You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Some researchers publish using $\eplison_i$ which is the negative of $E_k$, and Detchem uses that convention.
There's no mistake in Cantera's documentation, and it's consistent with Chemkin's, but given the high potential for error here (speaking from experience), I think we could be more explicit and can afford a few extra words (especially as the chosen example has a negative value for E).
I can open a PR if nobody beats me to it, but wanted to at least open an issue before I forget.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@rwest … thanks for creating this issue. As you’re very familiar with what needs to be done, it would be great if you could clarify the documentation with a short PR.
I suggest/request an improvement to the documentation for coverage-dependencies that shows up at
https://cantera.org/documentation/dev/sphinx/html/yaml/reactions.html#interface
It's factually correct, but you need to cross-reference with the documentation at$E_k$ .
https://cantera.org/science/reactions.html#surface-reactions
and read the equations carefully and think to be sure that you get the sign right on
Some researchers publish using$\eplison_i$ which is the negative of $E_k$ , and Detchem uses that convention.
There's no mistake in Cantera's documentation, and it's consistent with Chemkin's, but given the high potential for error here (speaking from experience), I think we could be more explicit and can afford a few extra words (especially as the chosen example has a negative value for E).
I can open a PR if nobody beats me to it, but wanted to at least open an issue before I forget.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: