[mesa-users] MESA 6749 "noisy" tracks

[Chris Mankovich]

Hi Sibilla,

As Rob says, it's hard to guess which of the myriad changes over those
2000+ intervening revisions of MESA (!) cause the difference.

Note that your plots are over an teeny tiny dynamic range; it seems like
your 'jitter' in temperature is on the order of 5% of a Kelvin, which is
likely small potatoes compared to the variation you'll see when you make
different choices with the resolution controls.  Mass loss is pretty rapid
in this phase, and that might be sensitive to your time resolution.

Chris

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Sibilla Perina <sibilla.perina at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Time ago I computed a set of evolutionary tracks using MESA 4589 (SDK
> 20120728). Now I’m computing the same tracks with MESA 6794 (SDK 20140715).
> I’m on OSX 10.8.5.
>
> I’m using the multimass method. The inlist is the same for both the
> versions. The two run_star_extras.f have some differences I think due to
> the code upgrade, but they should do the same things. I attached here the
> two inlist and the two run_star_extras.f.
> In the attached figure tip.pdf I plotted two tracks (M=1.0 Msun, Z=0.02)
> corresponding to the different MESA versions, in a HR region very near to
> the RGB tip.
>
> I’d like to know why the track from the new MESA version is so noisy
> respect to the other and if there is a way (parameter setting) to obtain a
> more cleaned track as the one from the older MESA version. Moreover, why
> there is that difference in the tip location?
>
> Thanks for your help.
> Cheers,
> Sibilla
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141023/be059a2d/attachment.html>