[mesa-users] Building pre-CCSN progenitors

[Austin Harris]

Hi,

Thanks for the quick response. After reading the papers again, I'm still
unsure about the calculation presented in paper III (see below).

In paper I:

> These massive star models are non-rotating, use no semi-convection, employ
> a mixing length parameter of αMLT = 1.6, and adopt f=0.01 for exponential
> diffusive overshoot (see §5.2) for convective regions that are either
> burning hydrogen or are not burning.

In paper II:

> These calculations are performed to reveal the new capabilities of MESA
> star. The values of the parameters for these calculations have not been
> calibrated against existing calculations or observations.


My understanding that the massive star evolution in paper III differs quite
a bit from paper I in that 1) semi-convection is used, 2) αMLT = 1.5, and
3) f=0.003 and 4) is applied everywhere. Do these differences fall into the
category of revealing new capabilities, as in paper II, or are they
motivated by improved calibration?

--Austin

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Francis Timmes <fxt44 at mac.com> wrote:

> please see the three mesa instrument papers for numerous comparisons
> with what has appeared in the literature. easy links to the instrument
> papers
> are here http://mesa.sourceforge.net/capabilities.html
>
> fxt
>
>
>
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 3:23 PM, Austin Harris <austin at lbl.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to use MESA to evolve a star from ZAMS to just prior to
> core-collapse. I can do this with the inlist files provided at
> mesastar.org for the MESA III paper
> (inlists_mesa3/section6_presn_ccsn_204/presn), but I'm relatively new to
> MESA and stellar evolution in general and I want to make sure I have at
> least a general idea of what I'm doing.
>
> Other than the nuclear network, are the provided inlist files consistent
> with what has historically been used for massive-star evolution in the
> literature (e.g. Woosley & Heger 2007), or are there other significant
> differences?
>
> One specific example: I've noticed that the overshooting parameters in
> "inlist_control" (e.g. overshoot_f_* = 0.004 and overshoot_f0_* = 0.001)
> are larger than what's used in the test_suite for other massive stars
> (inlist_massive_defaults: overshoot_f_* <= 0.001 and overshoot_f0_* =
> 0.0005), resulting in an overshoot of 0.003 scale heights versus 0.0005.
> Why the difference?
>
> --Austin
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151015/edd64d7b/attachment.html>