You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Comparing EIS data of different models in compare_models.py, it appears that the SPMe does not have a semi-circle for the same electrode double-layer capacity as the other models.
options={"surface form": "differential"} and both positive and negative electrode double-layer capacities are set to 0.2 F m-2 for the figure below
This is unexpected as the semi-circles of all models should be quite similar!
Interestingly, semi-circles for the SPMe appear when choosing the electrode double-layer capacity values unreasonably high:
100 F/m2:
compared to 0.2 F/m2:
This may be related to the bug in leading surface form conductivity (pybamm-team/PyBaMM#4139), however, using the develop branch does not solve this issue.
We use PyBAMM version 24.1.
Kind regards,
Noël
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
Comparing EIS data of different models in compare_models.py, it appears that the SPMe does not have a semi-circle for the same electrode double-layer capacity as the other models.
options={"surface form": "differential"} and both positive and negative electrode double-layer capacities are set to 0.2 F m-2 for the figure below
This is unexpected as the semi-circles of all models should be quite similar!
Interestingly, semi-circles for the SPMe appear when choosing the electrode double-layer capacity values unreasonably high:
100 F/m2:![image](https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/90609505/348280834-82a8dd83-1443-4385-85e7-11a5fd813629.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.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.vTVMzT8TVNkGkqw0dDNRiBFne-RHZJVOX3qHrgt15l4)
compared to 0.2 F/m2:![Screenshot 2024-07-12 at 14 38 43](https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/90609505/348280484-717aba9a-f03c-4606-936f-17fabe082d20.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.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.6gwFkDFJW-AKOtZNRt3afcHbaMfLfKgAtHIHGgLiVQc)
This may be related to the bug in leading surface form conductivity (pybamm-team/PyBaMM#4139), however, using the develop branch does not solve this issue.
We use PyBAMM version 24.1.
Kind regards,
Noël
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: