[Mesa-users] No mass loss secondary star binary with large nuclear network
Hannah Brinkman
brinkmanhe at gmail.com
Mon Sep 27 11:13:21 UTC 2021
Heey Rob,
I would expect both stars to have a non-rlof mass loss rate of about
10^-(6-4) (when running a 40 and a 38Msun star). I am not evolving the
system far enough to get rlof from the secondary star (it is working fine
for the primary star), so I don't know whether that is working, but the
normal wind-loss from the secondary does not work for the large networks.
Because it does work with the smaller network, I am not sure the wind
prescription is the problem here. Also, the secondary is unable to accrete
mass even when I change the beta-parameter to something that should produce
accretion.
When I check the terminal output (see below), the primary star generally
has a mass-loss rate around the expected rate, 10^-4.88 in this case, but
the secondary gives a mass loss rate of 10^-99, which is pretty weird, for
the large 209-network, but both stars have a mass-loss rate of about 10^-6
for both stars when the smaller 63-network is used.
Also, I forgot to add in my earlier email, I am using mesa version 10398.
I hope this answers your question.
Cheers,
Hannah
step lg_Tcntr Teff lg_LH lg_Lnuc Mass
H_rich H_cntr N_cntr Y_surf X_avg eta_cntr zones retry
lg_dt_yr lg_Dcntr lg_R lg_L3a lg_Lneu lg_Mdot
He_core He_cntr O_cntr Z_surf Y_avg gam_cntr iters bckup
age_yr lg_Pcntr lg_L lg_LZ lg_Psurf lg_Dsurf
C_core C_cntr Ne_cntr Si_cntr Z_avg v_div_cs dt_limit
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
320 7.917905 2.493E+04 4.470532 4.470650 33.313714
18.262532 0.000001 0.008622 0.280000 0.270384 -6.194855 1127
0
0.811019 1.402673 1.560609 -9.326081 3.308120 *-4.885319*
15.051182 0.986340 0.000044 0.014000 0.715866 0.020675 3
0
4.6988E+06 17.395131 5.661272 0.904684 3.186307 -9.755941
0.000000 0.000133 0.001131 0.000640 1.375E-02 0.399E-03 max
increase
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
step lg_Tcntr Teff lg_LH lg_Lnuc Mass
H_rich H_cntr N_cntr Y_surf X_avg eta_cntr zones retry
lg_dt_yr lg_Dcntr lg_R lg_L3a lg_Lneu lg_Mdot
He_core He_cntr O_cntr Z_surf Y_avg gam_cntr iters bckup
age_yr lg_Pcntr lg_L lg_LZ lg_Psurf lg_Dsurf
C_core C_cntr Ne_cntr Si_cntr Z_avg v_div_cs dt_limit
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2 320 7.689454 2.888E+04 5.586301 5.586319 35.974185
35.974185 0.056064 0.008693 0.280000 0.360420 -6.952929 972
0
0.811019 0.702614 1.394861 -19.765704 4.418987 *-99.000000*
0.000000 0.930268 0.000052 0.014000 0.625772 0.017552 8
0
4.6988E+06 16.494141 5.585612 1.201553 3.456575 -9.525587
0.000000 0.000082 0.001141 0.000640 1.381E-02 0.120E-07 max
increase
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
binary_step M1+M2 separ Porb e M2/M1
pm_i donor_i dot_Mmt eff Jorb dot_J dot_Jmb
lg_dt M1 R1 P1 dot_e vorb1
RL1 Rl_gap1 dot_M1 dot_Medd spin1 dot_Jgr dot_Jls
age_yr M2 R2 P2 Eorb vorb2
RL2 Rl_gap2 dot_M2 L_acc spin2 dot_Jml rlo_iters
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
bin 320 69.287899 1.229E+02 18.975597 0.000E+00 1.079861
0 1 -2.052E-28 0.000E+00 9.652E+54 -6.208E+40 0.000E+00
0.811019 33.313714 36.358769 0.000000 0.000E+00 170.243504
45.766631 -2.056E-01 -1.302E-05 1.000E+99 0.000E+00 -9.251E+34 0.000E+00
4.6988E+06 35.974185 24.823359 0.000000 -1.850E+49 157.653147
47.401811 -4.763E-01 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 -6.208E+40 1
Op ma 27 sep. 2021 om 13:01 schreef Rob Farmer <robert.j.farmer37 at gmail.com
>:
> Hi Hannah,
>
> Thanks for the inlists, just checking but what mass loss are you expecting
> to occur (and which isn't occurring) winds or rlof (or both)?
>
> If its the wind mass loss that is missing, then I see you have a
> other_wind routine, so if you add:
>
> write(*,*) id, w
>
> to your other wind routine, do you get output for both id=1 and id=2 (one
> for each star?)
>
> Rob
>
> On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 10:50, Hannah Brinkman via Mesa-users <
> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear mesa-users,
>>
>> During one of my recent runs with a binary star in MESA, I noticed that
>> my secondary star was not losing any mass. The star is fully evolved and
>> behaves normally as far as I can see for a star of constant mass. However,
>> when I use the same inlists and run_star_extras.f file with a smaller
>> nuclear network (63 isotopes instead of 209), the star is losing mass, as
>> it should. I did another test with a network of 125 isotopes, and the
>> secondary is not losing mass for this network either.
>>
>> When I use the inlists for a single star, the star is behaving normally,
>> and also the primary star of the binary star is behaving normally. Can
>> someone explain to me what is going on with my secondary star? I've
>> attached the inlists, run_star_extras.f and the 209 isotope network.
>>
>> With kind regards,
>> Hannah
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20210927/e0e63329/attachment.htm>
More information about the Mesa-users
mailing list