[Mesa-users] Can not reproduce a result of MESA instrument paper

[Francis Timmes]

the c13_pocket test case gets run daily, and has numerous checks on the allowed changes
in the results as the underlying source code evolves. 1.1 vs 1.7 for delta_surface_c12 is 
within the range of allowed changes. said another way, this change is not worth worrying about.

as rob notes, many physics and numerical improvements have been made since mesa I.
that the current c13_pocket remains remains close to the values of table 11 of mesa I 
is (i think) a testament to the robustness of the overall results.

fxt




> On Aug 25, 2022, at 3:22 AM, Rob Farmer <robert.j.farmer37 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> MESA 1 was published in 2011 while version 15140 was released in december 2020. Given the 9 years of development between the two, almost all of the code will have been rewritten many times. It's not surprising that you can't reproduce the result. 
> 
> If you need to reproduce the MESA 1 results then I suggest using the version released for MESA 1.
> 
> Rob
> 
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 12:01, Liguo via Mesa-users <mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org> wrote:
> Hi Francis and all
> I am using mesa-r15140.I read "This test suite case shows a 2.0 |Msun|, :math:`Z = 0.01` thermally pulsing AGB star undergoing third dredge up.  It is are-implementation of the example shown in Section 7.2.1 of |MESA I|." in star/test_suit/c13_pocket/README.rst.
> So I change the stop condition in inlist_c13_pocket to let it evolve to the end of AGB phase.  I got the same results in figures mentioned in Section 7.2.1 of |MESA I|,except for surface c/o number ratio in figure 27.My final c/o number ratio is about 1.1,while it is about 1.7 in the paper.
> Do there different something in 15140 version result this difference metioned above?
> Any suggestions or help would be very appreciated!
> 
> sincerely!
> Guo Li
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org
> https://lists.mesastar.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-users
>