Jump to content
Geochemist's Workbench Support Forum

Lian Wang

Members
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Lian Wang's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • First Post Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Week One Done Rare
  • One Month Later Rare
  • One Year In Rare

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Hi Jia, thanks a lot for informing me. Will install it when available. best, Lian
  2. Hi Jia, thank you for the fix. I run some test inputs and it seems working as expected. I have however another question/suggestion/discussion related to the use of CCM in particular and the use of 'react' in general. The system I am modelling can be in general described as a system containing mineral surfaces with a constant capacitance. With your fix now I am able to run it with a given capacitance value. However, the system capacitance is a function of solution ionic strength, I, so I need to give the C value calculated by hand for the given ionic strength. A better way, and a more general way, is to be able to let the code calculate the capacitance as a function of ionic strength automatically so the model can be run for varying ionic strength but not only for one ionic strength per input. I hope I explained myself clearly. In other words, is there a way to input capacitance as a function of I, but not as a fixed numerical value as it is now. In general, this is like what the 'field variable' is allowed in Xt codes there one may define a field variable which changes in the course of the run. To my understanding there is no such field variables can be used in 'react' now. Is there a way around to allow a field variable in 'react' code? Once again thx a lot for the fix, it helped a lot. best regards, Lian
  3. Hi Jia, Thanks for your response. Although no solution yet I appreciate your timely reaction so I don't spend time on my part searching for reasons. One thing you can try, if it is a useful suggestion, is to run it with one of the older versions (maybe version 10). I think I did run CCM with an older version and it was fine but I am not sure. Constant capacitance model and constant potential model features existed from very beginning of the GWB. By the way, the constant potential feature seems working fine in the current version. regard, Lian Wang
  4. to the technical support team of GWB, your user's manual claims that it is possible to calculate sorption with constant capacitance model and constant potential model as special cases of DDL model on oxides. I tried with the input 'surface.rea' provided by the code and set the surface capacitance to 2 F/m2, see attached input. The run went ok and I got the result (also attached). It is however surprising that the ratio of the surface charge density and the surface potential, i.e., the defined capacitance is neither the value of 2 F/m2 and nor a constant value - as it should be for a constant capacitance model. E.g., the initial system has a surface charge = 5.23 uC/cm2 and the potential 53.4 mV so the ratio is 0.98 F/m2, not 2 F/m2. Did I miss something here? or I understood the definition of CCM wrongly? I am using the latest version GWB 17.0.1. The database is the 'thermo.tdat' and the surface data 'FeOH.sdat as provided. Thx in advance for any tips, CCM Surface.rea CCM Q React_output.txt
  5. Hi, I am trying the feature of constant capacitance model for sorption on iron oxide so I took the example input ‘surface.rea’ from your user’s manual and input the surface capacitance at 2 F/m2 as you can see in the attached input. I expected that the output should indicates that every step should have a constant charge and potential ratio and equals to 2 F/m2. But apparently it is not the case as shown in the attached output, e.g., the starting system has a surface charge = 5.23 uC/cm2 and the potential 53.4 mV so the ratio is 0.98 F/m2 and also the output shows a varying capacitance but not constant. Did I miss something here? I thought it should be straightforward? The constant potential model runs as expected though. I am using the latest version GWB pro 17.0.1 and both the database and the surface data are from those provided by the code. Very much looking forwards to hearing from you, CCM Surface.rea CCM Q React_output.txt
  6. on the GWB14 page one of the new features is '1-pKa reactions' modeling multisite sorption on initially charged sites. Is there anyone who can provide an example 'sdat' dataset?
×
×
  • Create New...