Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add finer controls for timestepping in mesa #956

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 15, 2023
Merged

Conversation

rjfarmer
Copy link
Contributor

MESA has the concept of both a "redo" and a "retry". A redo re-computes the same step with the same dt, but lets you change the physics (say the mass transfer rate). While a retry re-computes a step with a different timestep. This is helpful when evolving multiple stars and you need to keep them in sync.

@rjfarmer rjfarmer requested a review from a team as a code owner May 12, 2023 11:10
@rjfarmer rjfarmer changed the title Add finer controls for timestepping Add finer controls for timestepping in mesa May 12, 2023
@rieder
Copy link
Member

rieder commented May 15, 2023

A potential minor issue with this:
if we evolve a (group of) star(s) with MESA in AMUSE and save snapshots in one file (with the timestamp saved), there could be multiple snapshots that share the same timestamp but that have different property values. I wonder if there could be a way to distinguish these.
Perhaps this is not an issue at all (snapshots/histories are ordered, so just take the last one), in any case not enough to block merging.

@rieder rieder merged commit a0f5ef2 into amusecode:main May 15, 2023
2 of 7 checks passed
@rjfarmer
Copy link
Contributor Author

Perhaps this is not an issue at all (snapshots/histories are ordered, so just take the last one),

This is how we handle the normal mesa output when there are retries, for all output with the same model_number take the last output.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants