740039 |
0.001936393 |
-4.695376 |
-4.547832 |
-116.0119 |
-76.19513 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hence,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Higher precision value (from Excel) is which precisely matches the input value. Also from Excel, and
|
As a result,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Continuing …
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Finally we may write,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
This is test ...
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.001936393 |
-4.695376 |
-4.547832 |
-116.0119 |
-76.19513 |
|
|
|
|
|
Fifth Approximation
Let's assume that we know the three quantities, , and want to project forward to determine, . Here we will assume that, locally, the displacement function has only an even-power dependence on , that is,
|
|
|
|
|
|
where we have three unknowns, . These can be determined by appropriately combining the three relations,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Determine Coefficients
The difference between the last two expressions gives,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Repeat, to check …
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hence,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where,
|
|
|
|
Also,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the first expression, we also see that,
|
|
|
|
Therefore we have,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hence also,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally,
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OLD Summary:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where,
|
|
|
|
Repeat, to check …
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
New Summary:
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where,
|
|
|
|
Project Forward
Let's now determine the expression for . We begin by writing …
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
This means that,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Keep going …
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| midpoint |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| ---- next in line ---- |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Grouping terms with like powers of we find,
|
|
|
|
New Summary:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where,
|
|
|
|
Try again …
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Multiplying through by gives,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Grouping terms with like powers of we find,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
This EXACTLY MATCHES our above first derivation and grouping!
Improve First Approximation
After slogging through the preceding "Second thru Fifth" approximations, I have come to appreciate that the approach used way back in the "First Approximation" was a good one, but that the attempt to introduce an implicit dependence was misguided. I now think I have discovered the preferable implicit treatment. Let's repeat, while improving this approach.
2nd-Order Explicit Approach
As was done in our earlier First Approximation, let's set up a grid associated with a uniformly spaced spherical radius, where the subscript denotes the grid zone at which all terms in the finite-difference representation of the governing relations will be evaluated. More specifically,
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
also,
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
And at each grid location, the governing relations establish the local evaluation of the derivatives, that is,
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
So, integrating step-by-step from the center of the configuration, outward, once all the variable values are known at grid locations and , the values of and at are given by the expressions,
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
Then we will obtain the "" and "" values via the average expressions,
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
Convert to Implicit Approach
Consider implementing an implicit finite-difference analysis that improves on our earlier First Approximation. The general form of the source term expressions is,
|
|
|
where,
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
and,
|
|
|
where,
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
Now, wherever a "" index appears in the source term, replace it with the average expressions; specifically, and . For the fractional radial displacement, we have,
and for the fractional pressure displacement,
Solving for in this second expression, we obtain,
|
|
|
in which case the first expression gives,
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
This is test of our "implicit" scheme for the bipolytrope with and (Model A) ; here, we also assume and . Here are the quantities that we assume are known …
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.0193368 |
192.21728 |
1913.1421 |
0.3403116 |
3359266.406 |
-155.14459 |
-25.85743 |
4.0162932 |
91.443479 |
|
|
|
determined
|
determined
|
| 0.001936393 |
-4.755073 |
32.25497 |
-4.999355 |
34.874915 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Best values: Nodes 0: n/a
Nodes 1:
Nodes 2:
Nodes 3:
|
Interface
CORE: When (where means interface), we can obtain the fractional displacements at the interface, and , via the expressions,
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
Then, setting , the pair of radial derivatives at the interface and as viewed from the perspective of the core is given by the expressions,
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
It is important to recognize that, throughout the core, has been evaluated by setting . If we continue to use this value of at the interface, we are determining the slope as viewed from the perspective of the core.
ENVELOPE: On the other hand, as viewed from the perspective of the envelope, all parameters used to determine at the interface (and throughout the entire envelope) are the same except , which equals 2 instead of 6/5. Specifically at the interface, we have,
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
(See, for example, our related discussion.) Hence, we appreciate that there is a discontinuous change in the value of this slope at the interface. We note as well — for the first time (8/17/2023)! — that there must also be a discontinuous jump in the slope of the "pressure perturbation." All of the variables used to evaluate are the same irrespective of your core/envelope point of view except the leading density term. As viewed from the perspective of the core, whereas, from the perspective of the envelope, . Appreciating that , this means that the slope of the "pressure perturbation" is a factor of smaller as viewed from the perspective of the envelope.
Then the value of the fractional radial displacement and the value of the pressure perturbation at the first zone outside of the interface are obtained by setting . That is,
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
But, as written, these two expressions are unacceptable because the values just inside the interface, and , are not known as viewed from the perspective of the envelope. However, we can fix this by drawing from the "average" expressions as replacements, namely,
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
in which case we have,
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
Compare Core With Analytic Displacement Functions
See Also