Table 1.
Comparison between analytic models and our simulation results
| Isothermal | Adiabatic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analytic models | Our simulations | Analytic models | Our simulations | ||
| Steady-state overflow (1) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 2Main stream morphology (2) | Axisymmetric | Non-axisymmetric | Axisymmetric | Non-axisymmetric | |
| (trailing side) | (trailing side) | ||||
| Sonic surface (3) | – Flat? | Yes | No – asymmetric concave | Yes | No – asymmetric concave |
| – Intersecting L? | Yes | Not always | Yes | Not always | |
| Hydrostatic equilibrium (4) | Yes* | Yes – normal to the orbital plane | – | No | |
| Normal to the binary axis | No – within the orbital plane | (converging toward L) | |||
| Stream tile angle (5) | Agreement within 30% | – | |||
Notes. We compare five main assumptions (first four rows) and prediction (last row) made by analytic models to our simulation results for isothermal and adiabatic mass transfer. L refers to the Lagrangian point. The references for each item are provided in the main text in Sect. 6.1. *Lubow & Shu (1975) argue that the stream near the L point is in vertical hydrostatic equilibrium but undergoes lateral expansion, which agrees well with our simulation results.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.