1: \documentstyle[aaspp4,11pt]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,11pt]{article}
3: \baselineskip 12pt
4:
5: %\documentstyle[aasms4,11pt]{article}
6:
7:
8: %
9: % This is useful for making pages (of tables) that are part
10: % of something else,
11: %
12: %\pagestyle{empty}
13: \tighten
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \title{The Effect of Expansion on Mass Entrainment and \\ Stability of
18: Super-Alfv\'enic Jets}
19:
20: \author{Alexander Rosen and Philip E.\ Hardee}
21:
22: \affil{Department of Physics \& Astronomy \\ University of Alabama \\ Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 \\ rosen@eclipse.astr.ua.edu, hardee@athena.astr.ua.edu}
23:
24:
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27:
28: We extend investigations of mass entrainment by jets, which previously
29: have focused on cylindrical supermagnetosonic jets and expanding
30: trans-Alfv\'enic jets, to a set of expanding supermagnetosonic jets.
31: We precess these jets at the origin to excite the helical mode of the
32: Kelvin-Helmholtz (or KH) instability, in order to compare the results
33: with predictions from linear stability analysis. We analyze this
34: simulation set for the spatial development of magnetized mass, which we
35: interpret as jet plus entrained, initially unmagnetized external
36: mass. As with the previous simulation sets, we find that the growth
37: of magnetized mass is associated with the growth of the KH instability
38: through linear, nonlinear, and saturated stages and with the expansion
39: of magnetized material in simulated observations of the jet. From
40: comparison of measured wavelengths and wave speeds with the predictions
41: from linear stability analysis, we see evidence that the KH instability
42: is the primary cause for mass entrainment in these simulations, and
43: that the expansion reduces the rate of mass entrainment. This reduced
44: rate can be observed as a somewhat greater distance between the two
45: transition points separating the three stages of expansion.
46:
47: \end{abstract}
48:
49: \keywords{galaxies:jets --- instabilities --- MHD}
50:
51: \lefthead{ROSEN \& HARDEE}
52: \righthead{Expanding Supermagnetosonic Jets}
53:
54: \section{INTRODUCTION}
55:
56: Mass entrainment of an external medium into a jet flow affects the
57: spatial development of the jet and may be a crucial factor in the
58: division between FR I and FR II (Fanaroff \& Riley 1974) radio
59: sources. For example, deceleration, presumably via mass entrainment,
60: of a turbulent, supersonic jet is one of the basic assumptions in the
61: model of Bicknell (1994, 1996) that reproduces the break between FR I
62: and FR II sources in the radio-optical plane. Additionally, there is
63: evidence for jet slowing in the low-power radio source B2 1144+35,
64: which is observed to decelerate from 0.95$c$ to 0.02$c$ between 20 pc
65: and 24 kpc from the core (Giovannini et al.\ 1999). Mass entrainment
66: may be important even in slower jet flows, such as the much slower
67: (0.1$c$) parsec-scale jets in Seyfert galaxies (Ulvestad et
68: al.\ 1999). Since our simulations do not include radiative cooling,
69: which is a crucial element in the energetics of protostellar jets, the
70: simulations we present here are not strictly applicable to those
71: systems, although perhaps they are appropriate for the jets in Galactic
72: superluminals.
73:
74: Rosen et al.\ (1999, hereafter RHCJ) confirmed that a reasonably strong
75: magnetic field can slow mass entrainment by a three-dimensional,
76: nonrelativistic, cylindrical supermagnetosonic jet. RHCJ showed that
77: the spatial growth of mass entrainment is a three-stage process that
78: corresponds to the growth of the Kelvin-Helmholtz (KH) instability,
79: from a linear stage through a nonlinear stage to a stage where the
80: growth has become saturated. RHCJ also found three stages of growth in
81: the width of simulated radio intensity maps of the jets, and that these
82: three stages in the width are associated with those of the growth of
83: the jet plus entrained mass. However, some detailed differences did
84: exist in the position of the transition between stages as a function of
85: jet density. These differences usually occurred for jets lighter than
86: the external medium, and took the form of continued mass entrainment
87: even though the width in a simulated intensity image of the
88: jet remained constant. A jet that entrains mass could have
89: an observable spine-sheath morphology, in which the spine is more
90: disrupted in a jet that is lighter than the external medium. In fact,
91: recent application of the ``spectral tomography" process (Katz-Stone et
92: al.\ 1999) has revealed the presence of a low intensity, steep spectrum
93: sheath surrounding a high intensity, flat spectrum core or jet spine in
94: a few wide-angle tail radio sources. In addition, RHCJ found that the
95: linear growth of jet plus entrained mass was related to a linear progression
96: as higher order, small amplitude KH modes with short growth lengths are overwhelmed by lower order, larger amplitude KH modes with larger
97: growth lengths.
98:
99: In this paper, we extend our mass entrainment analysis to conical
100: supermagnetosonic jets that have inlet conditions similar to some of
101: the jets in RHCJ. Based on the KH linear stability analysis for
102: supermagnetosonic jets in Hardee, Clarke, \& Rosen (1997, hereafter
103: HCR), the growth length at maximum growth (i.e., the inverse of the
104: spatial growth rate at maximum growth) is proportional to the radius of
105: the jet. Additionally, the maximum growth rates are reduced along an
106: adiabatically cooling jet, in which the Mach number increases with the
107: jet expansion (Hardee 1986). Thus, in general on supermagnetosonic jets the
108: instability should grow more slowly as the radius expands than on a
109: cylindrical jet. We investigate whether expanding supermagnetosonic
110: jets are more stable than similar cylindrical jets and also whether
111: expanding jets show the similar association between the spatial
112: development of mass entrainment, the spatial development of the KH
113: instability and the spatial development of the apparent width of
114: magnetized material in simulated radio intensity images that has been
115: seen previously in cylindrical jet simulations (RHCJ).
116:
117: Examination of the potentially smaller effects of the KH instability on
118: conical jets is an important extension of previous work, as there are
119: observational examples of conical jets, some of which expand by orders
120: of magnitude and remain undisrupted for more than 100 kpc. For
121: example, the jet in M87 expands at a nearly constant rate in a recent
122: high resolution (0$\farcs 1\approx$ 8.2 pc) radio image of the source
123: out to knot A (Biretta, Zhou, \& Owen 1995). Another example of jet
124: expansion is provided by NGC 6251, which has a jet that passes through
125: a series of expansions, each of which has an average half-opening angle
126: of $\approx$4\arcdeg\ for at least 10 kiloparsecs in length (Perley et
127: al.\ 1984). The jets in both of these radio sources appear more
128: laminar than turbulent in the regions where the jets are conical.
129:
130: Since we aim to investigate the spatial growth of the KH instability
131: and mass entrainment, the simulations we discuss here span a
132: significant axial length and are considered completed only after much
133: of the computed region reaches a quasi-steady state. This approach
134: contrasts with that of numerical simulations with periodic boundary
135: conditions along the jet axis, e.g., Bassett \& Woodward (1995), Bodo
136: et al.\ (1995), and Bodo et al.\ (1998), which focus on temporal
137: growth. This paper is organized as follows: in \S 2, we explain the
138: initialization of the 3D MHD simulations, and in \S 3, we discuss, in
139: order, the growth of mass entrainment, the observational
140: characteristics associated with mass entrainment in simulated (radio
141: wavelength) intensity and polarization images, and the testing of the
142: presence and measurable consequences of the KH instability.
143:
144: \section{INITIALIZATION OF NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS}
145:
146: These simulations were performed with the three-dimensional
147: magnetohydrodynamics code ZEUS-3D, an Eulerian finite-difference code
148: with the Consistent Method of Characteristics (CMoC) that solves the
149: transverse momentum transport and magnetic induction equations
150: simultaneously and in a planar split fashion (Clarke 1996).
151: Interpolations are carried out by a second-order accurate monotonic
152: upwinded time-centered scheme (van Leer 1977) and a von
153: Neumann-Richtmyer artificial viscosity is used to stabilize shocks.
154: The code has been thoroughly tested via MHD test suites as described by
155: Stone et al.\ (1992) and Clarke (1996) to establish the reliability of
156: the techniques.
157:
158: The useful computational domain for the three expanding jet simulations
159: discussed here is a 3D Cartesian grid of 325 $\times$ 130 $\times$ 130
160: zones, which required roughly 105 Mwords of memory on the Cray C90 at
161: the Pittsburgh Supercomputer Center (or PSC). The central thirty zones
162: span the initial jet diameter, 2$R_0$, along the transverse Cartesian
163: axes (the $x$-axis and $y$-axis). Outside the uniform grid zones, the
164: grid zones are ratioed where each subsequent zone increases in size by
165: a factor of 1.050. The 130 transverse zones span a total distance of
166: 30$R_0$. Along the jet or $z$-axis, 225 uniform zones span the
167: interval 0 $< z/R_0 <$ 30 and an additional 100 ratioed zones span an
168: additional 30$R_0$ with each subsequent zone increasing in size by a
169: factor of 1.015. Outflow boundary conditions are used except where the
170: jet enters the grid, where inflow boundary conditions are used.
171:
172: The three simulations are initialized at the inlet with parameter
173: values similar to simulations in HCR and RHCJ. Specifically,
174: simulation A here is equivalent to run C in RHCJ, simulation B is
175: equivalent to run A, and simulation C is equivalent to run E.
176: Simulations A and B contain jets that are denser than the external
177: medium and simulation C is of a light jet. Details of jet properties
178: are listed in Table \ref{para}. While some simulations in RHCJ had a
179: primarily toroidal magnetic field, all of the simulations here have a
180: primarily axial magnetic field. Limiting this study to axial field
181: jets was done to maximize the instability of the jet, since we
182: anticipate expanding jets to be more stable and we know that a toroidal
183: magnetic field can have an additional stabilizing effect (compared with
184: a primarily axial magnetic field of the same strength, e.g., Appl \&
185: Camenzind 1992; RHCJ). A smaller jet velocity, $u$, is used in order
186: to reduce all of the Mach numbers (i.e., sonic, Alfv\'enic, and
187: magnetosonic) because we wish the instability to grow significantly
188: while the jet is within the computational domain and the growth length
189: of the instability is roughly proportional to the product of jet radius
190: and magnetosonic Mach number, with $M_{ms} \equiv u/a_{ms}$. The
191: magnetosonic speed is defined as $a_{ms}^2 \equiv a_{jt}^2 + V_A^2$,
192: where the internal jet sound speed and the Alfv\'en speed are defined
193: by $a_{jt}^2 \equiv \Gamma p/\rho$ and $V_A^2 \equiv B^2/4\pi\rho$,
194: respectively, and we assume the adiabatic gas law, $P \propto \rho^\Gamma$
195: with $\Gamma$ = 5/3. We have analyzed the simulations at a somewhat later
196: time, at $\tau$ = 45 dynamical times for simulations A and B compared
197: with $\tau$ = 36 in RHCJ and $\tau$ = 16 for simulation C compared with
198: $\tau$ = 14 in RHCJ, where $\tau \equiv t a_{ex}/R_0$ and $a_{ex}$ is
199: the external sound speed. The jets in all of the expanding jet
200: simulations pass through at least 3 flow-through times at $z$ =
201: 50$R_0$. Each simulation required about 40 CPU-hours on the Cray C90
202: at PSC.
203:
204: The jet is initialized across the computational domain with a uniform
205: density, $\rho_{jt}$, and initial radius, $R_0$. The magnetic field
206: within the jet is initialized with a uniform axial component, $B_z$,
207: for $r < R_0$, where $r$ is the radial position, and a toroidal
208: magnetic component, $B_\phi$, with a radial profile that has the form
209: $B_\phi(r) = B_\phi^{pk} \sin^2[\pi f(r)]$, where $B_\phi^{pk}$ is the
210: maximum value for $B_\phi$ and for $r<r_{pk}$, $f(r)=0.5(r/r_{pk})^a$,
211: and for $r_{pk}<r<r_{\max }$, $ f(r)=1.0-0.5\left[ \left( 1-r/r_{\max
212: }\right) /(1-r_{pk}/r_{\max })\right] ^b$. In these simulations $a$ =
213: 1.106 and $b$ = 0.885, which leads to a FWHM of the $B_\phi$ radial profile
214: equal to 0.5R$_0$. This radial profile for $B_\phi$, which
215: sets $B_\phi$ to zero at $r/R_0$ = 0.0 and for $r/R_0 \ge$ 0.9, is not
216: physically motivated, but is mathematically well-behaved. The magnetic
217: field is set to zero in the external medium. The jet thermal pressure
218: is initially modified to satisfy an equation of hydromagnetic
219: equilibrium,
220:
221: \begin{equation} {d \over {dr}}\left (p_{jt}(r) + {B_z^2(r) \over {8
222: \pi}} + {B_\phi^2(r) \over {8 \pi}}\right) = - {B_\phi^2(r) \over {4
223: \pi}}, \end{equation}
224:
225: \noindent where the term on the right hand side describes the effects
226: of magnetic tension. Note that this equilibrium condition is one of
227: static balance, but does not necessarily lead to hydromagnetic dynamic
228: equilibrium, which is determined by the condition $\nabla \times ({\bf
229: u}\times {\bf B})=0$. Owing to the small toroidal field in each of
230: these simulations, this dynamic equilibrium is nearly satisfied and we
231: have verified that no significant azimuthal velocity occurs within the
232: jet near the inlet. The inlet values for $B_z$ and $B_\phi^{pk}$ are
233: given in footnotes to Table \ref{para} in the units used by ZEUS-3D,
234: which sets the permeability of free space to 1. While the thermal
235: pressure has been modified to satisfy the radial static equilibrium,
236: the departure from a ``top hat" pressure distribution is small. The
237: typical plasma $\beta_0 \equiv$ 8$\pi p_{jt}/B_{z}^2$ is 200 in
238: simulation A and 1.1 in simulations B and C.
239:
240: In the simulations the external medium is isothermal and the external
241: density, $\rho _{ex}(z)$, declines to produce a pressure gradient that
242: is designed to lead to a constant expansion,
243: $R_{jt}(z)=(1+z/120R_0)R_0$, of a constant velocity adiabatic jet
244: containing a uniform axial magnetic field and an internal toroidal
245: magnetic field that provides some confinement, i.e.,
246:
247: \begin{equation} \rho_{ex}(z) = {\left (\varrho^{-10/3} +
248: C_1\varrho^{-4} - C_2 \varrho^{-2}\right ) \over C_3} \end{equation}
249:
250: \noindent where $\varrho = R(z)/R_0$, $R(z)$ is the jet radius at axial
251: position $z$, the constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ are based on the ratios at
252: the inlet of jet thermal pressure to magnetic pressure from the axial
253: component (in $C_1$) or from the toroidal component (in $C_2$), and
254: $C_3$ is a normalization constant equal to 1 + $C_1$ - $C_2$. We have
255: confirmed that the initial expansion occurs quickly, within 5--7
256: dynamical times for the dense jet simulations and 1--2.5 dynamical
257: times for the light jet simulation.
258:
259: A difference between these simulations and their cylindrical
260: equivalents in RHCJ is a slightly reduced angular precessional
261: frequency, $\omega$ (see Table \ref{prec}). We decrease $\omega$ to
262: obtain the same normalized precession frequency, $\omega R(z)/a_{ex}$,
263: at some small (but nontrivial) distance from the inlet in each
264: expanding jet as in the appropriate cylindrical equivalent. The
265: spatial KH stability analysis of expanding jets suggests that at peak
266: growth the normalized precession frequency is constant (Hardee 1986);
267: our choice for the precession frequency, $\omega$, is below that for
268: peak growth, but $\omega R(z)/a_{ex}$ will increase with jet
269: expansion. This avoids the unresponsiveness of a jet to too high a
270: precessional frequency. The precession is in the counterclockwise
271: sense at the inlet and should yield a clockwise spatial helical twist
272: when viewed downstream from the origin/inlet. The simulations are
273: analyzed at 6.5, 7.9, and 3.6 precessional periods for simulations A,
274: B, and C, respectively. Another difference between the simulation sets
275: is that the radial variation of the toroidal magnetic field component,
276: $B_\phi$, peaks at 0.5$R_0$ in the expanding jet simulations, while in
277: all three cylindrically equivalent simulations in RHCJ this maximum in
278: $B_\phi$ occurred at $r$ = 0.8$R_0$. However, since the toroidal field
279: is not dynamically important in these simulations, this difference is
280: inconsequential.
281:
282: \section{RESULTS}
283:
284: \subsection{Linear Mass Density as a Mass Entrainment Estimator}
285:
286: Since the code does not include a tracer of jet material, we use
287: magnetic field and axial velocity criteria to estimate the mass
288: associated with the jet plus any external medium that has been
289: accelerated or mixed with the jet sufficiently to be called
290: ``entrained" (RHCJ). Such a velocity criterion has been used previously
291: as an estimate for mass entrainment (Bassett \& Woodward 1995, Loken
292: 1996). Since RHCJ found that the choice of the magnetic field or axial
293: velocity criteria result in similar values for the estimated jet plus
294: entrained mass, we have chosen to use the magnetic field criterion
295: alone in this paper. As in RHCJ, we define the linear mass density,
296: $\sigma$, at any point along the jet as
297:
298: \begin{equation} \sigma(z) = \int_{\rm A} f\rho~dx\,dy,
299: \end{equation}
300:
301: \noindent where A is the cross-sectional area of the computational
302: domain at $z$, and $f$ is a switch set to 1 if the local magnetic field
303: is above a threshold value and $f$ = 0 otherwise. We set the threshold
304: to $0.04 B_{max}$, where $B_{max}^2 \equiv B_{\phi}^{pk}(z)^2 +
305: B_{z}(z)^2$. In a steady expanding flow, $B_\phi$ varies as
306: $R(z)^{-1}$ and $B_z$ varies as $R(z)^{-2}$.
307: While the choice of the 4\% level is somewhat arbitrary,
308: we believe that a threshold at this value is a useful demarkation
309: between ``mixed" (i.e., jet plus entrained material) and ``unmixed"
310: media. The unmixed external medium may contain some small magnetic
311: field from numerical diffusion and should not be considered as
312: entrained. In our previous simulations, this 4\% $B_{max}$ level
313: corresponded to external material accelerated up to $\sim$ 15\% of the
314: jet speed in the dense jets and $\sim$ 4\% of the jet speed in the
315: light jet. In a smooth flow of constant jet speed without entrainment,
316: the linear mass density remains constant for both cylindrical and
317: expanding jets. In what follows, $\sigma(z)$ is the linear mass
318: density for the axial position $z$ normalized to the initial jet linear
319: mass density.
320:
321: We display the spatial development of $\sigma(z)$ for the expanding jet
322: simulations and for the equivalent cylindrical jet simulations in
323: Figure \ref{sig}. In addition, the bottom panel of Figure \ref{sig}
324: shows the average axial velocity of the magnetized (with $B >
325: 0.04B_{max}$) material, weighted by the linear mass density
326: (i.e.\ $\langle v_z\rangle = \int f\rho v_z~dx\,dy/\int f\rho~dx\,dy$),
327: along $z$. From a comparison of the linear mass density in equivalent
328: cylindrical and conical jet simulations, the jet plus entrained mass at
329: the $z =60R_0$ boundary is reduced by roughly one-half in the dense
330: jets and by at least two-thirds in the light jet (see Table
331: \ref{tran}). Calculations of the mean density of entrained material
332: (see Figure \ref{aved}), which is defined as the mixed linear mass
333: density less the initial jet linear mass density and corrected for
334: different cross-sectional areas, shows that this mean density is
335: similar to the initial external medium density. Thus, the primary
336: reason for the reduction in entrained mass is the reduced external
337: density in the expanding jet simulations, which is required by total
338: pressure balance between the expanding jet and the isothermal external
339: medium. For the parameters that we have simulated, the reduction of
340: $\sigma$ in the expanding jets appears similar to (for the dense jets)
341: or greater than (for the light jet) the reduction caused by changing
342: the magnetic field configuration from primarily axial to primarily
343: toroidal in the cylindrical jet simulations of RHCJ.
344:
345: In RHCJ, the linear mass density plots showed regions with different
346: rates of increase of $\sigma(z)$ with $z$, which we interpreted as
347: different mass entrainment rates. Specifically, successive regions of
348: slow, fast, and no mass entrainment (i.e., mass mixed with the fast
349: moving jet as measured by our magnetic criterion) were found, and there
350: was evidence that the three stages of growth were associated with
351: linear, nonlinear and saturated growth of the KH instability. In both
352: dense jets (simulations A and B), the rate of increase of linear mass
353: density with axial position remains approximately constant for the
354: entire range plotted. However, for $z/R_0 \gtrsim 20$ the fluctuation
355: of $\sigma$ about this constant rate also increases with $z$, which is
356: consistent with the notion of increasingly large ``gulping" vortices,
357: such as those discussed by DeYoung (1996), at the jet surface. This in
358: turn is a signature of a developing KH instability. In addition, there
359: are noticeable changes in $\partial \sigma/\partial z$ near this
360: position ($z/R_0 \sim$ 20) when the linear mass density is computed
361: with a smaller threshold value (i.e., smaller than 4\%). If the onset
362: of the fluctuations in $\sigma$ in the dense expanding jet simulations
363: is associated with the first transition point, then the first
364: transition points of the dense jet simulations occur at roughly the
365: same axial positions as that of the first transition points in their
366: cylindrical equivalents (see Table \ref{tran}).
367:
368: Of the dense expanding and cylindrical jet simulations, only the
369: linear mass density in the cylindrical equivalent to the weak
370: field jet (simulation A) could be interpreted as leveling off
371: before the outer $z$ boundary. From our analysis of the growth of
372: magnetized mass in the simulations here and in RHCJ, we suspect
373: that the linear mass density in the dense expanding jets would
374: eventually saturate beyond the second transition (saturation)
375: position in the cylindrical jets. If this is true, then the distance
376: between the first and second transition points would be larger
377: in the dense expanding jets than in their cylindrical equivalents.
378:
379: In the expanding light jet (simulation C), there are three regions of
380: differing rates of increase of $\sigma(z)$ with $z$. Estimated rates
381: of increase are shown for the second (fast growth) stage in the light
382: jet simulations in Figure \ref{sig}. Transition points between each
383: region are listed in Table \ref{tran} for the expanding and cylindrical
384: jets simulations. The first transition point is significantly closer
385: to the inlet in the expanding jet simulation than in the cylindrical
386: jet simulation. Since the second transition point is at roughly the
387: same position in both the expanding and cylindrical jets, we see that
388: the distance between the first and second transition points is larger
389: in the expanding jet than in the cylindrical jet. As with the dense
390: jets, the light expanding jet has a smaller spatial rate of increase of
391: $\sigma(z)$ with $z$ in the fast growth region than the light cylindrical
392: jet.
393:
394: We postulate that the KH instability is associated with the mass
395: entrainment in these expanding jet simulations and compare the
396: transition positions in Table \ref{tran} with estimates of the growth
397: lengths of the KH instability determined from a linear analysis.
398: Estimated growth lengths of the helical surface wave ($n$ = 1, $m$ = 0)
399: for both the expanding and cylindrical simulations are listed in Table
400: \ref{grow}. All of these estimates are from the simple approximation
401: for the growth length at the maximum growth rate, $l^* = k_I^{*\,-1} = -
402: (2M^{ms}_{jt}R)/\ln(4\omega_{nm}R/a_{ex})$ (equation 5 in HCR), where
403: $\omega_{nm}R/a_{ex} = (n + 2m + 1/2)\pi/2$ (equation 4a in HCR). Note
404: that this method consistently underestimated the values found from more
405: sophisticated root-finding techniques for the cylindrical jet
406: simulations in RHCJ. Since the growth length depends strongly on the
407: jet radius, for the expanding jet numerical integration was used to
408: compute the number of effective e-folding lengths, $N_e$, such that
409: $N_e = \int^z_{z=0} k_I(z) dz$ (equation [17] in Hardee 1986). From
410: the smaller inlet magnetosonic Mach number, the expanding jets have a
411: slightly smaller initial e-folding length than their cylindrical
412: equivalents. The similar e-folding length for the expanding
413: and cylindrical jets is consistent with the similar (or smaller in the
414: light expanding jet) axial position of the first transition point. The
415: increasing radius of an expanding jet leads to a larger distance
416: for 5 e-foldings, which suggests that the expanding jet simulations
417: should remain more stable farther down the grid. This greater
418: stability is consistent with the larger distance spanned between first
419: and second transition points in the expanding jets than in their
420: cylindrical equivalents.
421:
422: The average axial velocity of the magnetized material decreases at the
423: same rate with $z$ in the dense expanding jet simulations (simulations
424: A and B). This is similar to the constant rate of increase in the
425: linear mass density, although the significant fluctuations in $\sigma$
426: are absent in $\langle v_z\rangle$. In the light expanding jet
427: (simulation C), there are at least three regions where the average
428: axial velocity behaves differently, and these regions are roughly
429: coincident with the regions of differing mass entrainment rates.
430: Specifically, there is an initial region out to $z/R_0 \lesssim$ 14
431: where there are very small fluctuations in the average axial velocity,
432: which changes its smooth rate of decline at $z/R_0 \approx$ 8. Beyond
433: this initial region with small fluctuations, there are significant
434: fluctuations superimposed on a roughly constant decrease in the average
435: axial velocity for 14 $\lesssim z/R_0 \lesssim$ 35, and there are small
436: fluctuations about an approximately constant $\langle v_z\rangle$
437: thereafter. The greater reduction in average velocity in the light jet
438: simulation compared with the dense jet simulations is a result of
439: mixing of the jet with the denser external medium. The region of
440: approximately constant $\langle v_z\rangle$ in the light expanding jet
441: suggests that any mixing has ceased and is consistent with the
442: saturation of the KH instability.
443:
444: We calculated (but do not show) the transverse area covered by
445: magnetized material with $B > 0.04 B_{max}$. In general, the area
446: occupied by magnetized material is approximately the same for the dense
447: expanding jets and for their cylindrical equivalents at any computed
448: $z$. The area occupied by magnetized material in the light expanding
449: jet simulation is slightly smaller than the area of its cylindrical
450: equivalent. Therefore, the relative increase in the area occupied by
451: magnetized material, i.e.\ (magnetized area)/(initial jet area), is
452: smaller in all expanding jet simulations than in their cylindrical
453: equivalents. This is consistent with a smaller spatial growth rate of
454: the KH instability. In addition, we computed (but do not show) the
455: linear momentum flux density, $\sigma v_z^2$, of the mixed and unmixed
456: regions. As in the trans-Alfv\'enic jets studied in Hardee \& Rosen
457: (1999), the mixed material carries the bulk of the momentum flux. The
458: maximum momentum flux density carried by the unmixed material in any
459: computed plane of transverse zones is about 10\% of the initial jet
460: momentum flux density for the dense jets (simulations A and B) and
461: about 5\% for the light jet (simulation C).
462:
463: \subsection{Comparison of Linear Mass Density and Simulated Radio Images}
464:
465: In Figure \ref{radio} we display maps of simulated total radio
466: intensity, which are line of sight integrations of $p_{th}(B \sin
467: \theta)^{3/2}$, where $\theta$ is the angle between the line of sight
468: and the magnetic field (Clarke 1989). Such an approximation is
469: necessary when relativistic particles are not tracked explicitly. The
470: total intensity is integrated along the $y$-direction and is plotted on
471: the $xz$-plane in the figure. In order to compare the morphology of
472: the images, we have used different scales in each panel of Figure
473: \ref{radio}. In each panel, the range covers 3 orders of magnitude and
474: the grayscale maximum is 20\% above the actual maximum intensity. The
475: total intensity is overlayed by B-field polarization vectors. We note
476: that B-vectors are aligned with filaments in the intensity image, as
477: was also the case in the simulations in RHCJ. Of the three jets, the
478: dense equipartition jet (simulation B) has the most obvious
479: spine-sheath morphology in the intensity images and also maintains the
480: spine farthest across the grid. The light jet simulation (simulation
481: C) has a more uniform intensity for $z/R_0 \gtrsim$ 40 than the dense
482: expanding jet simulations, which is evidence for more uniform mixing
483: and is consistent with a saturation of the KH instability.
484:
485: In the cylindrical jets studied in RHCJ, the slow, fast, and
486: saturation stages of mass entrainment and the KH instability are
487: associated with slow, fast, and zero expansion rates of the combined
488: spine and sheath in the simulated intensity image. The transition
489: points between the different expansion rates, as determined from Figure
490: \ref{radio}, are listed for both the expanding jets and their
491: cylindrical equivalents in Table \ref{siglam}. In the dense expanding
492: jet simulations presented here (simulations A and B), a low intensity
493: quickly expanding sheath appears at $z/R_0 \approx$ 20. This rapid
494: expansion ceases for $z/R_0 \gtrsim$ 50 in the simulation with the
495: stronger field (simulation B), another indication of somewhat greater
496: stability. The intensity image in simulation B appears to enter the
497: third (saturation) stage although no equivalent stage for the
498: magnetized mass ($\sigma$) appears on the grid (see Fig.\ \ref{sig}).
499: This suggests that this simulation continues to entrain mass for some
500: distance beyond where the apparent expansion stops. This
501: characteristic was seen in some of the cylindrical simulations of RHCJ,
502: although this usually occurred for light cylindrical jets. In
503: simulations A and B, the transition points of the total intensity
504: expansion listed in Table \ref{siglam} are similar to those listed for
505: the linear mass density in Table \ref{tran}. We note that the
506: fluctuations in the linear mass density may be associated with growing
507: vortices at the jet/external medium interface, and there is evidence
508: for such vortices in the wispy edges of the total intensity images in
509: simulations A and B.
510:
511: There are three stages of expansion in the total intensity image from
512: the light jet simulation C; particularly notable is the nearly constant
513: width for $z/R_0 \gtrsim$ 45. Again we see a correspondence between
514: the transition positions determined from the linear mass density and
515: from the total intensity width. As with the transition points
516: demarking different mass entrainment rates, the distance between the
517: two transition points determined from the intensity images for the
518: expanding jets is larger than the distance between the transition
519: points for the cylindrical jets. This result is consistent with the
520: initially shorter e-folding lengths but longer distances to 5
521: e-foldings on the expanding jet when compared to the cylindrical jet
522: (see Table \ref{grow}). Thus, jet expansion has served to partially
523: stabilize the lower magnetosonic Mach number expanding jet relative to
524: a cylindrical jet and the total intensity images show observational
525: consequences of this stabilization.
526:
527: \subsection{Jet Structure Related to Mass Entrainment and KH Instability}
528:
529: In this subsection, we compare wavelengths and wave speeds measured in
530: the simulations with those expected from a linear analysis of KH
531: induced modes. Subsequently, we examine the effect of the KH
532: instability on the fluting of the jet surface via axial velocity
533: cross-sections and on internal structure via axial cuts of each
534: velocity component.
535:
536: \subsubsection{Wavelengths and Wave Speed Estimates}
537:
538: From the oscillations observed in the intensity images
539: (Fig.\ \ref{radio}), we estimate the wavelength of the surface helical
540: mode, $\lambda_h$, to be: in simulation A, 15$R_0$; in B, 13$R_0$; and
541: in C, 18$R_0$. The error in this estimate is roughly 10\%. We
542: measured these wavelengths in a region centered on $z/R_0$ = 25 in
543: simulations A and B, and $z/R_0$ = 20 in simulation C; recall that the
544: wavelength at maximum growth should be proportional to the jet radius.
545: The expanding jets have a smaller precessional frequency, a lower jet
546: velocity and a different wave speed than their cylindrical
547: equivalents. These factors combine to give similar wavelengths in the
548: expanding jets and their cylindrical equivalents (see Table
549: \ref{siglam}).
550:
551: If the observed wavelength of a mode is much larger than the wavelength
552: associated with peak growth, $\lambda_h > 10\lambda^*$, then the wave
553: speed should be roughly $\eta u/(1+\eta)$. However, if $\lambda^* \le
554: \lambda_h \le 3\lambda^*$, the wave speed approximations for peak
555: growth are more appropriate, and the wave speed should be $\approx
556: \eta^{1/2}u/(1+\eta^{1/2})$ (e.g., Hardee 1987, and HCR). From the
557: approximation (4b) in HCR for the wavelength at maximum growth, we
558: estimate in simulations A and B at $z/R_0$ = 30 that $\lambda^* =
559: 10R_0$ and in simulation C at the same position $\lambda^* = 16R_0$.
560: Thus, the measured wavelengths indicate that the wave speed in these
561: simulations should be $\approx \eta^{1/2}u/(1+\eta^{1/2})$. Assuming
562: that the initial values for the external density and the jet densities
563: follow from the expected expansion, this approximation yields the wave
564: speeds given in Table \ref{wavesp}. These wave speeds are consistent
565: with wave speeds estimated from the product of the observed helical
566: mode wavelength and the driving frequency, $\nu \equiv \omega/2\pi$
567: (also in Table \ref{wavesp}).
568:
569: In order to calculate the wave speed directly, we measure the movement
570: over time of maxima in axial profiles of the simulated total intensity
571: images (Figure \ref{intpro}). The linear analysis approximation for
572: wave speed suggests that the wave speed should increase only moderately
573: with $z$ in the dense jet simulations. On the other hand, the wave
574: speed should increase more dramatically in the light jet simulation.
575: Specifically, in the weak magnetic field dense jet (simulation A), the
576: wave speed increases from $\sim 2.3a_{ex}$ at $z/R_0 \sim$ 15 to $\sim
577: 2.7a_{ex}$ in the 25 $\lesssim z/R_0 \lesssim$ 40 interval. In the
578: more strongly magnetized dense jet (simulation B), the wave speed
579: increases from $\sim 2.7a_{ex}$ at $z/R_0 \sim 10$ to $\sim 2.9a_{ex}$
580: for 30 $\lesssim z/R_0 \lesssim$ 50. Thus, the wave speed in the dense
581: jets increases by roughly 10--20\% over this range of axial positions.
582: In contrast, in the light jet simulation the wave speed increases from
583: $\sim 3.0a_{ex}$ at $z/R_0 \sim$ 15 to $\sim 7.6a_{ex}$ at $z/R_0 \sim$
584: 30. The large wave speed, which occurs where the KH instability has
585: reached nonlinear proportions, does not increase much beyond this axial
586: position. It is likely that this constant wave speed is related to
587: saturation of the KH instability (as inferred from the saturation in
588: the linear mass density and the constant apparent width of the
589: intensity image) for $z/R_0 \gtrsim$ 40.
590:
591: The measured wavelengths and wave speeds, except where the amplitude of
592: the KH instability has grown beyond the linear approximation, are
593: consistent with those estimated from the linear analysis of the KH
594: instability. Thus, we conclude that the KH instability is responsible
595: for the growth of mass entrainment in these simulations.
596:
597: \subsubsection{Cross-Sections of Axial Velocity}
598:
599: The growth of the KH instability and its effect on the jet is
600: dramatically demonstrated in the grayscale cross-sections of axial
601: velocity from simulations A, B, and C in Figure \ref{cross}. As
602: observed in magnetic pressure cross-sections in previous simulations
603: (RHCJ), there are many corrugations in the fast moving surface at
604: $z/R_0 \simeq$ 15 in all three simulations. That the many corrugations
605: are roughly evenly spaced circumferentially on the jet is evidence for
606: the surface waves of high order fluting modes. In all the simulations
607: here and in simulations in RHCJ, the higher order modes that dominate
608: close to the inlet are overwhelmed by the larger distortion amplitudes
609: accompanying the slower growing, lower order modes farther down the
610: jet. In Figure \ref{cross} the helical mode appears as the clockwise
611: motion of the jet center about the initial jet axis as one moves down
612: the jet. This clockwise rotation about the jet axis provides an
613: additional estimate for the wavelength of the helical mode. In the
614: light jet simulation, $\lambda_h/R_0 \approx 35$ between
615: $z/R_0 = 25$, where much of the jet is to the left of the original jet
616: axis, and $z/R_0 = 40$, where the jet has been displaced to the upper
617: right. This wavelength is consistent with the very large wave speed
618: ($v_w/a_{ex}$ = 7.6) measured at large $z/R_0$.
619:
620: There is also a correspondence between features in the intensity images
621: and the axial velocity cross-sections. Recall that the simulated
622: intensity images are integrated along the $y$ axis and the observer in Figure
623: \ref{radio} is to the right in Figure \ref{cross}.
624: For the light expanding jet simulation, a spine-sheath
625: morphology is more evident in the cross-sections than in the intensity images. However, far from the inlet the area of the high $v_z$ material
626: is smaller than for the dense expanding jets. This is another
627: indication of greater mixing occurring in the light jet simulation.
628:
629: \subsubsection{1D Axial Cuts of Velocity}
630:
631: The effect of the KH instability on the internal structure of the jets
632: is demonstrated by the one-dimensional cuts of velocity components
633: along the jet axis ($x, y$ = 0) shown in Figure \ref{axis}. In all
634: three simulations, the variation in the axial velocity component is
635: initially small, $\lesssim$ 2\%. At some point the variation grows to
636: significant amplitude relatively abruptly. For the dense jet
637: simulations this occurs at $z/R_0 \sim$ 22, and for the light jet
638: simulation this occurs at $z/R_0 \sim$ 15. These positions are close
639: to the first transition point (in either magnetized mass or width of
640: the simulated intensity image) in all three jets. Thus, changes
641: in the nature of the mass entrainment rate associated with the growth
642: of the KH instability are able to affect the jet dynamics
643: significantly.
644:
645: Continued growth of the KH instability as illustrated by axial profiles
646: of $v_z$ differs in the dense jet simulations beyond the first
647: transition point. Specifically, there are significant oscillations of
648: $v_z$ in simulation A for 20 $\lesssim z/R_0 \lesssim$ 42, but
649: oscillations in simulation B remain relatively small out to $z/R_0
650: \sim$ 47. The smaller variations in the more strongly magnetized jet
651: imply greater stability. In the light jet simulation, there is an
652: additional, extremely abrupt (0.75$u$) decrease in $v_z$ at $z/R_0
653: \sim$ 31. Examination of the axial velocity cross-sections in Figure
654: \ref{cross} reveals that this extremely abrupt drop in axial velocity
655: in the light jet simulation is created as the small high velocity spine
656: is displaced off the axis by the helical mode of the KH instability,
657: and is not associated with the onset of the plateau in the jet plus
658: entrained mass. The second transition position in the light jet does
659: coincide with the reappearance of the $v_z$ maxima in Figure
660: \ref{axis}.
661:
662: In the dense jet simulations the transverse velocity components show a
663: noticeable relative phase shift in the region 10 $\lesssim z/R_0
664: \lesssim$ 30. We consider the maximum in $v_y$ at $z/R_0 =$ 10 in
665: simulation A to be a precursor of, and therefore connected to, the
666: maxima in $v_x$ at $z/R_0 =$ 21 and in $v_y$ at $z/R_0 \sim$ 23. The
667: phase shift is more easily seen in the more strongly magnetized jet
668: (simulation B), with extrema in $v_x$ at $z/R_0 =$ 12, 18, and 23
669: repeated in $v_y$ at $z/R_0 =$ 13, 21, and 25. In the light jet
670: simulation, the evidence for a relative phase shift between the
671: transverse velocity components is less obvious, but perhaps the maximum
672: in $v_x$ at $z/R_0 =$ 7 contributes to the maximum in $v_y$ at $z/R_0
673: =$ 10. In all of the simulations, the extent of the region where the
674: phase shift is noticeable is related to the growth of the helical mode
675: of the KH instability: the region begins where the fluctuations in
676: transverse velocity reach a significant amplitude and ends where the
677: displacement from the KH instability has become significant. Where
678: noticeable, $v_y$ is shifted farther down the jet than $v_x$. Such a
679: sequence is in the sense of a clockwise spatial variation when viewed
680: toward +$z$ from the inlet and consistent with the counterclockwise
681: temporal precession at the inlet described in \S 2. This phase shift
682: is additional evidence for a significant presence of the helical KH
683: mode.
684:
685: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
686:
687: The magnetized, or jet plus entrained, mass in these expanding jet
688: simulations increases more slowly than in their cylindrical
689: equivalents. This reduction in the mass entrainment is a direct
690: consequence of the reduced external mass density, which is required by
691: an expanding pressure-matched jet. For the parameters that we have
692: simulated, the reduction of magnetized mass in the expanding jet
693: simulations appears similar to (for the dense jets) or greater than
694: (for the light jet) the reduction caused by changing the magnetic field
695: configuration from primarily axial to primarily toroidal in the
696: cylindrical jet simulations of RHCJ. Thus, a conical jet appears more
697: stable than its cylindrical equivalent, and should be considered,
698: along with relativistic jets (Hardee et al.\ 1998; and Hughes, Miller,
699: \& Duncan 1999), as another stabilizing influence in the propagation of
700: astrophysical jets.
701:
702: As in the cylindrical jet simulations, the spatial development of the
703: magnetized mass passes through different stages, in which the spatial
704: rate of increase of magnetized mass or the smoothness of this increase
705: is different. We see evidence for a first transition, between a region
706: of a nearly constant increase in magnetized mass and a more varied
707: increase in magnetized mass in the dense jets. In the light jet
708: simulation this first transition occurs between a region with a slow
709: increase in magnetized mass to one with a faster increase. Also, in
710: the light jet simulation we see a second transition, between the
711: region of fast increase and a region where the magnetized mass remains
712: relatively constant. In the expanding jet simulations the distance
713: between first and second transition points is similar to or larger than
714: this distance in the cylindrical jet equivalent simulations. The
715: observed behavior is consistent with slower growth of the KH
716: instability on expanding jets relative to cylindrical jets. Thus, we
717: confirm the theoretical prediction that the KH instability grows on
718: these expanding jets at a reduced rate relative to an equivalent
719: cylindrical jet. Previous work (RHCJ) associated the different stages
720: of spatial development with the linear, nonlinear, and saturated stages of
721: the KH instability, and this appears to be the case in these expanding
722: jet simulations. The simulations also contain wavelengths and wave
723: speeds that are consistent with theoretical estimates of the
724: wavelengths and wave speeds appropriate to the surface helical mode
725: wave triggered at the precession frequency.
726:
727: Simulated intensity images also reveal three stages in the expansion of
728: the mixed jet and entrained material. These stages are similar (slow,
729: fast, and zero expansion) and roughly coincident with the three stages
730: of mass entrainment. However, in one case the jet continues to entrain
731: mass while maintaining a constant jet width in the intensity image.
732: The reduced KH instability growth rate in expanding jets does result in
733: a lengthening span between transition points as determined from the
734: intensity image relative to transition points for cylindrical
735: equivalent jets.
736:
737: Our present study confirms results from RHCJ. The simulated total
738: radio intensity images and the axial velocity transverse
739: cross-sections show that dense jets are able to maintain a high
740: velocity spine as part of a spine/sheath structure. We also see an
741: alignment of polarization vectors with filaments in the simulated
742: intensity images. In addition, the transverse cross-sections show a
743: progression from high order, fast growing, small amplitude to low
744: order, slower growing, large amplitude KH modes. Axial cuts of each
745: velocity component show that the internal structure exhibits a
746: transition in the growth of the instability in roughly the same
747: position as the first transition point in the mass entrainment rate or
748: in the width of the intensity images. Beyond this transition point,
749: especially in the light jet simulation, the displacement of the jet
750: from the initial axis complicates the profile.
751:
752: \acknowledgements {A.\ Rosen and P.\ Hardee acknowledge support from
753: the National Science Foundation through grant AST-9802955 to the
754: University of Alabama. The authors would also like to acknowledge David
755: Clarke who has provided valuable support through development and
756: maintenance of ZEUS-3D. The numerical work utilized the Cray C90 at
757: the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center and the storage facilities
758: associated with the Cray T90 at the San Diego Computing Center.}
759:
760: %\newpage
761:
762: \begin{references}
763:
764: \reference{} Appl, S., \& Camenzind, M. 1992, \aap, 256, 354
765:
766: \reference{} Bassett, G.M., \& Woodward, P.R. 1995, \apj, 441, 582
767:
768: \reference{} Bicknell, G.V. 1994, \apj, 422, 542
769:
770: \reference{} ---------. 1996, in ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ 100: Energy Transport
771: in Radio Galaxies and Quasars, eds.\ P.E.\ Hardee, A.H.\ Bridle, \& J.A. Zensus, (San Francisco:ASP) 253
772:
773: \reference{} Biretta, J.A., Zhou, F., \& Owen, F.N. 1995, \apj, 447, 582
774:
775: \reference{} Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., Rossi, P., Rosner, R., Malagoli,
776: A., \& Ferrari, A. 1995, \aap, 303, 281
777:
778: \reference{} Bodo, G., Rossi, P., Massaglia, S., Ferrari, A., Malagoli, A.,
779: \& Rosner, R. 1998, \aap, 333, 1117
780:
781: \reference{} Clarke, D.A. 1989, \apj, 342, 700
782:
783: \reference{} ---------. 1996, \apj, 457, 291
784:
785: \reference{} DeYoung, D.S. 1996, in ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ 100: Energy Transport
786: in Radio Galaxies and Quasars, eds. P.E. Hardee, A.H. Bridle, \&
787: J.A. Zensus, (San Francisco: ASP) 261
788:
789: \reference{} Fanaroff, B.L., \& Riley, J.M. 1974, \mnras, 167, 31P
790:
791: \reference{} Giovannini, G., Taylor, G.B., Arbizanni, E., Bondi, M., Cotton, W.D., Feretti, L., Lara, L., \& Venturi, T. 1999, \apj, 522, 101
792:
793: \reference{} Hardee, P.E. 1986, \apj, 303, 111
794:
795: \reference{} ---------. 1987, \apj, 313, 607
796:
797: \reference{} Hardee, P.E., Clarke, D.A., \& Rosen, A. 1997, \apj, 485, 533 (HCR)
798:
799: \reference{} Hardee, P.E., \& Rosen, A. 1999, ApJ, 524, 650
800:
801: \reference{} Hardee, P.E., Rosen, A., Hughes, P.A., Duncan, G.C. 1998, \apj, 500, 598
802:
803: \reference{} Hughes, P.A., Miller, M.A., \& Duncan, G.C. 1999, \baas, 31, 1547
804:
805: \reference{} Katz-Stone, D.M., Rudnick, L., Butenoff, C., \& O'Donoghue, A.A. 1999, \apj, 516, 716
806:
807: \reference{} Loken, C., Burns, J.O., Bryan, G., \& Norman, M. 1996 in
808: ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ 100: Energy Transport in Radio Galaxies and Quasars, eds.
809: P.E. Hardee, A.H. Bridle, \& J.A. Zensus, (San Francisco:ASP) 267
810:
811: %\reference{} Loken, C. 1997 in ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ 123: The 12th `Kingston
812: % Meeting':Computational Astrophysics, eds. D.A. Clarke \& M.J. West,
813: % (San Francisco:ASP) 268
814:
815: \reference{} Perley, R.A., Bridle, A.H., \& Willis, A.G. 1984, \apjs, 54, 291
816:
817: %\reference{} Ray, T.P. 1981, \mnras, 196, 195
818:
819: \reference{} Rosen, A., Hardee, P.E., Clarke, D.A., \& Johnson, A. 1999, \apj, 510, 136 (RHCJ)
820:
821: %\reference{} Rosen, A., Hughes, P.A., Duncan, G.C., \& Hardee, P.E. 1999, \apj, 516, %729
822:
823: %\reference{} Swain, M.R., Bridle, A.H., \& Baum, S.A. 1996 in ASP
824: % Conf.\ Ser.\ 100: Energy Transport in Radio Galaxies and Quasars, eds.
825: % P.E. Hardee, A.H. Bridle, \& J.A. Zensus, (San Francisco:ASP) 299
826:
827: \reference{} Stone, J.M., Hawley, J.F., Evans, C.E., \& Norman, M.L. 1992, \apj, 388, 19
828:
829: \reference{} Ulvestad, J.S., Wrobel, J.M., Roy, A.L., Wilson, A.S., Falcke, H.,
830: \& Krichbaum, T.P. 1999, \apj, 517, L81
831:
832: \reference{} van Leer, B.\ 1977, J.\ Comput.\ Phys., 23, 276
833:
834: %\reference{} Malagoli, A., Bodo, G., \& Rosner, R. 1996, \apj, 456, 708
835:
836: %\reference{} Owen, F.N., Hardee, P.E., \& Cornwell, T.J. 1989, \apj, 340, 698
837:
838: \end{references}
839:
840: %\newpage
841:
842: \figcaption{The normalized linear mass density $\sigma$ (top and middle
843: panels) and average axial velocity $\langle v_z\rangle$ (bottom
844: panel). Also shown is $\sigma$ from the cylindrical equivalent
845: simulations in RHCJ. In order to show the extent of the second (fast
846: growing) stage in the light jet simulations, estimates of the mass
847: entrainment rates have been added in this stage to the middle panel.
848: \label{sig}}
849:
850: \figcaption{The average density of the entrained mass, $\rho_{en}$, in
851: the expanding jet simulations normalized by the entrained mass density in
852: each equivalent cylindrical jet simulation. The solid line is the initial
853: profile of the external density, the dotted line is the calculated mean
854: density of magnetized mass less the jet mass.
855: \label{aved}}
856:
857: \figcaption{Integrated simulated intensity images overlayed with
858: B-field polarization vectors. The total intensity is shown in
859: grayscale, and covers three orders of magnitude with a maximum set to
860: roughly 1.20 times the actual maximum intensity in the image. In
861: addition, the polarization vectors have a length proportional to the
862: fractional polarization and are shown only where the total intensity is
863: above 0.001 of the scaled maximum intensity in the image.
864: \label{radio}}
865:
866: \figcaption{Evolution of total intensity profiles on the $z$-axis. The
867: simulated total intensity, which is given in a quasi-logarithmic scale,
868: is displayed for three different times for each simulation.
869: \label{intpro}}
870:
871: \figcaption{Grayscale cross-sections of axial velocity in the
872: $xy$-plane for simulation A (top), B (middle), and C (bottom). Here,
873: the $+x$ axis is towards the top of each panel and
874: $+y$ to the right ($+z$ is into the page), and each axis spans the
875: region -4 $< x/R_0, y/R_0 <$ 4. Darker shading indicates larger $v_z$,
876: white indicates $v_z \le$ 0. The number in the
877: upper left of each panel indicates the axial position, $z/R_0$.
878: \label{cross}}
879:
880: \figcaption{One dimensional cut of each velocity component along the
881: $z$-axis. The panels on the left show the axial profile of $v_z$ and
882: the panels on the right show $v_x$ and $v_y$, all in units of the external medium sound speed, $a_{ex}$. Note the different ranges of velocity
883: on each panel, although this range is approximately 0.25$u$ in all of
884: the panels.
885: \label{axis}}
886:
887: %\newpage
888:
889: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccccc}
890: \tablewidth{0pt}
891: \tablecaption{ Inlet Jet Parameters \label{para} }
892: \tablehead{
893: \colhead{Sim.}
894: & \colhead{($\eta$)\tablenotemark{a}}
895: & \colhead{({\bf B})\tablenotemark{b}}
896: & $(p_{jt}/p_{ex})$\tablenotemark{c}
897: & \colhead{$(a_{jt}/a_{ex}$)\tablenotemark{c}}
898: & \colhead{($V_{A}/a_{ex}$)\tablenotemark{d}}
899: & \colhead{($a^{ms}_{jt}/a_{\rm ex}$)\tablenotemark{c,d}}
900: & \colhead{$M_{ex}$}
901: & \colhead{($M_{jt}$)\tablenotemark{c}}
902: & \colhead{($M_{A})$\tablenotemark{d}}
903: & \colhead{($M^{ms}_{jt})$\tablenotemark{c,d}} \nl
904: }
905: \startdata
906: A & 4.00 & W & 0.995 & 0.50 & 0.04 & 0.50 & ~3.49 & ~7.00 & 93.1~ & 6.98 \nl
907: B & 4.00 & E & 0.54~ & 0.37 & 0.38 & 0.52 & ~3.67 & 10.00 & ~9.80 & 7.00 \nl
908: C & 0.25 & E & 0.54~ & 1.47 & 1.50 & 2.10 & 11.17 & ~7.60 & ~7.45 & 5.32 \nl
909: \enddata
910: \tablenotetext{a} {$\eta \equiv \rho_{jt}/\rho_{ex}$, uniform jet density
911: across the jet.}
912: \tablenotetext{b} {Descriptions of the magnetic field: E=Equipartition ($B_z = 0.75, B^{pk}_{\phi} = 0.26$, in ZEUS-3D units), W=Weak ($B_z = 0.075, B^{pk}_{\phi} = 0.035$, in ZEUS-3D units).}
913: \tablenotetext{c} {Jet thermal pressure used is before slight modification
914: (based on Equation [1]) to a uniform profile across jet.}
915: \tablenotetext{d} {Based on axial magnetic field only, valid for $r$ = 0 and 0.9 $\le r/R_0 \le$ 1.0.}
916: \end{deluxetable}
917:
918: %\begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
919: %\tablewidth{0pt}
920: %\tablecaption{Magnetic Field Quantities \label{parb} }
921: %\tablehead{
922: %\colhead{Simulation}
923: %& \colhead{\tablenotemark{a}}
924: %& \colhead{$}
925: %& \colhead{$\theta_{\rm pitch}({\rm r_{pk}})$}
926: %& \colhead{$\lambda_{\rm pitch}({\rm r_{pk}})$}
927: %& \colhead{r$_{\rm pk}$/R} \nl
928: %}
929: %\startdata
930: %A & 0.075 & 0.035 & 24.7 & 6.8 & 0.5 \nl
931: %B,C & 0.750 & 0.255 & 18.7 & 9.3 & 0.5 \nl
932: %\enddata
933: %\tablenotetext{a} {Uniform axial magnetic field at inlet across jet}
934: %\end{deluxetable}
935:
936: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
937: \tablewidth{0pt}
938: \tablecaption{Precessional Data \label{prec} }
939: \tablehead{
940: \colhead{Simulation}
941: & \colhead{$\omega R/a_{ex}$}
942: & \colhead{ ($\omega R/a_{ex})_{cyl}$\tablenotemark{a} }
943: & \colhead{$\tau_{p}$}
944: & \colhead{$(v_{t}/a_{ex})$\tablenotemark{b} }
945: & \colhead{$(v_{t}/a^{ms}_{jt,0})$\tablenotemark{b} }\nl
946: }
947: \startdata
948: A & 0.9 & 1.0 & 6.98 & 0.019 & 0.039 \nl
949: B & 1.1 & 1.2 & 5.71 & 0.020 & 0.039 \nl
950: C & 1.4 & 1.6 & 4.49 & 0.062 & 0.030 \nl
951: \enddata
952: \tablenotetext{a}{Frequencies used in previous cylindrical jet simulations (RHCJ).}
953: \tablenotetext{b}{Only the transverse velocity related to
954: the precession, does not include velocity associated with the jet
955: expansion.}
956: \end{deluxetable}
957:
958: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
959: \tablewidth{0pt}
960: \tablecaption{Magnetized Mass Related Quantities \label{tran} }
961: \tablehead{
962: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\sigma(z/R_0 = 60)$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Transition
963: Points} \nl
964: \colhead{Simulation} & \colhead{Conical} & \colhead{Cylindrical\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Conical} & \colhead{Cyl.\tablenotemark{a}} \nl
965: }
966: \startdata
967: A & 1.75--2.0 & 2.8/3.6\tablenotemark{b}& 20--25$^c$/$>$60 & 25--27/48 \nl
968: B & 1.5 & 2.8 & 20--25$^c$/$>$60 & 25/$>$60 \nl
969: C & 7--8 & 25 & 10/42 & 18/40 \nl
970: \enddata
971: \tablenotetext{a}{Cylindrical jet data from RHCJ.}
972: \tablenotetext{b}{The two values listed here depend on whether the
973: jet reached saturation at $z/R$ = 60 (2.8) or not (3.6). Both
974: interpretations are possible.}
975: \tablenotetext{c}{Based on position where ever increasing
976: fluctuations in $\sigma$ begin. Note that similar fluctuations occur
977: at $z/R_0 \sim$ 20 as well in cylindrical jet simulations. }
978: \end{deluxetable}
979:
980: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
981: \tablewidth{0pt}
982: \tablecaption{ Effective Growth Lengths \label{grow} }
983: \tablehead{
984: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Expanding Jet} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Cylindrical Jet} \nl
985: \colhead{Simulation} & \colhead{$N_e = 1$} & \colhead{$N_e = 5$} & \colhead{$N_e = 1$} & \colhead{$N_e = 5$\tablenotemark{a}}\nl
986: }
987: \startdata
988: A & 6.5 & 39.5 & 6.9 & 34.5 \nl
989: B & 6.5 & 40.8 & 6.9 & 34.5 \nl
990: C & 4.9 & 28.9 & 5.3 & 26.5 \nl
991: \enddata
992: \tablenotetext{a}{Values here are 5 times those in previous
993: column.}
994: %\tablenotetext{b}{}
995: %\tablenotetext{c}{}
996: \end{deluxetable}
997:
998: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
999: \tablewidth{0pt}
1000: \tablecaption{Data from Simulated Intensity Maps\label{siglam} }
1001: \tablehead{
1002: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Transition Points} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\lambda_{h}$} \nl \colhead{Simulation}
1003: & \colhead{Conical}
1004: & \colhead{Cyl.\ \tablenotemark{a}}
1005: & \colhead{Conical}
1006: & \colhead{Cyl.\ \tablenotemark{a}}\nl
1007: }
1008: \startdata
1009: A & 20/$>$60 & 25/45 & 15 & 13 \nl
1010: B & 20/50 & 30/50 & 13 & 13 \nl
1011: C & 15/45 & $\sim$20/40 & 18 & 20 \nl
1012: \enddata
1013: \tablenotetext{a}{Cylindrical data taken from equivalent simulations in
1014: RHCJ.}
1015: \end{deluxetable}
1016:
1017: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
1018: \tablewidth{0pt}
1019: \tablecaption{Estimated Wave Speeds\label{wavesp} }
1020: \tablehead{
1021: \colhead{Simulation}
1022: & \colhead{$v_w(z/R_0 = 0)/a_{ex}$}
1023: & \colhead{$v_w(z/R_0 = 20)/a_{ex}$}
1024: & \colhead{$\lambda_h \omega/(2\pi a_{ex})$}
1025: }
1026: \startdata
1027: A & 2.3 & 2.4 & 2.2 \nl
1028: B & 2.5 & 2.6 & 2.3 \nl
1029: C & 3.7 & 4.0 & 4.0 \nl
1030: \enddata
1031: \end{deluxetable}
1032:
1033: \end{document}
1034:
1035:
1036:
1037:
1038:
1039:
1040:
1041:
1042: