Fixed documentation of activation energy in LL surface growth rate. #4
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
I believe the activation energy of 21100 in the growth rate is incorrect based on the cited paper (Leung et al. 1991, "A simplified reaction mechanism for soot formation in nonpremixed flames"). I believe the activation energy should be 12100. The code implementation in src/growthModels/growthModel_LL.cc has an activation energy of 12100 and looks correct to me, so this is merely a documentation typo.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I believe the activation energy of 21100 in the growth rate is incorrect based on the cited paper (Leung et al. 1991, "A simplified reaction mechanism for soot formation in nonpremixed flames"). I believe the activation energy should be 12100. The code implementation in src/growthModels/growthModel_LL.cc has an activation energy of 12100 and looks correct to me, so this is merely a documentation typo.