The code was run with different initial polar fields.

1. Initial field of 10 Gauss

OUTPUT:

Peak initial field for the 3rd cycle is -7.55G in the northern hem which occurs at 57.1233 degree lat.@25.3yrs.

The lowest that occurs on the same latitude is -0.86G.@14.2yrs.

Difference=6.7G

So, the cycles go like:

Year Polar field (Gauss)

14.2 -0.86

25.3 -7.55

36.4 -0.86

47.5 -7.55

2. Initial field of 9 Gauss

OUTPUT:

Peak initial field for 3rd cycle is -6.7827G in the northern hem which occurs at 57.1233 degree lat.@25.2133yrs.

The lowest that occurs on the same latitude is -0.10699G.@14.1321yrs. and -0.15G.@35.8679yrs.

Difference=6.68G

So, the cycle goes like:

OUTPUT:

1. Initial field of 10 Gauss

OUTPUT:

Peak initial field for the 3rd cycle is -7.55G in the northern hem which occurs at 57.1233 degree lat.@25.3yrs.

The lowest that occurs on the same latitude is -0.86G.@14.2yrs.

Difference=6.7G

So, the cycles go like:

Year Polar field (Gauss)

14.2 -0.86

25.3 -7.55

36.4 -0.86

47.5 -7.55

2. Initial field of 9 Gauss

OUTPUT:

Peak initial field for 3rd cycle is -6.7827G in the northern hem which occurs at 57.1233 degree lat.@25.2133yrs.

The lowest that occurs on the same latitude is -0.10699G.@14.1321yrs. and -0.15G.@35.8679yrs.

Difference=6.68G

So, the cycle goes like:

Year Polar field (Gauss)

14.1 -0.11

25.2 -6.78

35.9 -0.15

47.5 -6.82

3. Initial field of 8 Gauss

OUTPUT:

Peak initial field for 3rd cycle is -6.06 G in the northern hem which occurs at 57.1233 degree lat.@24.9yrs.

The lowest that occurs on the same latitude is +0.61 G.@14.1yrs. and -0.61G.@35.9yrs.

Difference=6.67G

So, the cycle goes like:

Year Polar field (Gauss)

14.1 +0.61

24.9 -6.06

35.9 +0.61

46.7 -6.06

4. Initial field of 7 Gauss:

OUTPUT:

Year Polar field (Gauss)

14.1 +1.41

25.3 -5.26

35.9 +1.38

47.3 -5.28

58.0 +1.36

68.8 -5.31

Difference=6.67G

5. Initial field of 6 Gauss:

OUTPUT:

Year Polar field (Gauss)

14.1 +2.16

25.3 -4.5

35.9 +2.16

47.3 -4.5

Difference=6.66G

For realistic result, the difference should be around 20 Gauss.

The input parameters that can be varied to achieve this are:

(1) No. of sunspots per cycle (These were modeled vaguely and hence remain doubtful).

(2) Separation between sunspots within a BMR(taken to be a constant=2R)

(3) The longitudes of eruption are totally random. The degree of randomness can be optimized.

For realistic result, the difference should be around 20 Gauss.

The input parameters that can be varied to achieve this are:

(1) No. of sunspots per cycle (These were modeled vaguely and hence remain doubtful).

(2) Separation between sunspots within a BMR(taken to be a constant=2R)

(3) The longitudes of eruption are totally random. The degree of randomness can be optimized.

Sushant, hellos from boston logan airport. on the way to Toulouse, France. Quick reaction: So what you are seeing is this, when the polar field is strong, the bipoles you are emerging is not enough to cancel out the flux. So you need to emerge either: 1) more bipoles, 2) bipoles which have more flux each, 3) bipoles with higher mean tllt angle, 4) a combinaton of all or some of this.

ReplyDeleteYou should try this. Not because you will may discover something very fundamental, but because this (apparently boring) exercise will help you understand the physical system bettwer -- which (may) lead to something more fundamenetal.

D.N.

Sir,

ReplyDeleteI will do the parametric analysis by varying all the input parameters. What makes it more boring is the time it consumes. Every simulation needs one whole day to run. So, the whole analysis will take a lot of time.

In the input, I have modeled the tilt angle, latitude and all other parameters according to the data analysis studies of other people. But not the sunspot number, separation and longitudes.

While longitudes will not have any apparent effect on the large scale flux transport, the other two will.

In the input, I have considered a sine wave of peak 400 to be the input sunspot no. Now, the total no. of sunspots will depend on no. of step sizes we have in one cycle.

I think, we should calculate the total no. of sunspots in one cycle, and match it with observed sunspots and set the peak accordingly.

Also, it will be interesting to note the different 'impact factor' of each parameter on the flux transport. And find out the most likely candidates that can vary on the surface of the Sun.

ReplyDeleteSincerely,

Sushant.

Yes, this kind of testing is called parameters space exploration. you should input a realistic colar cycle statistics matching with observations. Do you need the stats, or do you already have that from the Jiang et al paper?

ReplyDeleteDN

I just need the stats of the sunspot numbers. The graphs of sunspot numbers are shown in many papers, but there is no equation of the curve. Also, the sunspot numbers are weekly, or monthly. I input them in 120 steps per cycle each cycle having 132 months. So, I'll have to caliberate them accordingly, and set the total no. of sunspots in a cycle equal to what is observed.

ReplyDeleteSincerely,

Sushant.