Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- info:objective [2019/01/30 00:49] – jcsuarez
+++ info:objective [2022/12/22 14:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+======= Objective of the WP =======
+The objectives of this WP are:
+  - To find out how to get accurate matches between observed and theoretical frequencies computed for the PLATO pipelines
+  - To find the right oscillation code for the theoretical frequencies computation
+  - Provide a version of the code to be used in the pipeline
+^Current frequency precision (2019)|
+|:!: 0.1 μHz (around υ_max)|
+===== ESTA/CoRoT (2008) Precision results =====
+Summary of the oscillation frequency comparison results **[[[data:bibliography|biblio [1]]]** using the codes: ADIPLS, FILOU, NOSC, LOSC, GRACO, OSCROX, PULSE, POSC and LNAWENR.
+^Conclusions ^ Comment |
+|1          | 4K yields 0.02μHz precision, 2K yields 0.5 μHz precision (in average).   |
+|2          | 2K does not properly distribute mesh points in the boundaries of the BV, 4K has no those problems |
+|3          | O(2)+Richardson Extrapolation indistinguishable from O(4) neither for 4K nor for 2K|
+|4          | r or r/P as integration variable may introduce errors if G is not consistent|
+|5          | Eulerian P / Lagrangian P as eigenfunction (modifies BV frequency, euP). May have an impact if thermodynamical quantities are not internally consistent (e.g. OPAL tables) |
+|6          | 2K not adequate for large/small separations. 4K yields frequency differences below obs precision|
+|7          | Proper sampled BV is key to avoid numerical bias. 4K partially overcome the problem|
+|8          | G constant inconsistencies affect the frequencies comparison (up to 0.3-0.4 μHz !). Should be taken from the model|