[Mesa-users] Models failing to reach core collapse

[Dan Patnaude]

Hi Frank-

The dropbox link is in the 2nd column of the marketplace table:

Rob Farmer "On Variations Of Pre-Supernova Model Properties". Model files,
inlists, run_star_extras, and nuclear networks at here
<https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yclyf0fv7az8eya/AAAUeaqJYLeBYb0-CXeZ82Kza?dl=0>.
Read <http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..227...22F> 7624 Get
<http://cococubed.asu.edu/mesa_market/ewExternalFiles/Variations_rf.zip>


maybe Rob provided them?

-Dan


On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 7:18 PM Francis Timmes <fxt44 at mac.com> wrote:

> where is the dropbox link coming from?
>
> fxt
>
>
>
> On Jan 27, 2019, at 4:59 PM, Dan Patnaude via Mesa-users <
> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob-
>
> Thanks for pointing this out. There are two things to point out here, one
> related to the mesa marketplace, and another related to the inlists.
>
> 1: On the mesa marketplace (
> http://cococubed.asu.edu/mesa_market/inlists.html), the inlists from your
> paper linked here (
> http://cococubed.asu.edu/mesa_market/ewExternalFiles/Variations_rf.zip ,
> under the "Get" URL) vs those linked through the
> dropbox
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yclyf0fv7az8eya/AAAUeaqJYLeBYb0-CXeZ82Kza?dl=0 are
> not the same. The dropbox files are consistent with what are in your paper
> and what  you suggest. The "marketplace" inlists don't mention overshoot
> and don't set the Ledoux criteria to true. This probably needs to be fixed
> by the MESA folks.
>
> 2: Even with using the appropriate inlists, Taylor and I are still unable
> to get the 15M core to collapse. I don't think this is related to "islands
> of explodability," as these are the exact same inlists I used in my 2017
> paper, version 7624, where I was able to get a core to collapse just fine.
>
> So I guess the 1st question is, have you been able to reproduce some of
> your results using the latest stable release of MESA? Perhaps if you have
> the time, you can work with us to iron out the issues.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 4:44 AM Rob Farmer <r.j.farmer at uva.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I see you've removed overshoot from your models. I find that having even
>> a little bit of overshoot usually helps mesa evolve a model more
>> efficiently, as it smooths the composition boundaries. Also you've removed
>> the use_Ledoux_criterion=.true. so your using the default
>> use_Ledoux_criterion=.false. which means schwarzschild convection
>> boundaries. Again i've found ledoux to make the evolution easier (but this
>> depends on what physics you want to test, if you want to change it)
>>
>> The other thing to do is work out what is happening inside the star that
>> is causing problems. Kippenhan/abundance profile/mixing profile plots can
>> help here to see how the burning/mixing is behaving and if it seems to get
>> stuck somewhere particular (core burning? shell burning? which fuel?) which
>> can help refine what you need to change to get the model working.
>>
>> I'd also look at what is limiting the timetsep. This is given by the
>> string in the last entry of the terminal output for a step (called
>> dt_limit). That limit can then be compared to the names here
>> http://mesa.sourceforge.net/controls_defaults.html#timestep_controls and
>> that will give you the timestep control that is currently limiting your
>> evolution.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 05:42, Jamie Tayar <jtayar at hawaii.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Taylor,
>>> This isn't really my area of expertise, so I'll let someone else comment
>>> on the details of your models, but 15 solar masses is right around where
>>> the 'islands of explodability' start to show up (e.g. Figure 5 of
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.05956 or Figure 8 of
>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.03243.pdf), and some fraction of models
>>> never reach the sort of compactness that indicates a successful collapse,
>>> so there's a possibility that what you're seeing is physics and not
>>> numerics.
>>> Apologies if you've already thought of that,
>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 6:25 PM Taylor Jacovich via Mesa-users <
>>> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> Have run into an issue with the current version of MESA where stars
>>>> with a specific mass will never reach core-collapse (fe_core_infall >
>>>> 10**3km/s stopping condition).  A full description of the issue and all the
>>>> model data can be found here:
>>>> https://gitlab.com/wind-loss-testing/readme .
>>>>
>>>> The reader’s digest version is that stars with a certain mass (eg.
>>>> 15.0Msun) will get stuck at a sub-Chandrasekhar mass iron core and happily
>>>> coast for weeks at a time.  Meanwhile masses directly around the ones that
>>>> fail to collapse (eg. 14.9Msun and 15.1Msun) will collapse without fail.
>>>> We are using Farmer’s inlists that were designed to help with
>>>> explodability, and the only parameter we change between runs is the mass.
>>>> Any suggestions on new parameters to try or other options that may
>>>> relieve the issue are much appreciated. Inlists are attached below, or you
>>>> can clone from this directory
>>>> https://gitlab.com/wind-loss-testing/windloss-template to have an
>>>> identical experience.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Taylor Jacovich
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org
>>> https://lists.mesastar.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-users
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org
>> https://lists.mesastar.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190127/83cf25e3/attachment.html>