🧲 Update vscalc() function and add to documentation

[chris-ashe]

Description

The vscalc() function has now been improved and added to the documentation.

• New unit types has been added to the style guide to cover magnetic fluxes. Now the prefix web_ or vs_ can be used depending what better suites the context
• The style guide recommendation for inductance prefixes has been changed from h_ to ind_
• Removed inputting the value of vacuum permeability in to the function and instead call from constants.f90
• The docs for the plasma resistive heating section have been updated to show all steps of plasma_ohmic_heating(), this also includes a boundary fix for the neo-classical enhancement for the resistivity that is only true for $A = 2.5-4.0$.

Old output:

New output:

Namespace changes

Functions

vscalc() -> calculate_volt_second_requirements()

---

Variables

• gamma -> ejima_coeff: Very generic name that provided no insight
• phiint -> vs_plasma_internal : This has now been added to output.
• vsbrn -> vs_plasma_burn_required
• vsstt -> vs_plasma_total_required
• lpulse -> i_pulsed_plant: Changed prefix to new i_ style
• vsres -> vs_plasma_res_ramp : Didnt specify the flux in what system and when the consumption occured
• vsind -> vs_plasma_ind_ramp: Didnt specify the flux in what system and when the consumption occured
• vburn -> v_plasma_loop_burn: Didnt specify system or where the voltage was measured.
• rlp -> ind_plasma: Very generic name that provided no insight
• rli -> ind_plasma_internal_norm: Very generic name that provided no insight
• rpfac -> f_plasma_res_neo

---

✨ New additions

• v_plasma_loop_burn: Wascalculated directly in the output section. Is now a tracked variable in physics_variables.f90. Value is returned in calculate_volt_second_requirements() and has been added to test_calculate_volt_second_requirements()

---

Checklist

I confirm that I have completed the following checks:

• My changes follow the PROCESS style guide
• I have justified any large differences in the regression tests caused by this pull request in the comments.
• I have added new tests where appropriate for the changes I have made.
• If I have had to change any existing unit or integration tests, I have justified this change in the pull request comments.
• If I have made documentation changes, I have checked they render correctly.
• I have added documentation for my change, if appropriate.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 61.70213% with 18 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 31.26%. Comparing base (95128e9) to head (01708b9).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
process/physics.py	58.82%	14 Missing ⚠️
process/pfcoil.py	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
process/io/plot_proc.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
process/plasma_geometry.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3520      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   31.20%   31.26%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          81       81              
  Lines       19440    19445       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits         6066     6079      +13     
+ Misses      13374    13366       -8     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[j-a-foster]

One minor spelling correction but otherwise happy with the docs.