Stephen St.Vincent - Swarthmore College
Research Home | Journal | Articles | To-Do | IDL code
Back to main images page
This is the same image as below, only plotted with the x-axis actually representing the x-coordinates. A similar plot with y-coordinates along the x-axis looks similar, and I believe this to be correct.
This is what the slice that originally faced the y-axis looks like after a spin of 50 degrees and a tilt of 40 degrees. The x-axis is really the radius (in cylindrical coordinates, where I've made the radii negative for the lefthand slice so that both will show up). This is very wrong. For starters, there shouldn't be a data gap, and the tops should be rounded off, not sliced off.
28 June 2006
The latest version of the GUI. Unnecessary parameters have been removed, and everything's been lined up so that it's pretty. Compare it to this.
I feel like I've addressed this problem before. Whenever I spin and tilt the data, the top and bottom of the image gets sliced off. I used to think that it was just what was supposed to happen when I did this, but if I spin first and then tilt, nothing should get cut off or even warped at all if I'm plotting xy-radius vs. z.
27 June 2006
So here's what the same image below looks like, but with a tilt angle of 45 degrees. I really don't know what's going on here. Clearly, there are 10 slices in the grid, but I don't see how the tilt angle got factored in.
Ok, so I think I may want to plot all of the data points, which may not always work if there are overlapping points. Anyway, this is the xy-plane again, but rotated 90 degrees about the y-axis. This is pretty much what I expected to see. It should be noted that there is data both on top of and behind the star here, but since the star's circle get drawn last, this data gets overwritten in the image. For any line profiles, light curves, etc, however, this data would still count. This effect is strictly due to visualization.
Uh, so this is what it looks like when I plot the xy-plane. I've narrowed the data points to where -0.5 < z < 0.5. I'm not really sure if this is all that helpful yet.
26 June 2006
I have the method of putting different, random time slices into each of the 3D grid divisions. Here's a sample shot. Hooray, asymmetry!
06 June 2006
First run at interpolating onto the new grid. The far right is reddish due to effect from the contouring routine, not data interpolation.
After fixing a couple bugs, I made this new shot of a slice in the xz-plane, where I have removed data points that are outside 9 stellar radii or inside 1 stellar radius. The aspect ratio's a bit off, but that's inconsequential really.
02 June 2006
This is a first attempt at defining varying point densities along the rays. The x-axis is radius, and the y-axis is depth (the z-axis, actually). It's not yet dependent upone tilt angle, so that's probably the next step.
David and I have been discussing setting up a set of interpolation rays in cylindrical coordinates. Here's a first attempt at placing them. The image shown in in the xy-plane.
30 May 2006
This is the same as the image below and left, with the exception that it's on a grid of density 100. This should mean a factor of 8 increase in data points. However, it doesn't look noticeably different from the less dense grid.
Again, click on the image for a full-size view.
This is the latest image from interpolation onto the cartesian grid. This image has a grid density of 50. Next to it is the equivalent image from the polar grid. The interpolation is doing a pretty good job, considering that the point density is low and that the interpolation method is just nearest-neighbor.
Click on either image for the full-size view.
22 May 2006
This is the much updated and expanded version of the GUI. Just a ton has been added, so I'm not going to go through it all here.