Wrong LHFL_S calculation in the case of sublimation – in #9: CCLM

in #9: CCLM

<p> Hi All, </p> <p> @ Hans-Jürgen: I shortly discussed the issue with Ekaterina Machulskaya and I will speak to her again. I agree with your discussion of the effect in the case of sublimation. </p> <p> @ Oliver: The addition of lh_f and lh_v in the case of sublimation is just what the suggested code does. (I guess you overlooked its first line?!) </p> <p> Cheers, <br/> Stefan </p>

  @redc_migration in #4dfc1a4

<p> Hi All, </p> <p> @ Hans-Jürgen: I shortly discussed the issue with Ekaterina Machulskaya and I will speak to her again. I agree with your discussion of the effect in the case of sublimation. </p> <p> @ Oliver: The addition of lh_f and lh_v in the case of sublimation is just what the suggested code does. (I guess you overlooked its first line?!) </p> <p> Cheers, <br/> Stefan </p>
re replied

Hi All,

@ Hans-Jürgen: I shortly discussed the issue with Ekaterina Machulskaya and I will speak to her again. I agree with your discussion of the effect in the case of sublimation.

@ Oliver: The addition of lh_f and lh_v in the case of sublimation is just what the suggested code does. (I guess you overlooked its first line?!)

Cheers,
Stefan

View in channel