ejfdickinson

@valentinsulzer My opinion would be to make the user responsible in all cases, because the role of the parameter value in PyBaMM is to define the coefficients for the model...

@rtimms @brosaplanella Is there now a quick win here by documenting that PyBaMM implements SPMe according to BPX v1.0? Are there any features that we wrote in for BPX where...

@brosaplanella Could I ask if there is any intention to progress this issue or its associated PR? The ambiguous alignment between the PyBaMM implementation and any specific published set of...

@brosaplanella The BPX v1.0 definitions are now public, so I suggest you check directly with the latest document (n.b. bugs as noted above), @rtimms has a foot in both camps...

@llh929423719 Could you explain what your changes mean in mathematical terms? I see that you corrected some of the unit peculiarities for the implied units of the `decay rate`. What...

Thanks @llh929423719 - I think your approach makes the most sense so that $k$ has natural units (unitless) - take the ratio of current to capacity on the same scale,...

@mleot @llh929423719 To keep electrode thickness out and to keep the focus on particle-scale properties, would it be better to normalise to the volumetric charge capacity of the pure material...

@rtimms Would it be worth opening a discussion for this? I've used the `WyciskOpenCircuitPotential` feature a fair amount in the last couple of months and have a number of suggestions,...

@rtimms @mleot @llh929423719 Suggestions for improvements: - Solve a general one-state equation: $\frac{\partial h}{\partial t} = \gamma\cdot\left(\frac{i_\mathrm{surf}a_\mathrm{vol}}{\phi_\mathrm{act}Fc_\mathrm{max}}\right)\cdot \left(1 - \mathrm{sgn}(i_\mathrm{surf})h\right)$ for $i_\mathrm{surf}$ the interfacial phase-specific current density (anodic current density...

@mleot I don't think this specific equation is anywhere in Wycisk but it's just a factorisation of a scalar into the product of two parts with the effect of (a)...