[mesa-users] hydro_failed_to_converge
Jaime Villaseñor
jaime.villasenor at postgrado.uv.cl
Mon Oct 21 13:01:08 EDT 2013
Hi Pablo, don't worry about it.
I hope to hear from you soon ;)
Best, Jaime
2013/10/21 Pablo Marchant <pamarca at gmail.com>
> 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
>
--
Jaime Villaseñor
Master's student in Astrophysics
Universidad de Valparaíso
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.mesastar.org/pipermail/mesa-users/attachments/20131021/662ca4af/attachment.html>
More information about the Mesa-users
mailing list