All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip]{7256Fig1.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: Evolution of the HFC (mass and radius) during the TP-AGB (solid lines, filled circles) and at the VLTP (dashed lines, empty circles) for selected sequences (values are taken just before each thermal pulse). Also the locus of the standard models at the moment just before the VLTP is shown for comparison. Note that, due to the turn off of the H-burning shell, compression before the VLTP does not follow the trend in the AGB. (Color figure only available in the electronic version.)
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.4cm,clip]{7256Fig2.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: Same as Fig. 1 but for the HeFC. Note that the location of the HeFC on this diagram seems to converge, after not many thermal pulses, to a certain locus. (Color figure only available in the electronic version.)
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{7256Fig3.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 3: PG 1159 tracks of this work as compared with those of MA06. Thin solid lines correspond to the standard (f=0.016 at all convective borders) tracks of MA06 with stellar masses of (from right to left) 0.512, 0.53, 0.542, 0.565, 0.585, 0.609, 0.664 $M_{\odot }$ .
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{7256Fig4.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 4: HFC evolution during the TP-AGB for three sequences with different f values at the PDCZ (masses in $M_{\odot }$ ).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.4cm,clip]{7256Fig5.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 5: Value of the opacity for different adopted compositions.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{7256Fig6.eps} \par\end{figure}$ Figure 6: H-deficient tracks of Herwig (2005) and Lawlor & Mac Donald (2006) compared with our post-VLTP tracks (with masses 0.87, 0.741, 0.664, 0.609, 0.585, 0.565, 0.542, 0.530, and 0.515 $M_{\odot }$ ). Also a non-late helium flash (but H-deficient) track from O'Brien (2000) is shown for comparison.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{7256Fig7.eps} \par\end{figure}$ Figure 7: Comparison between H-rich, H-burning tracks and H-deficient, He-burning tracks of low mass. It is clear from the figure that H-burners have lower $T_{\rm eff}$ and are much similar to Blöcker's tracks. Using H-rich tracks to estimate PG 1159 masses can lead to important overestimations in the low mass range.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.4cm,clip]{7256Fig8.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 8: Comparison between post-LTP and post-VLTP tracks. Upper panel: comparison between VLTP tracks and post-LTP tracks of similar mass but different H abundances. Lower panel: comparison between post-VLTP tracks with post-LTP tracks that display surface hydrogen abundances, close to the detection limit.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.4cm,clip]{7256Fig2.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 2: Same as Fig. 1 but for the HeFC. Note that the location of the HeFC on this diagram seems to converge, after not many thermal pulses, to a certain locus. (Color figure only available in the electronic version.)
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{7256Fig3.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 3: PG 1159 tracks of this work as compared with those of MA06. Thin solid lines correspond to the standard (f=0.016 at all convective borders) tracks of MA06 with stellar masses of (from right to left) 0.512, 0.53, 0.542, 0.565, 0.585, 0.609, 0.664 $M_{\odot }$ .
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{7256Fig4.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 4: HFC evolution during the TP-AGB for three sequences with different f values at the PDCZ (masses in $M_{\odot }$ ).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.4cm,clip]{7256Fig5.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 5: Value of the opacity for different adopted compositions.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{7256Fig6.eps} \par\end{figure}$	Figure 6: H-deficient tracks of Herwig (2005) and Lawlor & Mac Donald (2006) compared with our post-VLTP tracks (with masses 0.87, 0.741, 0.664, 0.609, 0.585, 0.565, 0.542, 0.530, and 0.515 $M_{\odot }$ ). Also a non-late helium flash (but H-deficient) track from O'Brien (2000) is shown for comparison.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{7256Fig7.eps} \par\end{figure}$	Figure 7: Comparison between H-rich, H-burning tracks and H-deficient, He-burning tracks of low mass. It is clear from the figure that H-burners have lower $T_{\rm eff}$ and are much similar to Blöcker's tracks. Using H-rich tracks to estimate PG 1159 masses can lead to important overestimations in the low mass range.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.4cm,clip]{7256Fig8.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 8: Comparison between post-LTP and post-VLTP tracks. Upper panel: comparison between VLTP tracks and post-LTP tracks of similar mass but different H abundances. Lower panel: comparison between post-VLTP tracks with post-LTP tracks that display surface hydrogen abundances, close to the detection limit.
Open with DEXTER