cloudy_simulations · Cloudy - plasma simulations

Re: synthetic spectra

--- In cloudy_simulations@yahoogroups.com, "g6.6742m11"
:
>
> I've looked
> at the various 'punch X continuum' commands (X={transmitted,
> reflected, emitted, diffuse, outward}) and none give a reasonable
> continuum (or one that agrees with the plain 'punch continuum'
> output). The closest match I could find was the 'attenuated'
column
> (col. 2) of the 'punch outward continuum' output, but even that
> doesn't match (different slope and a continuum break ~1580A).

Sorry - this is embarrassing, but my code was converting from
Rydbergs to Angstroms incorrectly. So ignore the 1580A break thing.

I'm still not sure which continuum to use, however. And I'm not sure
what the intensity given by 'punch outward continuum' is - most
other intensities given are nu*Fnu, but the manual doesn't specify
this one. (I'm specifying the incident intensity for the cloud, not
the flux.)

Re: synthetic spectra

--- In cloudy_simulations@yahoogroups.com, "g6.6742m11"
wrote:
> Do you mean 'set continuum resolution'? (I can't find any 'set
> resolution' command described.) Hazy says the 'punch continuum'
> output isn't appropriate for high resolution, given that it only
> reports wavelengths to 4 significant figures, which is what I've
> found. Setting the resolution or altering continuum_mesh.ini
doesn't
> change that.
>
> Hazy3 11.14 says to get a synthetic spectrum I should save the
> lines, which I've done, but doesn't tell me what continuum to add
to
> that.

To be more clear, my questions are:

1. What continuua are used in 'punch continuum'? No 'punch X
continuum' command I've tried gives me continuua like the
ones 'punch continuum' does (where X is transmitted, reflected,
outward, diffuse, or emitted).

2. A related but distinct question: what continuum should I use for
calculating equivalent widths? Clearly this depends on viewing
angle, but for viewing the source through the cloud is
the 'attenuated' continuum of the 'punch outward continuum' command
appropriate? Is its intensity properly scaled to do this?

3. How can I plot a spectrum that has correct contrast between
emission lines and the continuum?

The basic issue is that I want to plot a spectrum like what one
would observe, with at least moderate (R~5000) resolution. If I'm
going about that entirely the wrong way, that would be good to
know :)

Re: Problem with specified total luminosity

hi Tim,

several things - you are a major mod behind on the cloudy version - we
are at C08. we try to have the major version agree with the year so
that it is easy to tell if you have this year's version. (this is not
the cause of your problem however)

the normalization of the luminosity is checked every time the code is
run. the test suite has examples which do this and there are internal
checks designed into the logic.

have you checked all the units carefully? this is very tricky. the
punch output continua have units of nuF_nu or nuI_nu where cloudy's
versions of F and I are defined in early chapters of hazy. these are
not the same units as the interpolate command.

try this - use something simple like excel to make a Planck function.
read off a number of points and put them into the interpolate
command. then plot up the punch continuum output. check the slopes
of the rayleigh-jeans tail. there may be a F_nu vs nuF_nu mix. that
can be a subtle and hard to catch since nu is measured in Rydbergs,
since nu ~ 1 for energies of interest.

if you check and things still do not add up, please post the input
file and a description of the incorrect integration on this site.

good luck,

RE: [cloudy_simulations] Re: CO lines in a molecular region

Hi Everett,

 

I’m glad to hear you’ve had some success.  Thanks for uploading your data.  We’ll look into it after we complete the upgrade to the LAMDA data. 

 

Another thing that comes to mind the chemical fractionation.  In Cloudy the 12CO/13CO ratio is currently hardwired to 30 in of zero.cpp.  This could be significantly off.  See, for example, Federman et al. 2003 (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/591/2/986).  The command “set 12C1” allows you to specify a different value.  It is conceivable that a different fractionation would allow you to match your original three lines better. 

Re: [cloudy_simulations] Re: grid

hi! 

I have a problem with N4 line 1486A.

This is a doublet 1485+1486 actually.

If I check the lines intensities and ratios in the main output .out

they are both there.

I try to compare it with another output - punch outward continuum.

So to get the line intensity there I just take the number given there 

and multiply it by 1e3/3e5 because I do my calculations with the default line width.

The number I find for N4 at 1486 in column 4 of this output should as I understand

give me the same in the end as the one found in .out.

But it doesn't, it apparently includes only one of N4 lines, although the doublet is not resolved there.

I check it in the same way for C4 1549 (1548+51) and it works, it gives

me the line which is the sum of the intensities 1548+51 from .out.

I tried to change the resolution (energy mesh in continuum_mesh.ini file),

then C4 lines are resolved and summing them I still get correct number,

but for N4 although they should be resolved I still get one line.

So no matter the resolution it looks like I get always the same number for N4

which is the intensity of one of the lines only.

The point is that I need to calculate the magnitudes from CLOUDY spectrum,

and for the continuum I do the integration but for the lines I just wanted to sum all of

them falling in the filter range, but apparently at least in this one case it would be underestimated...

and using any other output looks like impossible.

any ideas what to do ?