Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Figure out why chemicals.Winterfeld_Scriven_Davis is not a perfect match to custom implementation #2509

Open
jgostick opened this issue Jul 13, 2022 · 0 comments

Comments

@jgostick
Copy link
Member

They match within 0.1%, but all our other implemented functions match MUCH better, like nearly perfectly. The code in chemicals for this particular function is quite obscure so I can't really compare it side-by-side with ours. Anyway, leaving it as is for now, and noting to take a look later.

@jgostick jgostick added this to the v3+ - Future Refactoring milestone Jul 13, 2022
@ma-sadeghi ma-sadeghi changed the title Figure out why chemicals.Winterfeld_Scriven_Davis is not a perfect match to custom implementation Figure out why chemicals.Winterfeld_Scriven_Davis is not a perfect match to custom implementation Mar 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant