% $Id: notes.tex,v 1.33 2020/06/02 08:17:47 christer Exp $
\documentclass{article}
%\documentclass[twocolumn]{article}
\setlength{\textwidth}{160mm}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0mm}
\setlength{\textheight}{220mm}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-8mm}
%\usepackage{graphicx,natbib,bm,url,color,slashed,amsmath,mathtools}
\usepackage{graphicx,natbib,bm,url,color,mathtools}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\newcommand{\fsl}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathrlap{\!\not{\phantom{#1}}}#1}}
\graphicspath{{./fig/}{./png/}}
\thispagestyle{empty}
%\input macros
\def\red{\textcolor{red}}
\def\blue{\textcolor{blue}}
\title{}
\author{}
\date{\today,~ $ $Revision: 1.33 $ $}
\begin{document}
%\maketitle

%\section{}

\def\na{\ensuremath{n_{\text{a}}}}
\def\tmax{\ensuremath{t_{\text{max}}}}
\def\orms{\ensuremath{\omega_{\text{rms}}}}
\def\urms{\ensuremath{u_{\text{rms}}}}
\def\taus{\ensuremath{\tau_{\text{s}}}}
\def\tauK{\ensuremath{\tau_{\text{K}}}}
\def\tauKo{\ensuremath{\tau_{\text{Kolmogorov}}}}
\def\taut{\ensuremath{\tau_{\text{t}}}}


\begin{table}[htb]\caption{$m=10^{-3}$, $\mu=10^{-6}$
}\vspace{12pt}\centerline{\begin{tabular}{lcccrrrrrl}
$f$ & $dtf$ & $\nu$ & $\nu_{\text{s}}$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\urms} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{divu2m} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{rdivum} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{rhodisp} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\orms} & comment\\
&& $[10^{-3}]$ \\\hline
1.0 & 1.0 & 5.0 & 2 & 0.4--0.8 & 2.285 &                      & 0.218 & 0.30--0.75 & $\tmax=143$, $\na=10$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f1.0_dtf1.0
%&\multicolumn{9}{l}{$\taus=$, $\tauK=6.2$--$13m$, $\taut=1.9$--$3.9$}\\
1.0 & 0.9 & 5.0 & 2 & 0.4--0.8 &       &                      &       & 0.30--0.80 & $\tmax=171$, $\na=10$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f1.0_dtf0.9
%&\multicolumn{9}{l}{$\taus=$, $\tauK=6.2$--$13m$, $\taut=1.9$--$3.9$}\\
1.0 & 0.5 & 5.0 & 2 & 0.4--0.9 & 6.003 &                      & 0.372 & 0.30--0.97 & $\tmax=180$, $\na=10$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f1.0_dtf0.5
%&\multicolumn{9}{l}{$\taus=$, $\tauK=5.6$--$13m$, $\taut=1.9$--$3.9$}\\
2.0 & 1.0 & 5.0 & 2 & 0.7--1.2 & 5.975 &                      & 0.337 & 1.00--1.80 & $\tmax=113$, $\na=10$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f2.0_dtf1.0
%&\multicolumn{9}{l}{$\taus=$, $\tauK=4.2$--$7.1m$, $\taut=1.3$--$2.2$}\\
4.0 & 1.0 & 5.0 & 2 & 1.3--2.2 & 46.45 &                      & 1.212 & 2.3--4.4   & $\tmax=72$, $\na=10$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f4.0_dtf1.0
%&\multicolumn{9}{l}{$\taus=$, $\tauK=2.3$--$3.8m$, $\taut=0.70$--$1.2$}\\
0.1 & 1.0 & 1.8 & 2 & 0.06--0.08 &    9--17$m$&                      &  $97m$ & 650--$800\mu$ & $\tmax=200$, $\na=20$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f0.1_dtf1.0_adjgr
%&\multicolumn{9}{l}{$\taus=$, $\tauK=23$--$30m$, $\taut=19$--$26$}\\
0.5 & 1.0 & 1.8 & 2 & 0.16--0.22 & 0.18--0.24 &                      &  $30m$ & 25--36$m$ & $\tmax=150$, $\na=20$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f0.5_dtf1.0_adjgr
%&\multicolumn{9}{l}{$\taus=$, $\tauK=8.2$--$11m$, $\taut=7.0$--$9.7$}\\
0.5 & 1.0 & 1.8 & 2 & 0.16--0.22 & 0.18--0.25 &                      &  $29m$ & 25--36$m$ & $\tmax=150$, $\na=3$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f0.5_dtf1.0_3adjgr
%&\multicolumn{9}{l}{$\taus=$, $\tauK=8.2$--$11m$, $\taut=7.0$--$9.7$}\\
0.5 & 1.0 & 1.8 & 0 & 0.16--0.22 & 0.35--0.55 &                      &  $20m$ & 17--27$m$ & $\tmax=139$, $\na=20$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f0.5_dtf1.0_adjagr_noshocknu
%&\multicolumn{9}{l}{$\taus=$, $\tauK=8.2$--$11m$, $\taut=7.0$--$9.7$}\\
1.0 & 1.0 & 1.8 & 2 & 0.25--0.32 & 0.48--0.64 &                      &  $97m$ &  80--150$m$ & $\tmax=120$, $\na=20$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f1.0_dtf1.0_adjgr
%&\multicolumn{9}{l}{$\taus=$, $\tauK=5.6$--$7.2m$, $\taut=4.8$--$6.2$}\\
2.0 & 1.0 & 1.8 & 2 & 0.41--0.58 & 1.1--1.9   &                      & $0.240$& 400--700$m$ & $\tmax=100$, $\na=20$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f2.0_dtf1.0_adjgr
%&\multicolumn{9}{l}{$\taus=$, $\tauK=3.1$--$4.4m$, $\taut=2.7$--$3.8$}\\
0.5 & 1.0 & 5.4 & 2 & 0.14--0.22 & 50--75$m$  & $<0.005$             &  $25m$ &  12--19$m$  & $\tmax=162$, $\na=3$, $128^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_128_f0.5_dtf1.0_3adjgr_tsc
%&\multicolumn{9}{l}{$\taus=$, $\tauK=25$--$39m$, $\taut=7.0$--$11$}\\
0.5 & 1.0 & 2.0 & 0 & 0.15--0.22 & 21--34$m$  & $<0.005$             & $-49m$ &  10--22$m$+ & $\tmax=147$, $\na=3$, $128^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_128_f0.5_dtf1.0_3adjgr_tsc_nu2_noshocknu
%&\multicolumn{9}{l}{$\taus=$, $\tauK=9.1$--$13m$, $\taut=7.0$--$10$}\\
0.5 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0 & 0.15--0.22 & 40--63$m$  & $<0.007$             & $-50m$ &  11--31$m$+ & $\tmax=160$, $\na=3$, $256^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_256_f0.5_dtf1.0_3adjgr_tsc_nu1_noshocknu
%&\multicolumn{9}{l}{$\taus=$, $\tauK=4.5$--$6.7m$, $\taut=7.0$--$10$}\\
0.5 & 1.0 & 4.0 & 0 & 0.15--0.22 & 12--18$m$  & $<0.005$             & $-40m$ &   7--22$m$  & $\tmax=150$, $\na=3$, $64^3$\\% isothermal_expwave__64_f0.5_dtf1.0_3adjgr_tsc_nu4_noshocknu
%&\multicolumn{9}{l}{$\taus=$, $\tauK=18$--$27m$, $\taut=7.0$--$10$}\\
0.5 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0 & 0.15--0.22 & 0.40--0.63  & $<0.006$            &        &  16--31$m$+ & $\tmax=186$, $\na=5$, $256^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_256_f0.5_dtf1.0_5adjgr_tsc_nu1_noshocknu
0.5 & 1.0 & 5.0 & 0 & 0.15--0.22 & 0.13--0.22  & $<0.006$            &        &  11--21$m$  & $\tmax=176$, $\na=5$, $256^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_256_f0.5_dtf1.0_5adjgr_tsc_nu0.05_noshocknu
0.5 & 1.0 & 5.0 & 0 & 0.186      & 0.191       & 34.0, 35.0          & 1.40   &  18.9$m$    & $\tmax=215$, $\na=5$, $256^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_256_f0.5_dtf0.5_5adjgr_tsc_nu5e-3_noshocknu
0.5 & 1.0 & 0.5 & 0 & 0.15--0.22 & 0.8--1.2    & $<0.006$            &        &  22--43$m$+ & $\tmax=155$, $\na=5$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f0.5_dtf1.0_5adjgr_tsc_nu5e-4_noshocknu
0.5 & 0.5 & 2.0 & 0 & 0.19       & 0.45        & 35.7, 36.9          & 1.36   &  25$m$      & $\tmax=213$, $\na=5$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f0.5_dtf0.5_5adjgr_tsc_nu2e-3_noshocknu
4.0 & 1.0 & 50. & 0 & 0.62--0.89 & 0.80--2.10  & $<0.0075$           &        &  220--520   & $\tmax=49$, $\na=5$, $256^3$\\ % isothermal_expwave_256_f4.0_dtf1.0_5adjgr_tsc_nu0.05_noshocknu
4.0 & 1.0 & 20. & 0 & blow up    &             &                     &        &             &                             \\ % isothermal_expwave_256_f4.0_dtf1.0_5adjgr_tsc_nu0.02_noshocknu blow up
0.02 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0 & 0.14--0.17 & 0.8$m$+     & $<30\mu$            &        &  51--61$m$  & $\tmax=279$, $\na=5$, $256^3$\\% isothermal_helical_256_f0.5_dtf1.0_5adjgr_tsc_nu1_noshocknu
0.02 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0 & 0.14--0.17 & 0.8$m$+     & $<30\mu$            &        &  53--61$m$  & $\tmax=260$, $\na=5$, $256^3$, Stokes drag\\% isothermal_helical_256_f0.5_dtf1.0_5adjgr_tsc_nu1_noshocknu_Sdrag
0.2 & 0.2 & 50. & 0 & 0.82       & 1.70        & 52.3, 54.2          & 99.3$m$&  336$m$     & $\tmax=48$, $\na=5$, $256^3$\\ % isothermal_helical_256_f4.0_dtf0.2_5adjgr_tsc_nu0.05_noshocknu
0.2 & 0.5 & 50. & 0 & 0.739      & 1.33        & 41.3, 39.4          & 70.6$m$&  297$m$     & $\tmax=55$, $\na=5$, $256^3$\\ % isothermal_helical_256_f4.0_dtf0.5_5adjgr_tsc_nu0.05_noshocknu
0.2 & 1.0 & 50. & 0 & 0.43--0.52 & 25--38$m$   & $<0.002$            &        &  0.69--0.85 & $\tmax=111$, $\na=5$, $256^3$\\% isothermal_helical_256_f4.0_dtf1.0_5adjgr_tsc_nu0.05_noshocknu
0.2 & 1.0 & 20. & 0 & 0.55--0.66 & 0.12--0.18  & $<0.003$            &        &  1.07-1.27  & $\tmax=260$, $\na=5$, $256^3$\\% isothermal_helical_256_f4.0_dtf1.0_5adjgr_tsc_nu0.02_noshocknu
0.2 & 1.0 & 10. & 0 & 0.62--0.72 & 0.32--0.48  & $<0.004$            &        &  1.46-1.72  & $\tmax=250$, $\na=5$, $256^3$\\% isothermal_helical_256_f4.0_dtf1.0_5adjgr_tsc_nu0.01_noshocknu
0.5 & 1.0 & 2.0 & 0 & 0.15--0.22 & 22--34$m$  & $<0.005$             &        &  10--20$m$+ & $\tmax=96$, $\na=5$, $128^3$\\ % isothermal_expwave_128_f0.5_dtf1.0_5adjgr_tsc_nu2_noshocknu
1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0 & 0.24--0.34 & 1.7--2.4   &                      &        & 0.07--0.34  & no p., $\tmax=50$, $512^3$\\   % isothermal_expwave_512_f1.0_dtf1.0_nop_noshocknu
1.0 & 1.0 & 0.7 & 0 &blow up     &            &                      &        &             & no p., $\tmax=16.76$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f1.0_dtf1.0_nop_noshocknu
1.0 & 1.0 & 0.5 & 0 &blow up     &            &                      &        &             & no p., $\tmax=22.11$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f1.0_dtf1.0_nop_noshocknu
2.0 & 1.0 & 5.0 & 0 & 0.40--0.57 & 2.2--4.2   &                      &        & 0.30--0.90  & no p., $\tmax=50$, $512^3$\\   % isothermal_expwave_512_f2.0_dtf1.0_nop_noshocknu
2.0 & 1.0 & 4.0 & 0 &blow up     &            &                      &        &             & no p., $\tmax=15.56$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f2.0_dtf1.0_nop_noshocknu
2.0 & 1.0 & 3.0 & 0 &blow up     &            &                      &        &             & no p., $\tmax=14.25$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f2.0_dtf1.0_nop_noshocknu
2.0 & 1.0 & 2.0 & 0 &blow up     &            &                      &        &             & no p., $\tmax=12.85$, $512^3$\\% isothermal_expwave_512_f2.0_dtf1.0_nop_noshocknu
4.0 & 1.0 & 50. & 0 & 0.60--0.85 & 1.0--2.2   &                      &        & 0.35--0.53  & no p., $\tmax=50$, $512^3$\\   % isothermal_expwave_512_f4.0_dtf1.0_nop_noshocknu
4.0 & 1.0 & 20. & 0 &blow up     &            &                      &        &             & no p., $\tmax=2.82$, $512^3$\\ % isothermal_expwave_512_f4.0_dtf1.0_nop_noshocknu
4.0 & 1.0 & 10. & 0 &blow up     &            &                      &        &             & no p., $\tmax=3.62$, $512^3$\\ % isothermal_expwave_512_f4.0_dtf1.0_nop_noshocknu
4.0 & 1.0 & 5.0 & 0 &blow up     &            &                      &        &             & no p., $\tmax=2.77$, $512^3$   % isothermal_expwave_512_f4.0_dtf1.0_nop_noshocknu
\label{Ttimescale}\end{tabular}}\end{table}
$\taus=\sqrt{\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{8}}\frac{\displaystyle\rho_{\text{gr}}}{\displaystyle\rho}\frac{\displaystyle a}{\displaystyle c_{\text{s}}}$,
$\tauK=\frac{\displaystyle\nu}{\displaystyle\urms}$, $\taut=\frac{\displaystyle k_{\text{F}}}{\displaystyle\urms}=\frac{\displaystyle3.1\times0.5}{\displaystyle \urms}$,
$\tauKo=\left(\frac{\displaystyle\rho\nu^3}{\displaystyle\varepsilon_{\text{kin}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}$,
$Re=\frac{\displaystyle u_{\text{rms}}\delta x}{\displaystyle\nu}$
%AB: which ones blew up?
%AB: Could you also add columns for, for example,
%AB: urms, divu2m, and the density dispersion that we talked about?
%CS: I can: I would then add average values of these properties?
%CS:  density dispersion...did we add a variable for this or did we
%CS:  agree to use (rho2m-rhom)/rhom ? My notes don't tell, and I cannot
%CS: see anything in the runs we made.
%AB: I thought the relevant quantity is "drho2m"

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{{isothermal_expwave_256_f0.5_dtf1.0_5adjagr_tsc_nu1_noshocknu__power_1869}.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{{isothermal_expwave_256_f4.0_dtf1.0_5adjagr_tsc_nu0.05_noshocknu__power_1129}.eps}
%\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{{isothermal_expwave_256_f4.0_dtf1.0_5adjagr_tsc_nu0.05_noshocknu__power_504}.eps}
%AB: this run has similar parameters as isothermal_helical_256_f0.5_dtf1.0_5adjgr_tsc_nu1_noshocknu_Sdrag
%AB: but it seems it is not the same.
%AB: Unlike all the other runs, the heaviest particles hardly have a declining piece.
\caption{$256^3$, $\nu=1\times10^{-3},\:0.05$, irrotational forcing: $f=0.5$ and $f=4.0$.\label{fig:power_exp}}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{{isothermal_expwave_256_f0.5_dtf1.0_5adjagr_tsc_nu0.05_noshocknu__power_1789}.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{{isothermal_expwave_512_f0.5_dtf1.0_5adjagr_tsc_nu5e-4_noshocknu__power_1559}.eps}
\caption{$256^3$, $512^3$, $\nu=1\times10^{-3},\:5\times10^{-4}$, irrotational forcing: $f=0.5$.\label{fig:power_exp}}
\end{figure}

%\pagebreak


%\begin{figure}
%\centering
%%AB: is this a run in the table?
%\caption{Power spectrum: $256^3$, $\nu=5\times10^{-2}$, irrotational forcing: $f=4.0$, $\tmax=51$.\label{fig:power_exp_4a}}
%\end{figure}

%\begin{figure}
%\centering
%\includegraphics[width=16cm]{{isothermal_expwave_256_f4.0_dtf1.0_5adjagr_tsc_nu0.05_noshocknu__power_1129}.eps}
%\caption{Power spectrum: $256^3$, $\nu=5\times10^{-2}$, irrotational forcing: $f=4.0$, $\tmax=113$.\label{fig:power_exp_4b}}
%\end{figure}


\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{{isothermal_helical_256_f0.5_dtf1.0_5adjagr_tsc_nu1_noshocknu__power_2791}.eps}
%\caption{Power spectrum: $256^3$, $\nu=1.0\times10^{-3}$, vortical forcing: $f=0.02$.\label{fig:power_hel}}
\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{{isothermal_helical_256_f0.5_dtf1.0_5adjagr_tsc_nu1_noshocknu_Sdrag__power_2610}.eps}
\caption{$256^3$, $\nu=1.0\times10^{-3}$, vortical forcing: $f=0.02$, Weinstein transonic vs. Stokes drag.\label{fig:power_hel_Stokes}}
%AB: this run is surprising similar to that in Fig.4.
\end{figure}

%\begin{figure}
%\centering
%\includegraphics[width=16cm]{{isothermal_helical_256_f4.0_dtf1.0_5adjagr_tsc_nu0.05_noshocknu__power_1117}.eps}
%\caption{Power spectrum: $256^3$, $\nu=5.0\times10^{-2}$, vortical forcing: $f=0.2$.\label{fig:power_hel_4a}}
%\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{{isothermal_helical_256_f4.0_dtf1.0_5adjagr_tsc_nu0.02_noshocknu__power_245}.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{{isothermal_helical_256_f4.0_dtf1.0_5adjagr_tsc_nu0.02_noshocknu__power_810}.eps}
\caption{$256^3$, $\nu=2.0\times10^{-2}$, vortical forcing: $f=0.2$, $t=205$ and $t=262$.\label{fig:power_hel_4b2}}
%AB: more viscous than below
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{{isothermal_helical_256_f4.0_dtf1.0_5adjagr_tsc_nu0.01_noshocknu__power_245}.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{{isothermal_helical_256_f4.0_dtf1.0_5adjagr_tsc_nu0.01_noshocknu__power_703}.eps}
\caption{$256^3$, $\nu=1.0\times10^{-2}$, vortical forcing: $f=0.2$, $t=205$ and $t=251$.\label{fig:power_hel_4c2}}
%AB: there isn't much change, except the heaviest particles (dotted line) have slightly less power at large scales than before.
\end{figure}

%Discussion of models and plots for paper:
%
%What model to look at? I've run several models varying the forcing factor to achieve
%  different Mrms in the outcome. Various levels of the Mrms result in less or more
%  vorticity (Omegarms).
%  I assume the goal is to use a model for the paper where Mrms is such that Omegarms
%  steps with a large step from very small values to large values? What defines such
%  a step in any case, factor 10?
%  I don't know if we have found the interesting model parameters yet.
%
%  I have also varied nushock, 2 and 0...to see if it makes any difference? There
%    appears to be some differences: somewhat lower Omegarms without it.
%    And that is for one setup (f=0.5).
%
%  I use nu=1.8 for N=512 since I began with showing grain size spectra, I suppose that
%    is fine!?
%
%  I have made runs using N=512 since the beginning, and now one run using N=128
%    to syudy properties of the power spectrum. Lars originally suggested that we
%    use N=1024 for the paper once we have a model worth publishing. Or, am I out
%    somewhere on thin ice?
%
%  So far, I've been using 10M-particles. One run uses 20M-particles. I switched
%    to use 20 particle sizes instead of 10, is that fine / what we want?
%    Actually, are the chosen particle sizes OK? Perhaps, we should use
%    smaller particles? ...this would be seen in the d2-plot, which we don't
%    have yet.
%    The higher number is only necessary to show / understand the power spectra?
%    And to show the power spectra I added the option to store various particle
%    sizes. 
%
%  We present results of one model, which we compare with another model...or?
%    Lars has pointed me at a model to ``compare'' with (irrotational forcing):
%    polytropic\_keps\_hres\_512\_f1\_sv2\_nu0005\_Re\_gamma1
%    I suppose that would be like comparing the compression forcing case with the
%      solenoidal forcing case in MFV19?
%    Shouldn't this also be modeled using 1024 gridpoints?
%    Should the forcing of that model be adjusted as well? Or, as Lars commented,
%      Mrms should be about 1...for this model? Is that what we want / need? I
%      don't think the Gaussian pot models have that.
%
%Projected number density for a couple of grain sizes (as in MFV19, Fig.1).
%  This must be the column number density. Or, one could show a slab / slice of
%  number density as in Fig.2 (ibid.).
%  In any case, it seems to be of small value to show such panels for all sizes,
%  perhaps for one small, one intermediate, and one large size bin. It would,
%  naturally, be valuable to also show such a panel for a model calculated using
%  a different forcing approach...to see what the implications of the chosen
%  strategy are.
%
%Correlation dimension d2 (particle size).
%  To be shown for the selected model, as well as the comparison model.
%  We don't have a working tool to see this yet; something was not yet
%  correct in the routines. Lars said he'd look into the reason (24/3).
%
%  I have looked into the reason for the routine not working myself: by
%  looking into ``dim_fit()''-function and variables of the tool. I cannot
%  see what the issue is...the adjustments I've made so far (number of bins,
%  bin size parameters) do not appear to improve the outcome.
%  Note! The current routine only works with a couple of the models, and
%    this Python tool won't work with the latest models.
%
%  Hint: I could, perhaps, try to do the calculations using Lars's directory
%    on Beskow. Or using Python 2.7n instead of 3.6.
%
%  The d2-plot should show a minimum in the particle-size range. And
%  the position of the minium could be related to what is achieved using
%  the comparison model. Initial models using 10 grain sizes appear to
%  indicate a shifted minimum.
%
%
%Power spectrum for particle density (k/k1).
%  We'd show spectra for all particle sizes, or at least for a couple of
%  them. The concern has been raised that the spectra don't behave as
%  k² for small k/k1, which would indicate that something is wrong.
%  I've plotted the particle distribution for the 128^3 model using
%  Nils Haugen's tool (using Axel's power3d) and it looks *very similar*,
%  however not identical on the side of high-k to what ppower_all.pro
%  produces. So, are we fine with this? Nils says that the deviation
%  from k² at small k/k1 could be due to the coarse particle distribution.
%  There was a wish to run models using more particles, but I don't see
%    how this can be done using more than 38M-particles.
%  The k²-dependence signifies...randomness.
%  And this plot would support the information gained from the d2-plot
%    (hopefully).
%
%  Comparison with power spectrum plot of Mee and Brandenburg 2006.
%
%  Additional models have been run using, 64³, 128³, and 256³ gp.
%  These models show that the randomness decreases as the resolution
%  decreases (smaller k-range with k² dependence).
%
%
% Technical aspects:
%   Python has worked with module ``pencil_old'' until model
%     isothermal_expwave_512_f0.1_dtf1.0_adjgr was calculated,
%     starting with that, it is necessary to use module ``pencil'',
%     which doesn't work fully with particles. According to
%     F.Gent, it is necessary to rewrite ``pc.read.pvar.py'' after
%     ``pc.read.var.py''...which would remove the dependency on IDL.
%   So, either I do that, or I only plot using IDL.
%   Or...use Python 2.7 instead of 3.6...I think this didn't
%     work at first. Could try anew.
%
%
% Runs are not in steady state...run longer
%
% 128³ ==> ...using f=0.5, 3 sizes, nushock=0
% 128³, nu=2*10^-3, 20M-particles
%  64³, nu=4*10^-3, 20M-particles (problem with too many particles? ...query with LM)
% 256³, nu=1*10^-3, 20M-particles
%
% Haugen, Brandenburg, Mee 2004
% f=2.0, shocknu=0, 512³ - no particles: to find the viscosity
%  doesn't work --> increase nu...0.05, 0.1, ...
%  speed increase <2.0 at higher spatial resolution
%
%
% Paper outline vision:
%
% Method
% Modeling
%  initial condition ... evolution to where initial state is forgotten
%
% Forcing using Gaussian pot: SN simulator
% Importance / influences / consequences of clustering - in the ISM
%
%  d2(a) for the different setups: location of minimum; useful with several particle sizes
%  E_k(k), n_p(a,k): k-location for deviation from k².
%    k^-2-slope in E(k) indicative of shock turbulence (Kadomtsev & Petviashvili 1973),
%      also in irrotational component of transonic tubulence (Porter et al. 1998).
%      (which might, perhaps, be of interest)
%    Improving simulations/sensitivity(?) with no shock viscosity.
%    Testing lower resolution to have as many particles as possible per cell.
%  Density visualizations of particles: on box sides
%  Vorticity generation:
%    Simulations with little forcing to see where vortivity generation becomes important.
%  Comparison with irrotational forcing.
%
%
%
%r e f
%\begin{thebibliography}{}

%\end{thebibliography}

\vfill\bigskip\noindent\tiny\begin{verbatim}
$Header: /var/cvs/brandenb/tex/christer/isothermal_expwave/notes.tex,v 1.33 2020/06/02 08:17:47 christer Exp $
\end{verbatim}

\end{document}
