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

[Natalija M]

Dear all,

Thank you very much for your replies and for the many suggestions and
references! I really appreciate you taking the time to respond and point me
toward so many useful resources. I am sure that these will be very helpful
as I continue working on these models.

Best regards,

Natalija

On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 7:03 PM Daniel Pauli <danielpauli1997 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20260723/0a3e0b3e/attachment.htm>