All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.3cm,clip]{1917fig1.eps} % \end{figure}$ Figure 1: The tracks in the HR diagram of three models with initial mass $5~M_{\odot}$ calculated with three different tretaments of convection. Full: FST models; dotted: MLT model with $\alpha =1.7$ ; dashed: MLT model with $\alpha =2.1$ .
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig2.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 2: The variation with time of the temperature at the base of the convective envelope ( top), luminosity due to helium burning ( middle), and core mass ( bottom) of a $5~M_{\odot}$ FST model during the AGB evolution. Time was counted from the beginning of the AGB evolution.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig3.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 3: The variation with time of luminosity ( top), mass loss rate ( middle) and total mass ( bottom) of the model presented in Fig. 2.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig4.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 4: Evolution with time of surface $^3{\rm He}$ ( top), lithium ( middle) and fraction of nuclear energy due to proton-proton reactions ( bottom) of the FST model presented in Fig. 2.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig5.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 5: Evolution with time of the surface chemical abundances of the CNO elements ( top) and of some neon, sodium and magnesium isotopes ( bottom) of the FST model presented in Fig. 2.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{1917fig6.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 6: The comparison of the temporal variation of the luminosity of three models with initial mass $M=5~M_{\odot}$ calculated with three different prescriptions for the treatment of the regions unstable to convection.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.3cm,clip]{1917fig7.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 7: The variation with time of the total mass of the models shown in Fig. 6.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.2cm,clip]{1917fig8.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 8: The variation with time of the total luminosity ( top) and of the maximum CNO nuclear energy release ( bottom) for the three models discussed in Fig. 6. Only the early evolution along the AGB is shown.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig9.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 9: The internal nuclear structure of the models presented in Fig. 6 at the maximum luminosity between the 3rd and 4th TPs. The abscissa gives the distance (in solar masses) from the centre of the star, and the ordinate shows the coefficient for nuclear energy release. The thin vertical lines indicate the location of the inner border of the convective envelope.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig10.eps}\hspace*{4mm} \includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig11.eps} } \par\end{figure}$ Figure 10: Internal distribution of radiative gradient ( left), and temperature ( right) for the same models shown in Fig. 9.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig12.eps}\hspace*{4mm} \includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig13.eps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 11: The variation of the abundances of some chemicals at the surface of the star as a function of the total mass (decreasing due to mass loss). Left: CNO abundances; Right: neon, sodium and magnesium abundances.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.1cm,clip]{1917fig14.eps} % \end{figure}$ Figure 12: The variation of the surface sodium abundance with mass within the three models precedently discussed, and a further FST model where sodium production is favoured chosing an appropriate nuclear network.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.3cm,clip]{1917fig1.eps} % \end{figure}$	Figure 1: The tracks in the HR diagram of three models with initial mass $5~M_{\odot}$ calculated with three different tretaments of convection. Full: FST models; dotted: MLT model with $\alpha =1.7$ ; dashed: MLT model with $\alpha =2.1$ .
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig2.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 2: The variation with time of the temperature at the base of the convective envelope ( top), luminosity due to helium burning ( middle), and core mass ( bottom) of a $5~M_{\odot}$ FST model during the AGB evolution. Time was counted from the beginning of the AGB evolution.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig3.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 3: The variation with time of luminosity ( top), mass loss rate ( middle) and total mass ( bottom) of the model presented in Fig. 2.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig4.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 4: Evolution with time of surface $^3{\rm He}$ ( top), lithium ( middle) and fraction of nuclear energy due to proton-proton reactions ( bottom) of the FST model presented in Fig. 2.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig5.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 5: Evolution with time of the surface chemical abundances of the CNO elements ( top) and of some neon, sodium and magnesium isotopes ( bottom) of the FST model presented in Fig. 2.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{1917fig6.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 6: The comparison of the temporal variation of the luminosity of three models with initial mass $M=5~M_{\odot}$ calculated with three different prescriptions for the treatment of the regions unstable to convection.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.3cm,clip]{1917fig7.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 7: The variation with time of the total mass of the models shown in Fig. 6.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.2cm,clip]{1917fig8.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 8: The variation with time of the total luminosity ( top) and of the maximum CNO nuclear energy release ( bottom) for the three models discussed in Fig. 6. Only the early evolution along the AGB is shown.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig9.eps}\end{figure}$	Figure 9: The internal nuclear structure of the models presented in Fig. 6 at the maximum luminosity between the 3rd and 4th TPs. The abscissa gives the distance (in solar masses) from the centre of the star, and the ordinate shows the coefficient for nuclear energy release. The thin vertical lines indicate the location of the inner border of the convective envelope.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig10.eps}\hspace*{4mm} \includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig11.eps} } \par\end{figure}$	Figure 10: Internal distribution of radiative gradient ( left), and temperature ( right) for the same models shown in Fig. 9.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig12.eps}\hspace*{4mm} \includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{1917fig13.eps} } \end{figure}$	Figure 11: The variation of the abundances of some chemicals at the surface of the star as a function of the total mass (decreasing due to mass loss). Left: CNO abundances; Right: neon, sodium and magnesium abundances.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.1cm,clip]{1917fig14.eps} % \end{figure}$	Figure 12: The variation of the surface sodium abundance with mass within the three models precedently discussed, and a further FST model where sodium production is favoured chosing an appropriate nuclear network.
Open with DEXTER