Kevin Anderson

Thanks @spaneja this looks like a great start. In addition to fixing the stickler/pep8 stuff, can you make a note of the new functionality and add your name to the...

Hearing no objections, I'll go ahead and merge this. Thanks again @spaneja

I suppose we could move the diffuse calculations to a separate function like was done with martin_ruiz. It's a little strange to return scalar sky & ground IAM but time...

Offline discussion with @cwhanse and the model's author determined that the parameter this PR calls `n_ref` may have some niche uses but should be set to the same value as...

> Should/does fedis direct be equal to schlick? If not, why not? Close-ish but not identical. FEDIS is using the true Fresnel equations for the direct component so it cannot...

> I see, but we already have that in iam.physical, right? Yes, with two minor differences: FEDIS does not consider extinction (i.e. it assumes `K=0` in `iam.physical`), and FEDIS has...

The behavior as currently implemented is to default to equal refractive index so that everything is for a single device. I'm open to removing the second refractive index altogether so...

Maybe of interest... comparison with analogous calculations from `iam.marion_integrate` (compare with Fig 3 in the reference):  Source ```python import pvlib import numpy as np import matplotlib.pyplot as plt n...

This PR now implements four separate functions (schlick/fedis, direct/diffuse) as @adriesse suggested. For interest here is a plot similar to above but comparing two indices of refraction to show the...

> For clarity, I would suggest using the long version because it shows what's actually going on, and putting the short version in a comment with reference to the paper....