[Mesa-users] metallicity in binary systems, delta Sct pulsations
Conny Aerts
conny.aerts at kuleuven.be
Fri Jan 4 03:25:51 EST 2019
Dear Margaret,
if you want to know how boundary conditions, mixing length values, opacities, atomic diffusion, etc. affect oscillation modes of intermediate-mass and high-mass stars, see the Mesa Marketplace or https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.06869 and compare this with your assumed 0.003 per day frequency uncertainty...
And don’t forget that one should not rely on the assumption of equipartition of mode energy for delta Sct pulsations (and hence cannot use the amplitude of split components to derive the inclination angle for coherent modes as in delta Sct stars - this assumption only works for solar-like oscillations that are stochastically driven by convection).
Cheers,
Conny
> On 4 Jan 2019, at 02:14, mesa-users-request at lists.mesastar.org wrote:
>
> Send Mesa-users mailing list submissions to
> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.mesastar.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> mesa-users-request at lists.mesastar.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> mesa-users-owner at lists.mesastar.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Mesa-users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: metallicity in binary systems (Margaret Streamer)
> 2. Re: metallicity in binary systems (Aaron Dotter)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 00:28:30 +0000
> From: Margaret Streamer <Margaret.Streamer at anu.edu.au>
> To: Aaron Dotter <aaron.dotter at gmail.com>
> Cc: "mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org" <mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org>
> Subject: Re: [Mesa-users] metallicity in binary systems
> Message-ID:
> <SYCPR01MB46074BD507C3917879CB4862DE8E0 at SYCPR01MB4607.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Aaron,
> Many thanks for the reply and you are correct that I was simply using the default simple_photosphere, and also the default mixing_length_alpha. I?ve now read the paper you suggested and it seems I need to investigate my models further.
> Firstly though, to summarise what I found for TT Hor:
> My binary initial conditions are donor ~ 1.6Msun; accretor ~ 1.3Msun
> Final conditions are donor ~ 0.7Msun; accretor ~2.2Msun
> The final temperature of the donor (now a red giant) from MESA models fits within uncertainties of 50K for my binary model. It?s the temperature of the accretor that is the problem(now a delta Sct pulsator). The difference is ~800K higher with solar metallicity, compared to my binary model. This is far greater than the effects you are seeing with red giant stars. My primary interest is with the delta Sct pulsator. Thus far I have not changed my input conditions as the stars evolve.
>
> Given the above, I am trying to decide which boundary conditions to use. As a start, I think I should be using model atmosphere tables with solar metallicity and use tau=1e-1, and decrease ML alpha from the default. Does this seem a realistic starting point to you?
>
> Many thanks for your advice,
> Cheers,
> Margaret
>
>
> From: Aaron Dotter [mailto:aaron.dotter at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 2:29 AM
> To: Margaret Streamer
> Cc: mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org
> Subject: Re: [Mesa-users] metallicity in binary systems
>
> Hi Margaret,
>
> From your inlist, it looks like you?re not explicitly setting ?which_atm_option? in the controls section. Thus, you get the default simple_photosphere, which is not a good choice for low mass stars.
>
> The atmosphere boundary condition and your choice of the mixing_length_alpha have a significant influence on the Teff of your models. For a thorough discussion of this topic (using MESA) see
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04112
>
> Cheers,
> Aaron
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:40 AM Margaret Streamer via Mesa-users <mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org<mailto:mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org>> wrote:
> Hi MESA team,
>
>
> I recently had a paper published (Streamer, M., Ireland, M.J., Murphy, S.J., Bento, J., 2018. A window into ? Sct stellar interiors: understanding the eclipsing binary system TT Hor. Mon Not R Astron Soc 480, 1372-1383. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1881) but I now have a more general query about the way MESA deals with binary systems.
>
> Inlists are attached.
>
> For TT Hor, I needed to change from solar metallicity to one higher (Z=0.0281, [M/H] =0.15) before I could match the temperature of the accretor in the evolutionary models to that of my binary model. This difference was more than uncertainties of my binary model.
>
> I am now working on a different system which has similar masses, is also an Algol-type and has conservative mass transfer. I'm still using MESA version r-8845.
>
> Again I am finding that I need to increase the metallicity before I can match the temperature of my evolutionary models to the binary model.
>
> Both systems lie slightly above the galactic plane at 786pc (TT Hor) and 1190pc (current target), so a higher than solar metallicity is feasible.
>
> As the metallicity also affects the calculated pulsations, I need to be sure that this is a 'real' effect and not something I am doing wrong in my MESA modelling.
>
>
>
> Are any of the MESA team able to offer any advice or assurances in this matter?
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your time,
>
> Regards,
>
> Margaret
>
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org<mailto: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/20190104/8d51282d/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 20:14:08 -0500
> From: Aaron Dotter <aaron.dotter at gmail.com>
> To: Margaret Streamer <Margaret.Streamer at anu.edu.au>
> Cc: "mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org" <mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org>
> Subject: Re: [Mesa-users] metallicity in binary systems
> Message-ID:
> <CAN5--jPzNnmGsNvFf1_GZ774VREweu+LPhrfa6f=PNRnYvbzTw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Taking this discussion off list for the time being.
>
> Aaron
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 7:28 PM Margaret Streamer <
> Margaret.Streamer at anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> Hi Aaron,
>>
>> Many thanks for the reply and you are correct that I was simply using the
>> default simple_photosphere, and also the default mixing_length_alpha. I?ve
>> now read the paper you suggested and it seems I need to investigate my
>> models further.
>>
>> Firstly though, to summarise what I found for TT Hor:
>>
>> My binary initial conditions are donor ~ 1.6Msun; accretor ~ 1.3Msun
>>
>> Final conditions are donor ~ 0.7Msun; accretor ~2.2Msun
>>
>> The final temperature of the donor (now a red giant) from MESA models fits
>> within uncertainties of 50K for my binary model. It?s the temperature of
>> the accretor that is the problem(now a delta Sct pulsator). The difference
>> is ~800K higher with solar metallicity, compared to my binary model. This
>> is far greater than the effects you are seeing with red giant stars. My
>> primary interest is with the delta Sct pulsator. Thus far I have not
>> changed my input conditions as the stars evolve.
>>
>>
>>
>> Given the above, I am trying to decide which boundary conditions to use.
>> As a start, I think I should be using model atmosphere tables with solar
>> metallicity and use tau=1e-1, and decrease ML alpha from the default.
>> Does this seem a realistic starting point to you?
>>
>>
>>
>> Many thanks for your advice,
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Margaret
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Aaron Dotter [mailto:aaron.dotter at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 3, 2019 2:29 AM
>> *To:* Margaret Streamer
>> *Cc:* mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Mesa-users] metallicity in binary systems
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Margaret,
>>
>>
>>
>> From your inlist, it looks like you?re not explicitly setting
>> ?which_atm_option? in the controls section. Thus, you get the default
>> simple_photosphere, which is not a good choice for low mass stars.
>>
>>
>>
>> The atmosphere boundary condition and your choice of the
>> mixing_length_alpha have a significant influence on the Teff of your
>> models. For a thorough discussion of this topic (using MESA) see
>>
>>
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04112
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:40 AM Margaret Streamer via Mesa-users <
>> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi MESA team,
>>
>>
>>
>> I recently had a paper published (Streamer, M., Ireland, M.J., Murphy,
>> S.J., Bento, J., 2018. A window into ? Sct stellar interiors: understanding
>> the eclipsing binary system TT Hor. Mon Not R Astron Soc 480, 1372-1383.
>> https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1881) but I now have a more general
>> query about the way MESA deals with binary systems.
>>
>> Inlists are attached.
>>
>> For TT Hor, I needed to change from solar metallicity to one higher
>> (Z=0.0281, [M/H] =0.15) before I could match the temperature of the
>> accretor in the evolutionary models to that of my binary model. This
>> difference was more than uncertainties of my binary model.
>>
>> I am now working on a different system which has similar masses, is also
>> an Algol-type and has conservative mass transfer. I'm still using MESA
>> version r-8845.
>>
>> Again I am finding that I need to increase the metallicity before I can
>> match the temperature of my evolutionary models to the binary model.
>>
>> Both systems lie slightly above the galactic plane at 786pc (TT Hor) and
>> 1190pc (current target), so a higher than solar metallicity is feasible.
>>
>> As the metallicity also affects the calculated pulsations, I need to be
>> sure that this is a 'real' effect and not something I am doing wrong in my
>> MESA modelling.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are any of the MESA team able to offer any advice or assurances in this
>> matter?
>>
>>
>>
>> Many thanks for your time,
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Margaret
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190103/6ec20027/attachment.html>
>
> End of Mesa-users Digest, Vol 18, Issue 6
> *****************************************
More information about the Mesa-users
mailing list