<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Jon,<div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 16, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Jonathan Slavin <<a href="mailto:jslavin@cfa.harvard.edu" class="">jslavin@cfa.harvard.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Ah, okay that wasn't clear to me. That will work for this case without cooling, but what this is essentially doing is decreasing the mean mass per particle as a kludge for including electron pressure. When cooling is included then, the number density, n = rho/m, will be too high. I'm referring to optically thin radiative cooling, e.g. using the Sutherland & Dopita cooling curve. In that case what you need is n(H)*n(e). I suppose I could kludge that as well...</div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">Yes, you are correct. I have a cooling curve set up using the AtomDB data and this is also what I have to do. Dean’s point is that the Gamma EOS is pretty ignorant (by design), it doesn’t know anything about what the gas is made up of in what proportions or whether or not it’s ionized or not, etc. It just knows what the equation of state is supposed to be, and you only need Abar for the temperature, which is not used in hydro anyway since that uses the internal energy (though of course you need it for cooling).</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">John</div></body></html>