[Mesa-users] No mass loss secondary star binary with large nuclear network
Hannah Brinkman
brinkmanhe at gmail.com
Mon Sep 27 18:54:22 UTC 2021
Heey Rob,
No problem. Perhaps during a reset/upgrade of the server I am running MESA
on something went wrong. I will reinstall the code tomorrow. Hopefully all
will be solved then.
Thanks for helping me out!
Cheers,
Hannah
Op ma 27 sep. 2021 om 20:52 schreef Rob Farmer <robert.j.farmer37 at gmail.com
>:
> 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/20210927/45ad367f/attachment.htm>
More information about the Mesa-users
mailing list