Thanks to http://johbuc6.coconia.net/mediawiki2dokuwiki.php for conversion

======  Wed 27/10  ======

Nicky: grid based: ~200 grids of ? models

Stable MT:
  * when stable?
    * Joke: if q<q_crit - monitor q and contact during MT
    * Ashley: For mass transfer -- MT rate depends on binary parameters; system loses 50% for non-degenerate accretors, Eddington-limited for deg.don.   


AM
    * Nicki: L2
    * Ashley: lost with specific ang. mom. of accretor (also stellar winds; Hurley or Vink)
    * Joke: from accretor
<math>frac{dot{J}_mathrm{orb}}{J_mathrm{orb}} = eta frac{dot{M}_mathrm{d}}{M_mathrm{bin}}</math>
  * A: <math>eta = frac{M_mathrm{d}}{M_mathrm{a}}</math>
  * J: <math>eta = frac{M_mathrm{a}}{M_mathrm{d}}</math>
  * N: η = 1.5
  * S: η = 2.5


CE:
  * no accretion
  * Merger?
    * S: 5x R_wd (from WD model)
    * N: R_{mass coordinate, remnant}

Can a HMXB with RLOF and q~20 have stable MT?
  * maybe: strong wind, beta=0?


Bondi-Hoyle accretion:
  * A: only for BH/NS binaries
  * J: always on, can have a big (and stabilising) effect on AGB
  * S: no


===== Comparison of the six binary runs =====

  * α, λ = 1

1: 30 days:
  * only run that starts with stable mass transfer
  * this run shows the largest range of differences:
    * most of them go back to the assumption for β and the related AM loss:
      * Ashley and Nicki assume β=0.5, Joke and Silvia have a variable β
      * Nicki loses mass through L2, which makes his orbit shrink dramatically in the first MT phase
      * Ashley loses mass with the AM of the accretor
    * Joke alone has wind accretion
    * Nicki's final masses are somewhat lower than those of the others


S: stable MT, C: CE

{| border="1"
!
! Ashley 
! Joke 
! Nicki 
! Silvia
|-
! 1: 30 d
| S1, C2, merger
| SC1, S1, C2, merger
| S1, C2, merger
| S1, C2, WDWD merger
|-
! 2: 150d
| C1, merger
| C1, C2, merger
| C1, C2, merger
| C1, S2, merger
|-
! 3: 500d
| C1, merger
| C1, SC2, merger
| C1, C2, merger
| C1, S1, S2, merger
|-
! 4: 1700d
| C1, C2, merger
| C1, SC2, SC2, merger
| C1, C2, merger
| C1, S2, merger
|-
! 5: 2000d
| C1, C2, S2, sub-Ch SN
| C1, SC2, S2, merger
| C1, C2, merger
| C1, S2, merger
|-
! 6: 10000d, a=3985
| M12=0.995+0.808; a=50,547Ro, t=310 Myr
| M12=1.056+0.908; a=10,168Ro, t=230 Myr
| M12=0.94+0.75; a=20,024Ro, t=160 Myr
| M12=0.990+0.802; a=18,390Ro, t=309 Myr
|}


Homework:
  * Check treatment of:
    * overshooting
    * mixing length
    * core definition
    * computation of τ<sub>th</sub>, τ<sub>nuc</sub>
    * wind mass loss
    * mixing during accretion

  * Compute:
    * M<sub>i</sub>-M<sub>f</sub> relation
    * single-star evolution:
      * 1.5, 5.0, 7.5 Mo
      * get R, Mc, t, M, evolutionary phase

======  Thu 28/10  ======

Final goals:
  * paper showing:
    * all codes give the same answer when making the same assumptions
    * explain differences due to different stellar-evolution tracks
      * e.g. use masses where Mf-Mi is agreed upon
    * list/explain what different assumptions cause the differences

  * single star
  * conservation of MT, AM
  * stability of MT; where stable/CE

  * populations:

  * conservative MT or CE
  * α λ = 1
  * no MB, tides, wind accretion, eccentricity...
  * IMF: Kroupa (Kroupa Tout & Gilmore 1993): 
  * q: uniform: 0.1Mo/M1 - 1.0
  * a: uniform: uniform in log a, 5-10^4 Ro
  * whole population, after the formation of WD1 and WD2
  * (initially scatter?)/grey scale plots


Same, but non-conservative with β=0.5, η=1.0

======  Fri 29/10  ======