[mesa-users] L>L_edd

[Tomer Shacham]

Hi David,
I agree that the equilibrium is not static but rather steady state, and I
do indeed have mass loss, which starts above the mentioned region. (BTW, I
have the velocity variable disabled.) The question is how is it possible
that MESA spits out a stellar structure without pressure inversion and
L_rad>L_edd...
Thanks,
Tomer

--
Tomer Shacham


High Energy Physics Group
Institute     of     Physics
The  Hebrew  University
Jerusalem,   Israel  91904



On 4 May 2014 21:05, David Arnett <wdarnett at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Tomer,
> It may be that requiring hydrostatic equilibrium AND disabling convection
> is unphysical. We can have a quasi-steady state (not strict hydrostatic
> equilibrium) with circulating flows (convection) or mass loss with radial
> flows (or a combination). If there are flows there must be acceleration, so
> no strict hydrostatic equilibrium. Because of their high luminosity,
> massive stars push the limits. I think Matteo gave a good response on this
> issue.
> Dave
>
> --
> David Arnett
> Regents Professor
> Steward Observatory
> University of Arizona
>
> Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.  Mark Twain
> Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.  Aldous Huxley
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.  Get
> unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-users mailing list
> mesa-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.mesastar.org/pipermail/mesa-users/attachments/20140504/7b3b0f74/attachment.html>