[Mesa-users] Using make_o_ne_wd to prepare some white dwarf models

[RICHARD H D TOWNSEND]

> On Jul 24, 2018, at 10:19 PM, LAM Yi Hua via Mesa-users <mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Josiah,
> 
> 
> >> 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.]
> 
> >I don't understand how to interpret MESA SDK "revision 245".  But so
> >long as MESA compiles, using an older MESA SDK should not be a problem.
> >Results shouldn't vary between different SDKs. 
> 
> I meant MESA Software Development Kit (SDK) $Revision: 245 $
> The revision number is written in /../../mesasdk/README
> 

That's not the version. To print the version, run the command 'mesasdk_version.sh'

cheers,

Rich

> 
> 
> >Most of the test suite cases have checks like
> 
>  >    ! check for retries and backups as part of test_suite
>  >        max_number_backups = 8
>  >        max_number_retries = 30
>  >        max_model_number = 700
> 
> >which helps the developers notice if MESA suddenly starts struggling
> >with a model that it use to evolve easily. 
> 
> Thanks for your reply!
> I found that defining max_model_number can also help me to stop the simulation at a specified model (cycle) number.
> 
> 
> 
> >Those temperatures sound like they're around the opacity blends between
> >low and high T opacities.  Several opacity defaults changed between
> >r8118 and r10398, so I don't think those differences are to worrying.
> 
> >If that part of the evolution is of interest to you, you may be able to
> >tune some opacity settings to eliminate it. 
> 
> Thanks for your suggestion.
> If it is a kind of norm and not-worrying factor due to the change of MESA revision and blending of opacity, I will leave the fine-tune of opacity for future investigation.
> 
> 
> 
> p/s: Thanks for writing my first name correctly... :)
> 
> 
> 
> 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 Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 2:58 AM Josiah Schwab <jwschwab at ucsc.edu> wrote:
> Hi Yi Hua,
> 
> Let me add a few quick things for some of your questions.
> 
> > 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.]
> 
> I don't understand how to interpret MESA SDK "revision 245".  But so
> long as MESA compiles, using an older MESA SDK should not be a problem.
> Results shouldn't vary between different SDKs.
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Most of the test suite cases have checks like
> 
>      ! check for retries and backups as part of test_suite
>          max_number_backups = 8
>          max_number_retries = 30
>          max_model_number = 700
> 
> which helps the developers notice if MESA suddenly starts struggling
> with a model that it use to evolve easily.
> 
> Once you start adapting the inlists to your own problem, you can
> probably delete these lines.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> The PDF documentation of MESA is quite old at this point, so I would not
> worry about exactly reproducing it.  (We still include it since it
> describes why many of the tests exist.)  For tests like this one which
> are demonstration of a MESA capability, some difference are not worrying.
> 
> 
> > 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]
> 
> Those temperatures sound like they're around the opacity blends between
> low and high T opacities.  Several opacity defaults changed between
> r8118 and r10398, so I don't think those differences are to worrying.
> 
> If that part of the evolution is of interest to you, you may be able to
> tune some opacity settings to eliminate it.
> 
> 
> Hope that helps a bit,
> Josiah
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org
> https://lists.mesastar.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-users
>