deletions | additions       diff --git a/subsection_Stellar_evolution_and_tidal__.tex b/subsection_Stellar_evolution_and_tidal__.tex  index 2f2fe8d..650a4e9 100644  --- a/subsection_Stellar_evolution_and_tidal__.tex  +++ b/subsection_Stellar_evolution_and_tidal__.tex 
...
\begin{itemize}  \item Mass loss: Adding a prescription for moderate red-giant-branch mass loss ($\eta = 0.4$, see \citealt{mig12}) to the MESA model does not appreciably change stellar radius as a function of evolutionary stage. Even a more extreme mass-loss rate ($\eta = 0.7$) does not significantly affect the radii, essentially because the star is too low-mass to lose much mass.  \item He abundance: Increasing the initial He fraction in the MESA model does not allow for smaller stars in the red clump phase, because shell-H burning is very efficient with additional He present. As a result, the star maintains a high luminosity and therefore a larger radius as it evolves from the tip of the red giant branch to the red clump.  \item Convective overshoot: The MESA models in this work assume a reasonable overshoot efficiency as described above. If we increase this drastically to VALUE HERE, \textbf{VALUE HERE},  it is possible to achieve $R \simeq 8 R_\odot$, but this is unphysical. \item Mixing length: Increasing the mixing-length parameter $\alpha$ from the standard solar value of 2 to 3 in the MESA model, which effectively increases the efficiency of convection, does produce a red clump star small enough to agree with both measured radii. This is because it reduces the temperature gradient in the near-surface layers, increasing the effective temperature while reducing the radius at constant luminosity.   %Given that low-amplitude solar-like oscillations are indicative of physically different conditions in the upper convection zone (presumably due to magnetic activity), this is not unreasonable, but it is not particularly well-motivated.  %If these physical differences are significant enough, stellar evolution may proceed differently than we expect, and it may be possible to create red clump stars with smaller radii.  \item Period spacing: The noisy period spacing estimate ($\Delta \Pi \simeq 150 \ \rm{sec}$) may not be measuring what we expect due to possible rotational splitting of mixed oscillation modes. If the true period spacing is closer to $\Delta \Pi \simeq 80 \ \rm{sec}$, this would explain the disagreement. A detailed discussion of rotational splitting behavior in slowly rotating red giants is explored in \citet{gou13}.  \end{itemize}