Open ejfdickinson opened 3 weeks ago
Better expression of electrode composition is important (#41), but I don't think that BPX is really the place for capturing general informational content about a cell, independent from a model. Parameters should be introduced to BPX only when they appear in a supported mathematical model.
+1 for separating material-level information from electrode-level information, especially as this is already what is done by BPX for blended electrodes. Specifically, I wish we had defined PyBaMM to use "active fraction of solid" (between 0 and 1) instead of "active material volume fraction" (between 0 and 1-porosity)
I think mass fraction will always be preferred, because (unlike volume fraction) it's pressure/temperature-independent.
Simon Clark (SINTEF) wrote: