[Mesa-users] No mass loss secondary star binary with large nuclear network
Rob Farmer
robert.j.farmer37 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 27 18:51:59 UTC 2021
Hi
Sorry that is what i meant, you need to do a full reinstall of mesa after
changing max_num_accretion_species.
Rob
On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 20:18, Hannah Brinkman <brinkmanhe at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/20210927/39c4b360/attachment.htm>
More information about the Mesa-users
mailing list