[mesa-users] hydro_failed_to_converge

[Pablo Marchant]

Jaime, haven't had time to check on this yet but will soon. Some of the
things you mentioned before were clear bugs I need to fix and maybe you
have something here also.

In any case, remember to keep mesa-users in the loop

Cheers!


On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Jaime Villaseñor <
jaime.villasenor at postgrado.uv.cl> wrote:

> Ok, thanks again for your valuable help. Here are the inlists for the
> implicit test.
>
> Best, Jaime
>
>
> 2013/10/18 Pablo Marchant <pamarca at gmail.com>
>
>> Jaime, could you provide me with the inlists for this? Regarding the
>> plots, I can't really vouch for 10^-6 being too high or low. These binaries
>> with smaller masses and magnetic braking are not quite what I'm used to, so
>> I need to check some things.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Jaime Villaseñor <
>> jaime.villasenor at postgrado.uv.cl> wrote:
>>
>>> Pablo, when running the test ('binary_donor_only_implicit_mdot') with
>>> everything as default, and plotting orbital period vs mass transfer rate, I
>>> get the exact same result as in Fig. 7 of rlo_implicit documentation
>>> (attached file PvsMLR1), so it seems like problem solved. But when I do it
>>> with different masses and period (as in the inlist I sent you before), I
>>> get a peak in the mass transfer rate around 10^-6 (PvsMLR2), which is much
>>> higher than the characteristic rates due to magnetic braking.
>>>
>>> Do you think this is normal? Or definitely something is not working as
>>> it should? I hope you can give me some thought about it.
>>>
>>> Best, Jaime
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/10/13 Jaime Villaseñor <jaime.villasenor at postgrado.uv.cl>
>>>
>>>> Bill, ok I took note ;)
>>>>
>>>> Pablo, thanks a lot for all your useful comments. I used the roche_lobe
>>>> scheme in the implicit_mdot test and everything seems to be working fine,
>>>> no error message and the plot looks nice. I'll do some other plots to check
>>>> if everything is alright.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you one more time!
>>>> Best, Jaime
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/10/13 Pablo Marchant <pamarca at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> Going to your plots.
>>>>>
>>>>> The case with the explicit scheme is due to using to large timesteps
>>>>> (as defined by varcontrol_target). The scheme is very sensitive to changes
>>>>> in radius (exponential dependence on (r-rl)/H_P), so things will go bad if
>>>>> you use too large timesteps, mdot will experience huge increases causing
>>>>> that sawtooth behaviour. Try out with the attached inlists and it will work
>>>>> much better, I only chose a smaller varcontrol_target (and I think it would
>>>>> be wise to change it also in the test_suite examples).
>>>>>
>>>>> For the case of the implicit scheme, as I said before, there's a bug.
>>>>> Don't assume that things not working = you're doing something wrong,
>>>>> there's always a good chance that you catched a bug (as in this case).
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Pablo Marchant <pamarca at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jaime, there's effectively a problem here. The mass transfer rate
>>>>>> gets stuck in a value when magnetic braking stops working, instead of
>>>>>> properly detaching. In order to "fix" it, you can switch to the roche_lobe
>>>>>> scheme for mass transfer instead of the default ritter one. Another option
>>>>>> would be to just try and see if the explicit scheme works for you. The
>>>>>> implicit scheme adds overhead and in plenty of cases doesn't make much of a
>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Jaime Villaseñor <
>>>>>> jaime.villasenor at postgrado.uv.cl> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Bill, thanks for your comments.
>>>>>>> I think that is the thing, and is what Pablo was just saying too,
>>>>>>> the test went too far in the evolution. I haven't tried removing  the
>>>>>>> max_number_backups line yet, because what worries me most is how the data
>>>>>>> is looking. I'm sharing with you a plot of the donor mass vs orbital period
>>>>>>> that I made with the old rlo test (from version 4909) and what I'm getting
>>>>>>> with the binary_donor_only_implicit_mdot and the binary_donor_only
>>>>>>> tests.
>>>>>>> What do you think is happening? Should I adjust something related to
>>>>>>> the angular momentum loss? The third graphic is a completely impossible
>>>>>>> scenario, so clearly I'm doing something wrong here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best, Jaime
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2013/10/13 Bill Paxton <paxton at kitp.ucsb.edu>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Jaime Villaseñor wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *                                            num_backups
>>>>>>>>  11
>>>>>>>>                                      max_number_backups          10
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  stopping because of convergence problems num_backups >
>>>>>>>> max_number_backups
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Starting from a test case inlist is a good idea.
>>>>>>>> But the tests include checks for number or retries and number of
>>>>>>>> backups that you may not want.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here are the lines from the inlist
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>       ! check for retries and backups as part of test_suite
>>>>>>>>       ! you can/should delete this for use outside of test_suite
>>>>>>>>          max_number_backups = 10
>>>>>>>>          max_number_retries = 80
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the test case is running properly, it reaches the desired
>>>>>>>> stopping point without many backups, so something has gone very bad in the
>>>>>>>> test if it reaches 10 backups.  Rather than let it keeping, we make the
>>>>>>>> test terminate at that point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if you are going to do a longer run, it isn't unreasonable that
>>>>>>>> it could require more backups or retries.    Your run is going much farther
>>>>>>>> than the test case.   Perhaps it isn't crazy that it has done that many
>>>>>>>> backups.  What happens if you remove the max_number_backups line from your
>>>>>>>> inlist?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -B
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>  Jaime Villaseñor
>>>>>>> Master's student in Astrophysics
>>>>>>> Universidad de Valparaíso
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Pablo Marchant Campos
>>>>>> M.Sc on Astrophysics, Universidad Católica de Chile
>>>>>> PhD student, Argelander-Institut für Astronomie
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Pablo Marchant Campos
>>>>> M.Sc on Astrophysics, Universidad Católica de Chile
>>>>> PhD student, Argelander-Institut für Astronomie
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jaime Villaseñor
>>>> Master's student in Astrophysics
>>>> Universidad de Valparaíso
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jaime Villaseñor
>>> Master's student in Astrophysics
>>> Universidad de Valparaíso
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pablo Marchant Campos
>> M.Sc on Astrophysics, Universidad Católica de Chile
>> PhD student, Argelander-Institut für Astronomie
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jaime Villaseñor
> Master's student in Astrophysics
> Universidad de Valparaíso
>



-- 
Pablo Marchant Campos
M.Sc on Astrophysics, Universidad Católica de Chile
PhD student, Argelander-Institut für Astronomie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.mesastar.org/pipermail/mesa-users/attachments/20131021/1a85b1c7/attachment.html>