Jump to content
Geochemist's Workbench Support Forum

Bron

Members
  • Posts

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bron

  1. I have found conflicting charge balances between GWB and PHREEQCI using the same dataset (attached). Results as follows: Method 1: Manual calculation using major ions only = -30.1% Method 2: PHREEQCI using llnl.dat = -35% Method 3: SpecE8 using thermo.com.V8.r6+.dat = -70.18% Method 4: SpecE8 using thermo.dat = -69.78% I expect charge balance to be around 30-35%, not 70%! I have read the thread dated 10/05/2011 entitled, "Charge balance/speciation" where it was commented that discrepancies in charge balances may be attributable to different calculation methods between codes. This does not appear to be the case here as all methods listed above appear to use the following convention: Charge balance = 100*[(Sum cations–Sum anions)/(Sum cations + Sum anions)] The issue within SpecE8 doesn't appear to be related to the database used, or to differences in reported calculation methodologies between codes. Have I loaded the input data incorrectly into GWB? I would greatly appreciate your assistance. Thank you. TD5_40-60_L1-04.sp8
  2. I have downloaded the lastest update for GWB V8 and am still having problems with the thermo.com.v8.r6 database and its use in GSS. GSS crashes each time it tries to calculate any value using this database. I have previously used the same input data in the Minteq database using GSS and it did not crash. The dataset is attached. It is currently in the format suitable for Minteq (i.e. As and CO3- input values differ between databases). I cannot save a fuinctional copy of the file using the thermo.com.v8.r6 database. CU.gss
  3. I have read several texts that suggest mineral saturation indices should be normalized by the sum of the stoichiometries of the positive and negative components in the mineral formula. I was wondering if GWB does this before reporting its saturation indices? If not and provided this is indeed a common action to undertake for geochemists when reporting such figures, may I suggest an option be added within the program for this standardisation? My apologies if this has been discussed before on the forum - I could find no relevant thread. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...