[Mesa-users] Advice on wind prescriptions for very massive stars

[Daniel Pauli]

Dear Natalija and Jared,

I just saw this thread, and while I agree with Jared that (very) massive
star winds are a hot topic and still highly debated. I wanted to take the
initiative to answer your question about LBV winds/ mass eruptions. These
are not very well understood, and a detailed theoretical understanding has
still not been achieved. However, I would like to highlight here my recent
work on eruptive mass loss and an implementation in MESA in Pauli+2026 (
https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202557766). You can also find our source
files on Zenodo. I hope this helps a bit!

Happy modelling,
Daniel

On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 6:25 PM Jared Goldberg via Mesa-users <
mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org> wrote:

> Hi Natalija,
>
> "What winds should we use in Very Massive Stars" is indeed a hot area of
> debate. You correctly identify some limitations of many of the standard
> implementations that are pre-packaged in MESA. There is not one "preferred"
> method implemented in MESA. For example, the most modern is the "Bjorklund"
> option (see also Bjorklund+23
> <https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A%26A...676A.109B/abstract> and
> continued work by that group), but it does not contain a bi-stability jump
> that some contest exists and matters. As such, different groups have
> different preferred implementations for VMS winds, some of which can be
> found in the MESA Zenodo community
> <https://zenodo.org/communities/mesa/records>. Of course this choice
> impacts the predicted yields, evolution, and outcomes (see e.g. recent
> work <https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A%26A...699A..71H/abstract> by
> Erin Higgins+Armagh-and-friends, and a nice discussion in S2.6 of
> Keszthelyi+25
> <https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A%26A...700A.186K/abstract>). In
> general, the MESA manifesto requests that new routines and reproducibility
> packages be uploaded to Zenodo or otherwise made
> public/open-source/open-science, and in the absence of public availability
> through e.g. Zenodo, authors of relevant papers ought to be willing to
> share their preferred setups in private communication.
>
> Re your specific question about Eddington effects: in general, often (but
> not always), empirically-calibrated mass loss prescriptions implicitly or
> explicitly include some Eddington effects when they're calibrated in the
> luminous regime. So whether to use an additional super-eddington correction
> depends on the underlying mass loss model.
>
> Cheers,
> ~Jared
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 8:43 AM Natalija M via Mesa-users <
> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear MESA users,
>>
>> I am modeling the evolution of rotating very massive stars (100–500 Msun)
>> with MESA v26.4.1. The current models have been computed at solar
>> metallicity, with the goal of extending the study to other metallicities as
>> well, and I would appreciate some advice regarding the most appropriate
>> wind prescriptions.
>>
>> The models were initially computed using the standard Dutch wind scheme.
>> In these models, the Nugis & Lamers prescription becomes active already
>> during core hydrogen burning, so the stars enter a WR/WNh-like wind regime
>> while still on the main sequence. Since these stars evolve close to the
>> Eddington limit and the Dutch scheme was not specifically developed for
>> very massive stars in this regime, I would like to know whether another
>> treatment is recommended.
>>
>> I reviewed the available MESA options and recent literature. Grafener &
>> Hamann (2008) is intended for WR/WNh stars with optically thick winds,
>> while Bjorklund et al. (2022) provides a modern alternative to Vink et al.
>> (2001) for hot O-star winds. MESA also includes the optional
>> super_eddington_wind treatment, which introduces an additional
>> parametrized mass-loss contribution for super-Eddington models. However, I
>> am not sure whether this approach is commonly adopted for very massive star
>> evolution or whether it is mainly intended as a simplified treatment of
>> super-Eddington phases.
>>
>> I would like to ask which wind prescription, or combination of
>> prescriptions, available in MESA is considered appropriate for modeling
>> stars in this mass range, or whether implementing a dedicated VMS
>> prescription would be recommended. I would also appreciate any advice
>> regarding the treatment of the LBV phase in very massive stars. Is there a
>> preferred wind prescription or approach for this evolutionary phase?
>>
>> Any suggestions or references would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
>> very much for your time!
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Natalija Mladenović
>> Astronomical Observatory Belgrade
>> _______________________________________________
>> mesa-users at lists.mesastar.org
>> https://lists.mesastar.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260722/d6af9704/attachment.htm>