_________________________________________________________________
First of all, I need to apologize for the poor formatting of this page. I'm not quite an elite webmaster yet.
Here are 2 pieces of the triple_zyx code. This contains the calls to the xopause subroutine and this to the wavepacket subroutine. The xopause file also contains 2 other subroutines that are used in calculating the temperature profile.
Basically, xopause creates tbar(k,1), tbar(k,2) which is the background T profile and its derivative dT/dz, and then the wavepacket routine creates a wave to play around in that background.
What I've done is set the wave specified in wavepacket to zero so that I can look at just the background created by xopause. I have the following questions/observations:
1. There is a mysterious minus sign in the code. Or, if you look in the wavepacket subroutine, "minus sign because this code is goofy". I don't think it's right. I ran the other day without any inital wind whatsoever and I got convection. Here, #1, is a page detailing that.
I'm pretty sure the way IPROB 12 was set up and detailed there should just be 2 stable regions and no instability and hence no convection. This makes me think the sign is wrong.
2. The temperature profile detailed in the explaination in the xopause subroutine is not the one that is used. I played with the code and used the profile described in the explaination and the results are here,#2. This is interesting because when you compare it to the data in #1 you see that the region above and below the center is less stable than in run #1 above.
Why is that interesting? Because physically, it means they are different cases. But if I recall correctly, the reason you have the temperature profile created the way you do is so that T = 0.0 at the boundaries. If it's true that T MUST be set to zero at the vertical boundaries, then that limits the number of problems you can do.
3. What else is interesting? If the EDGELENGTH parameter, the one that determines the smoothness of the kink in the xopause routine, is set large enough then the regin of convection shrinks and, in some cases, disappears.#3.
4. When I change the sign, convection doesn't occur. This is independant of the value of EDGELENGTH. Here's a sample run of that #4
So yeah, I guess my plan is just to 1. change the sign and 2. put the vertical boundaries far enough away that the fact that T = 0 at the boundaries can be ignored.