Paper detail

Simulations of Nonaxisymmetric Instability in a Rotating Star: A Comparison Between Eulerian and Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics

We have carried out 3-D numerical simulations of the dynamical bar instability in a rotating star and the resulting gravitational radiation using both an Eulerian code written in cylindrical coordinates and a smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) code. The star is modeled initially as a polytrope with index $n = 3/2$ and $T_{\rm rot}/|W| \approx 0.30$, where $T_{\rm rot}$ is the rotational kinetic energy and $|W|$ is the gravitational potential energy. In both codes the gravitational field is purely Newtonian, and the gravitational radiation is calculated in the quadrupole approximation. We have run 3 simulations with the Eulerian code, varying the number of angular zones and the treatment of the boundary between the star and the vacuum. Using the SPH code we did 7 runs, varying the number of particles, the artificial viscosity, and the type of initial model. We compare the growth rate and rotation speed of the bar, the mass and angular momentum distributions, and the gravitational radiation quantities. We highlight the successes and difficulties of both methods, and make suggestions for future improvements.

preprint1995arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 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.