English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

From the recent work of the Evolution and Seismic Tools Activity (ESTA,Lebreton et al. 2006; Monteiro et al. 2008), whose Task 2 is devoted to comparepulsational frequencies computed using most of the pulsational codes availablein the asteroseismic community, the dependence of the theoretical frequencieswith non-physical choices is now quite well fixed. To ensure that the accuracyof the computed frequencies is of the same order of magnitude or better thanthe observational errors, some requirements in the equilibrium models and thenumerical resolutions of the pulsational equations must be followed. Inparticular, we have verified the numerical accuracy obtained with the Saclayseismic model, which is used to study the solar g-mode region (60 to140$\mu$Hz). We have compared the results coming from the Aarhus adiabaticpulsation code (ADIPLS), with the frequencies computed with the Granada Code(GraCo) taking into account several possible choices. We have concluded thatthe present equilibrium models and the use of the Richardson extrapolationensure an accuracy of the order of $0.01 \mu Hz$ in the determination of thefrequencies, which is quite enough for our purposes.

Sensitivity of the g-mode frequencies to pulsation codes and their parameters