[Mesa-users] Using make_o_ne_wd to prepare some white dwarf models
LAM Yi Hua
lamyihua at gmail.com
Mon Jul 23 00:00:58 EDT 2018
Dear Frank,
*>defaults are set and stored in $MESA_DIR/star/defaults/ , and may also be
read online at the mesa website. for
example,>http://mesa.sourceforge.net/star_job_defaults.html#eos_controls
<http://mesa.sourceforge.net/star_job_defaults.html#eos_controls> >and
>http://mesa.sourceforge.net/star_job_defaults.html#kap_controls
<http://mesa.sourceforge.net/star_job_defaults.html#kap_controls> . *
Thanks!!!
Yes, I did notice these few related files like
$MESA_DIR/star/defaults/star_job.defaults
$MESA_DIR/star/defaults/controls_job.defaults
I suppose that setting these few flags to be true and maintaining their
associated default limits, and also without changing EOS flags in
controls.default, we will get a coverage of EOS presented in Figure 1 and
described in Section 4.2 of Paxton et al ApJS 192, 3 (2011).
set_HELM_SCVH_lgTs = .true. < I suppose we just need to set it
to be true in the inlist file, then the following default limits below will
be automatically set.
logT_low_all_HELM = 2.2d0 < And I suppose the same situation
happens on: set_HELM_OPAL_lgTs, set_logRho_OPAL_SCVH_limits,
set_eos_PC_parameters, set_other_HELM_flags
logT_low_all_SCVH = 2.3d0 <
set_HELM_OPAL_lgTs = .true. <
logT_all_HELM = 7.7d0
logT_all_OPAL = 7.6d0
set_logRho_OPAL_SCVH_limits = .true. <
logRho1_OPAL_SCVH_limit = 2.6d0
logRho2_OPAL_SCVH_limit = 2.5d0
set_eos_PC_parameters = .true. <
mass_fraction_limit_for_PC = 1d-2
logRho1_PC_limit = 3.7d0
logRho2_PC_limit = 2.8d0
log_Gamma_all_HELM = 1.60206d0
log_Gamma_all_PC = 1.90309d0
PC_min_Z = 0.999d0
set_other_HELM_flags = .true. <
HELM_include_radiation = .true.
HELM_always_skip_elec_pos = .false.
HELM_always_include_elec_pos = .true. < I set this to be true.
eosDT_use_linear_interp_for_X = .true. < The default setting in
make_o_ne_wd
eosDT_use_linear_interp_to_HELM = .false. < The default setting in
$MESA_DIR/star/defaults/star_job.defaults
Please let me know if I am wrong...
Thanks... :)
best regards,
Yi Hua
, LAM
-- CaTCh EVEry SiNGle OppORtuNItY WhEN U r StILl alIVe --
---- Success Belonged To Those Who's Willing To Strive For It ----
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 7:16 AM Francis Timmes <fxt44 at mac.com> wrote:
> dear yi,
>
> nice to see you are getting started with mesa.
> i'll take two of your ten questions.
>
> > If we would like to use the default EOS and opacity defined in Paxton et
> al MESA-steering paper [Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192 (2011) 3], do we set the
> EOS and opacity as what are defined in the default inlist of make_o_ne_wd
> as below? [Question 7]
> >
> > eos_file_prefix = 'mesa'
> > kappa_file_prefix = 'gs98'
> >
> > If this is not the correct way, may I know how to define the default EOS
> and opacity? [Question 8]
>
> defaults are set and stored in $MESA_DIR/star/defaults/ ,
> and may also be read online at the mesa website. for example,
> http://mesa.sourceforge.net/star_job_defaults.html#eos_controls
> and
> http://mesa.sourceforge.net/star_job_defaults.html#kap_controls .
>
> fxt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 2018, at 4:44 AM, LAM Yi Hua via Mesa-users <
> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org> wrote:
> >
> > Dear MESA community,
> >
> > Recently, I'd like to test some reactions associated with nova outbursts
> using MESA-r10398 and MESA-sdk (revision 245). [Hopefully, older MESA-sdk
> version won't affect the simulation.] So, most probably, the suitable white
> dwarf (WD) model for testing the reactions should be ONe WD, but not CO WD.
> >
> > I have some questions to ask the community.
> >
> > FIRST step:
> > I used the "make_o_ne_wd" test_suite to prepare some simple white dwarf
> models.
> > For the first test, the simulation of this default model stopped at
> >
> > model 592
> > termination code: xa_central_upper_limit
> >
> > Then, I commented these two lines in the &star_job of
> inlist_make_o_ne_wd file:
> >
> > ! xa_central_upper_limit_species(1) = 'ne20'
> > ! xa_central_upper_limit(1) = 0.35d0
> >
> > I ran the simulation again, but it stopped at
> >
> > model 840
> > stopping because of problems -- too many retries
> > terminated evolution: nonzero_ierr
> > termination code: max_number_retries
> >
> > Perhaps, someone can identify the problem.
> >
> > Anyway, it is not a big deal. Although the HR diagram shown in Figure 1
> of make_o_ne_wd/docs/make_o_ne_wd.pdf could not be reproduced, at least I
> can confirm that my installation is successful, and a partial HR diagram
> was produced from log Teff=3.9 up to 5.5 and log L/Ldot = 3.7 up to 4.5.
> Also, I do not think the problem is due to older MESA-SDK version. After
> that, I tested the make_o_ne_wd test_suite of MESA-r8118 with MESA-sdk
> (revision 245). This simulation ran successfully until it terminated with
> log_L_lower_limit. The produced HR diagram make_o_ne_wd (MESA-r8118) is not
> exactly the same as the partial HR diagram of MESA-r10398, in particular
> there is a kink from Teff=3.9 to 4.2 in the HR diagram of make_o_ne_wd of
> MESA-r8118 during the post-AGB stage. In fact, the HR diagram shown in
> Figure 1 of make_o_ne_wd.pdf also has that kink.
> >
> > As long as we can still produce a WD model eventually, shall we change
> some settings to eliminate/reduce such kink? [Question 1]
> >
> > Both HR paths produced from MESA-r10398 and MESA-r8118 show some
> oscillation at the end of post-AGB stage, around Teff=5.1 to 5.4 and log
> L/Ldot = 4 to 4.4. If we can still produce a WD model eventually, shall we
> change some settings to eliminate/reduce such oscillation? [Question 2]
> >
> >
> > SECOND step:
> > I extend the list of isotopes and reactions stated in co_burn_plus.net
> which is used by make_o_ne_wd. The newly extended list includes 78 isotopes
> (from 1H up to 40Ca) and associated 480 reactions. These 78 isotopes were
> also included by Politano et al. (1995) and Weiss et al. (1990). Also, I
> made a few changes to inlist_make_o_ne_wd:
> >
> > **************************************************************
> > &star_job
> > eosDT_use_linear_interp_for_X = .true. < This flag does not exist in
> MESA-r8118. I compare results produced by MESA-r10398 with and without this
> flag.
> > < I found that implementing this
> linear interpretation increases mass loss.
> > < However, if I switch it to be
> .true. for initiall mass 9.5 Mdot, it causes the problem of dt <
> min_timestep_limit=1d-20 at model 1070.
> > < Perhaps, this is not the reason
> causing the problem of dt < min_timestep_limit .
> > < There is no problem for
> initial_mass=9.8 or 9.7. Maybe, there are some settings associated with the
> change of initial mass.
> >
> > ! change_D_omega_flag = .true. < These flags do not exist in
> MESA-r8118. I switch off these flags because they do not smoothen the
> post-AGB HR path.
> > ! new_D_omega_flag = .true. < Bill Paxton said he is
> "experimenting a new scheme to reduce the noise in the rotational mixing
> diffusion coefficients
> > < by doing spatial and temporal
> smoothing."
> > < The default flags are .false.
> >
> > &controls
> > max_number_retries = 500 < I increased it for
> more attempts solving the hydro-Newton equation before termination.
> > max_model_number = 6000 <
> >
> > ! xa_central_upper_limit_species(1) = 'ne20' < I switched off
> these two flags due to reason mentioned above.
> > ! xa_central_upper_limit(1) = 0.35d0 <
> >
> > min_timestep_limit=1d-20 <
> > log_L_lower_limit = 0 <
> >
> > **************************************************************
> >
> > I did not apply any "stellar engineering" (trick) during mass loss at
> end-AGB stage when star mass drops from 10 Mdot to 5.5 Mdot.
> >
> > With defining initial_mass= 10, the simulation stops at
> log_L_lower_limit = 0 and eventually, the star becomes a white dwarf with
> 16O and 20Ne rich core, and log_cntr_T=8.08 (center temperature). The mass
> fraction of 16O is 0.545 from 0 to 1.195 Mdot, whereas the mass fraction of
> 12C is about 0.427 at the mass coordinate of 1.195 Mdot and drops to around
> 0.010 at the mass coordinate of 1.175 Mdot. I suppose the small mass region
> with high fraction of 12C is the so-called C-rich buffer zone separating
> the bottom of the convective envelope from the WD surface according to some
> literatures.
> >
> > If I am not mistaken, to further cool the WD and to make a naked WD, we
> need to remove this buffer zone first, otherwise the code cannot proceed
> due to unresolved hydro-Newton equation causing termination of dt <
> min_timestep_limit=1d-20. I did try to cool the WD (restart the simulation)
> after the stage of log_L_lower_limit = 0 and log_cntr_T=8.08 (center
> temperature). But it does not work, it keeps stopping with limit of dt <
> min_timestep_limit=1d-20, even I tried to change some settings.
> >
> > I think, to proceed the cooling of a WD to the desired temperature,
> artificially removing this buffer zone will be more effective than changing
> various settings of simulation.
> > To do so, do we just simply change the mass fractions of 12C and other
> isotopes in the freshly saved *.mod and *.data files to 0 after the
> simulation stop? [Question 3]
> > Do we have to rescale the dq (fraction of total mstar in cell) column?
> [Question 4]
> > And, how about other physical properties recorded in columns of lnd,
> lnT, lnR, L, omega, etc. do we need to follow some procedure/method to
> change them? [Question 5]
> >
> > Besides, I did try with initial_mass=9.5d0, but the simulation stops at
> model 1120 due to unresolved hydro-Newton equation and finally it reached
> dt < min_timestep_limit=1d-20. There is no problem to set
> initial_mass=9.8d0. Perhaps, there are some settings directly related to
> the change of initial star mass. May I know the best way to overcome this
> problem? [Question 6]
> >
> >
> > If we would like to use the default EOS and opacity defined in Paxton et
> al MESA-steering paper [Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192 (2011) 3], do we set the
> EOS and opacity as what are defined in the default inlist of make_o_ne_wd
> as below? [Question 7]
> >
> > eos_file_prefix = 'mesa'
> > kappa_file_prefix = 'gs98'
> >
> > If this is not the correct way, may I know how to define the default EOS
> and opacity? [Question 8]
> >
> >
> > If I am not mistaken, the default reaction library of MESA-r10398 is
> JINA REACLIB, do we still need to include these few lines below in inlist
> file? [Question 9]
> > set_rates_preference = .true.
> > new_rates_preference = 2
> > set_rate_c12ag = 'jina reaclib'
> > set_rate_n14pg = 'jina reaclib'
> > set_rate_3a = 'jina reaclib'
> >
> >
> > May I know the best option for the below reactions associated with 12C?
> [Question 10]
> > Is there anyone would like to share her/his experience?
> >
> > ! + `'CF88_basic_1212'` : the single rate approximation from
> CF88.
> > ! + `'CF88_multi_1212'` : combines the rates for the n, p, and
> a channels.
> > ! c12(c12,n)mg23, c12(c12,p)na23, and c12(c12,a)ne20 and
> > ! uses neutron branching from dayras, switkowski, and woosley,
> 1976.
> > ! + `'G05'` : based on Gasques, et al. Phys Review C, 72,
> 025806 (2005)
> >
> > set_rate_1212 = ''
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your precious time...
> > Your responses are very appreciated...
> >
> >
> >
> > best regards,
> >
> > Yi Hua LAM
> > -- CaTCh EVEry SiNGle OppORtuNItY WhEN U r StILl alIVe --
> > ---- Success Belonged To Those Who's Willing To Strive For It ----
> > _______________________________________________
> > mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org
> > https://lists.mesastar.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-users
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.mesastar.org/pipermail/mesa-users/attachments/20180723/38d9e4b2/attachment.html>
More information about the Mesa-users
mailing list