Inconsistency of MW/iMW precisions in CEPTR #560
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
With this PR, the precision of the molecular weight written by CEPTR matches the one specified for the inverse of the molecular weights (.16f).
This fixes the inconsistency observed when multiplying the MW and the IMW for electrons, where that ratio was too far from 1 (to less than machine precision, which caused problems).
NOTE: one could also choose to reduce the precision of IMW instead, thus not breaking all unit tests... but it seems odd to limit the precision to less than machine precision.
NOTE 2: There is still an inconsistency with transport values, for instance with egtransetWT dumped by transport.py, where the precision here is .8E . Not sure what we may want to do here.