[Mesa-users] No mass loss secondary star binary with large nuclear network
Hannah Brinkman
brinkmanhe at gmail.com
Mon Sep 27 18:17:56 UTC 2021
Heey Rob,
Thanks for looking into this and explaining what is going on. But it is
very strange, because I always do ./clean and ./mk, when I start a new MESA
run in the directory where I run that particular model. And I did check
that the max_num_accretion_species was set to 300 when I was considering
solutions to this issue.
Because something is changed in the deeper MESA files, do you think it
would help if I reinstall the version? I recall that I had to do that at
some point, but I cannot exactly remember the reason.
Cheers,
Hannah
Op ma 27 sep. 2021 om 20:09 schreef Rob Farmer <robert.j.farmer37 at gmail.com
>:
> Hi
> So i can reproduce your problem. I found that the fix is to increase
> max_num_accretion_species to 300 but it only worked after doing a ./clean
> && ./mk in $MESA_DIR not just ./mk. I guess the build system isn't picking
> up the dependencies properly between files so the changes don't propagate
> properly.
>
> >But also, that number is only linked to the amount of accreted species
> and not to the mass loss of the secondary star.
>
> Two things, one there is wind accretion so we trigger the code even
> without rlof (See set_accretion_composition). Secondly, if the value isn't
> large enough we end up trying to set array elements beyond the edge of an
> array. Which is undefined and bad. The 63 isotope network gets lucky and
> never over writes anything important but the ~200 does enough damage to set
> the mdot to 0.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 15:03, Hannah Brinkman <brinkmanhe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Heey Rob,
>>
>> I've changed that number in all of the mesa versions I've used, and I did
>> check whether it was changed when I found this issue. But also, that number
>> is only linked to the amount of accreted species and not to the mass loss
>> of the secondary star. And, as it was initially set to 50, it should also
>> impact the 63 network, which is not the case here nor was it the case when
>> I encountered that particular issue the first time. Before I changed the
>> number, the mass-loss was fine, it was only when I wanted to try accretion
>> that this issue came up.
>>
>> And I do think the wind routine is getting called for star 2, because for
>> the 63 isotope network, the mass loss is working for both stars. I am only
>> changing the network size, nothing else in the inlists or wind-routine, and
>> suddenly the mass loss is no longer happening from my secondary star while
>> the primary stars are as good as identical. To me it seems the issue is
>> somewhere deeper in MESA, but I have no idea what is exactly going on. I
>> hope that we can solve this somehow.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hannah
>>
>> Op ma 27 sep. 2021 13:41 schreef Rob Farmer <robert.j.farmer37 at gmail.com
>> >:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Thanks, I wanted to see if the wind routine was getting called to rule
>>> out that somehow the wind routine isn't being called for star 2 (always
>>> start with the simple things to debug first).
>>>
>>> This reminded me of an old email exchange where you reported to Josiah
>>> problems with binaries and large networks. I notice there the solution was
>>> to increase the variable
>>> max_num_accretion_species to 300 but that discussion was for 11701. Have
>>> you tried that change with your 10398 version of mesa?
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 13:13, Hannah Brinkman <brinkmanhe at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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/f474d093/attachment.htm>
More information about the Mesa-users
mailing list