Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New section for Equation of state documentation in the Science section #174

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

gkogekar
Copy link
Member

Created a new page under the Science section on Ideal and non-Ideal equations of state, with some references. The page contains a very basic information on how thermodynamic properties are calculated. The detailed versions of mathematical derivations for Redlich--Kwong and Peng--Robinson need to be uploaded somewhere on the website.

@speth
Copy link
Member

speth commented Feb 14, 2022

Thanks for starting in on this, @gkogekar. I had couple of thoughts on the high-level organization of this material.

Instead of adding a new top-level category within the "Science" section, I think this information all belongs in the "Phases" section, since the goal is to provide documentation for certain ThermoPhase implementations. What I was imagining is that the "Phases" page would mainly be another index-like page, with cards linking to documentation for particular phase models. It might make sense to group closely-related models like Redlich-Kwong and Peng-Robinson under a single page, though.

I would say that basically everything that's currently on the "Phases" page would be better off somewhere else. I'd be curious if others (paging @decaluwe, @bryanwweber, @ischoegl) have thoughts on the organization as well.

As a minor point, could you rebase your branch on the current main branch rather than generating an unnecessary merge commit?

@ischoegl
Copy link
Member

@gkogekar ... likewise, thanks for starting here! I overall agree with @speth in creating another index-like page.

Fwiw, I am linking Cantera/enhancements#6 (specifically step 3), although this goes well beyond of what would be expected from a single PR 😂

@decaluwe
Copy link
Member

Thanks, @ischoegl for linking. I need to clear a day or two and finally finish this task.

While I agree that issues goes beyond the scope of what @gkogekar is doing here, I do think it is highly relevant - whatever page structure we set up in this PR should have in mind what we want to tackle in Cantera/enhancements#6 so that those additions can flow smoothly without undoing anything we do here.

@speth
Copy link
Member

speth commented Feb 25, 2024

Superseded by Cantera/cantera#1647

@speth speth closed this Feb 25, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants