Jumping in with my 2c,<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So I would also check into value of y along with the creation time problem.</div><div><br></div><div>From</div><div>G.S.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Munier Azzam Salem <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:msalem@astro.columbia.edu" target="_blank">msalem@astro.columbia.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hey Guys,<div><br></div><div> 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.</div>
<div><br></div><div> 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.</div>
</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Christine Simpson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:csimpson@astro.columbia.edu" target="_blank">csimpson@astro.columbia.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Hi Munier,<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Christine</div></font></span><div><div><div><br><div><div>On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Munier Azzam Salem wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
Alright, I'll take a look.<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Stephen Skory <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:s@skory.us" target="_blank">s@skory.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi Munier,<br>
<div><br>
> Here is the cumulative mass, plotted from the same three data files.<br>
> It's clear particles are being lost ...<br>
<br>
</div>Aha! That is kind of what I was suspecting! So this looks like it<br>
might be an Enzo problem. I'd recommend trying to figure out what<br>
happened there. Perhaps there was an error during a restart or somehow<br>
two different simulations got mixed up? Good luck!<br>
<div><div><br>
--<br>
Stephen Skory<br>
<a href="mailto:s@skory.us" target="_blank">s@skory.us</a><br>
<a href="http://stephenskory.com/" target="_blank">http://stephenskory.com/</a><br>
<a href="tel:510.621.3687" value="+15106213687" target="_blank">510.621.3687</a> (google voice)<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
yt-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:yt-users@lists.spacepope.org" target="_blank">yt-users@lists.spacepope.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org" target="_blank">http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Munier A. Salem // <a href="tel:845.489.6450" value="+18454896450" target="_blank">845.489.6450</a>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>yt-users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:yt-users@lists.spacepope.org" target="_blank">yt-users@lists.spacepope.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org" target="_blank">http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
yt-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:yt-users@lists.spacepope.org" target="_blank">yt-users@lists.spacepope.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org" target="_blank">http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Munier A. Salem // <a href="tel:845.489.6450" value="+18454896450" target="_blank">845.489.6450</a>
</div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
yt-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:yt-users@lists.spacepope.org">yt-users@lists.spacepope.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org" target="_blank">http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-users-spacepope.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>