Francesco Casella

This is the smallest MWE we could find that reproduces the adjacency analysis failure: ```modelica model TestPEN SOFCPoliMi.Components.FuelCell.PEN pen(iPENmax = 0, vLeak0 = 0) annotation( Placement(transformation(origin = {4, 0}, extent...

My gut feeling is that `SOFCPoliMi.Components.FuelCell.DiffusionLosses.Utilities.CollisionIntegral` and `SOFCPoliMi.Components.FuelCell.DiffusionLosses.Utilities.DiffusivityEffCoeff` are somehow involved.

@kabdelhak if you can sort this out, with a bit of luck this model could start working. This would really be a boon for a number of reasons: - it...

Is that temperature well-defined, in physical terms? Otherwise, the result would depend on numerical implementation details.

@mwetter this is a completely general problem: if you add these signals to the reference signals for regression testing, you're always going to get in trouble when doing cross-tool validation...

@AndreaBartolini please check with the declarative debugger how the sensor output is computed and report.

@perost, the `flowCharacteristic` function is defined in `Modelica.Fluid.Machines.BaseClasses.PartialPump` as ``` replaceable function flowCharacteristic = PumpCharacteristics.baseFlow; ``` which has the following definition ``` partial function baseFlow "Base class for pump flow...

Yeah, sorry, understanding that error message is hard, there are endless fully qualified variables with long German names, lots of parentheses, and my parsing abilities are somewhat limited. Besides, the...

> the elements in your problem are defining the pressure drop/rise. There is no definition of the absolute pressure in the system. True, but that's ok, as long as you...

> It has the correct unit in the flat model at least. But the unit checking is complaining about the expression `Pumpe_Qfixed.V_flow_single_init * 1.1` and not the parameter itself, though...