[Mesa-users] Can not reproduce a result of MESA instrument paper
liguo070923 at 163.com
Wed Sep 28 02:12:53 UTC 2022
I think I can see why c/o number ratio is low in mesa-r15140.The H-free core boundary in Figure 24 of mesa I can reflect efficiency of the third dredge-up.I found the dredged up mass during the TDUs in r15140 is less than Figure 24 of mesa I.When I run c13_pocket in r22.05.1,the dredged up mass is more small,and the c/o number ratio is more low.
What make the efficiency of the third dredge-up become more low with update version of mesa? Or how to increase the efficiency of the third dredge-up?
At 2022-08-26 00:02:58, "Francis Timmes" <fxt44 at mac.com> wrote:
>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.
>> 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.
>> 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!
>> Guo Li
>> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mesa-users