Clarify whether term1 in neutral pressure calculation should have a factor of 2 or 1.5

cfs-energy / cfspopcon

POPCONs (Plasma OPerating CONtours)

https://cfspopcon.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

MIT License

22 stars 14 forks source link

Clarify whether term1 in neutral pressure calculation should have a factor of 2 or 1.5 #90

Open tbody-cfs opened 2 months ago

tbody-cfs commented 2 months ago

Inconsistency between Kallenbach 2019 and Henderson 2024. @tloobyCFS has emailed Stuart to check. Keeping this issue open to remember to follow up.

tloobyCFS commented 2 months ago

Stuart responded. The factor comes from Stuart accounting for the ion/electron ratios in the f_mom calculation. The assumption that Ti,u ~ 2Te,u creates the 3/2, whereas the assumption that Ti,u~Te,u yields the factor of 2. Since we already have the ion to electron temperature ratio in POPCON, we should probably bake that in here?

github-actions[bot] commented 4 days ago

This issue has not seen any activity in the past 60 days. It is now marked as stale and will be closed in 7 days if no further activity is registered.

hassec commented 4 days ago

@tbody-cfs @tloobyCFS have the two of you had more time to think about what the best way to resolve this is?

tloobyCFS commented 4 days ago

Personally I think we can leave it as is for now. If we want to take into account a different ion / electron ratio in the future that can be added, but the underlying assumption is as valid as Stuart's paper

hassec commented 4 days ago

Sounds good to me. So should we add a comment to the corresponding line of code pointing to this issue and then close this?