Paper detail

A comparison between grid and particle methods on the small-scale dynamo in magnetised supersonic turbulence

We perform a comparison between the smoothed particle magnetohydrodynamics (SPMHD) code, Phantom, and the Eulerian grid-based code, Flash, on the small-scale turbulent dynamo in driven, Mach 10 turbulence. We show, for the first time, that the exponential growth and saturation of an initially weak magnetic field via the small-scale dynamo can be successfully reproduced with SPMHD. The two codes agree on the behaviour of the magnetic energy spectra, the saturation level of magnetic energy, and the distribution of magnetic field strengths during the growth and saturation phases. The main difference is that the dynamo growth rate, and its dependence on resolution, differs between the codes, caused by differences in the numerical dissipation and shock capturing schemes leading to differences in the effective Prandtl number in Phantom and Flash.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.