[Mesa-users] Binaries and wide orbital separation

[Amedeo Romagnolo]

Thanks, it was actually helpful.
Probably my initial setup was too "vanilla" to go beyond the giant phase.

I used the default "high-mass" and "black-hole" scenarios and it actually
went further.

My (hopefully) last question here is the related to the "black hole"
default setting:

In the final history.data file I get only the output from the
"inlist_to_cc" setting, which I believe is the one that leads to the final
collapse, while the whole part relative to pre-ZAMS and the whole main
sequence is lost because overwritten in history.data . How can I set things
up with the multiple inlists in a way that I'm not losing the whole history
and I can analyse the whole evolution from star_age = 0 yr?


Thanks,

Amedeo

On Mon, 2 Nov 2020, 16:03 Francis Timmes, <fxt44 at mac.com> wrote:

> i suggest running a single star model, the more massive one,
> to make sure that works before attempting a binary.
>
> fxt
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 2020, at 2:18 AM, Amedeo Romagnolo via Mesa-users <
> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Rob,
> >
> > I did as you recommended me, and apparently the code stops because the
> star is going into the giant phase.
> > I tried to keep my code pretty vanilla, but I am obviously missing
> something pretty important here that I cannot understand yet.
> >
> > Do you have any suggestion in this regard?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Amedeo
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 21:35, Rob Farmer <r.j.farmer at uva.nl> wrote:
> > Okay so it's not RLOF that's causing the issue, though the envelope is
> starting to expand.
> >
> > Next step, look at the core. Try making a kippenhan diagram. Look at
> what the surface is doing, so try a HR diagram.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 15:33, Amedeo Romagnolo <
> amedeoromagnolo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Rob, you are right, sorry for not showing plots.
> > I believe it happens during the red giant phase , but I don't get which
> kind of problems it might have encountered...
> > Here attached the inlists. I tried to keep them as simple as possible.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Amedeo
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 09:48, Rob Farmer <r.j.farmer at uva.nl> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > It's hard to say what is happening without seeing both your inlists and
> any plots you have made to show what is going on.
> >
> > When do you reach the min timestep limit? What is your star doing at
> this time? Is it at the very start of RLOF? Or is it because your star has
> encountered problems in the core? Or somewhere else? We can't tell unless
> you make some plots to explore what is going on.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 08:24, Amedeo Romagnolo via Mesa-users <
> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have a problem when simulating the evolution of a binary system.
> > My goal would be to make the more massive star to go into RLOF, which is
> easily doable when I'm not setting a wide orbital separation (like a period
> in the order of 10^5 yr). In this case, instead, whatever I do, it seems
> that the code stops because a too small timestep has been reached, and
> therefore the star's radius has no time to grow enough to go beyond its
> Roche Lobe radius.
> >
> > Do you have any recommendations in this regard?
> >
> > Additionally, just another small question: is there an output in MESA
> that shows at the end of the simulation the final total metallicity of the
> simulated star?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Amedeo
> >
> >       Virus-free. www.avast.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20201104/8cd6b009/attachment.htm>