Compare pb and physical benchmark

[arthbous]

• Compare PB and PNP works perfectly.
• Still need a test for PB+NS
• physic_bench contains the physical benchmark. The PNP one works fine, the only problem is overrifinement.

[arthbous]

It's working!!

The magnitude of the velocity increases when the voltage drop increases. I will do more tests to see what is the max voltage drop the code can handle.

@maximilianmetti , I am thinking of doing the Na+Cl physical constants, what do you think? @maximilianmetti , you can do some tests on just PNP with small epsilons and EAFE.

[maximilianmetti]

I think Na+Cl in water should be good. Maybe set the reference density to that of the PNP + Steric Effects paper and have the length scale be 100nm?

I'll pull this branch and test with small epsilon too. (Equivalently, setting the scale to be 10microns or something.)

[arthbous]

// For L = 10 nm, T = 298K std::map<std::string, std::vector> coefficients = { {"permittivity", {0.019044}}, {"diffusivity0", {1.0}}, {"diffusivity1", {1.334/2.032}}, {"valency0", {1.0}}, {"valency1", {-1.0}},}

But that when the box is 1x1x1, when we do PNP the box is 10x1x1 does that mean we should deviede Epsilon by 10 when we do PNP?

[maximilianmetti]

Just change the size of the box. L should be the same and that means that eps is unchanged.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 27, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Arthur Bousquet notifications@github.com wrote:

// For L = 10 nm, T = 298K std::map<std::string, std::vector> coefficients = { {"permittivity", {0.019044}}, {"diffusivity0", {1.0}}, {"diffusivity1", {1.334/2.032}}, {"valency0", {1.0}}, {"valency1", {-1.0}},}

But that when the box is 1x1x1, when we do PNP the box is 10x1x1 does that mean we should deviede Epsilon by 10 when we do PNP?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.