🐛 Fix error in volume averaged thermal plasma pressure to be prof…

[chris-ashe]

This pull request updates both the documentation and implementation for plasma pressure and temperature profile calculations, with a focus on clarifying the distinction between central and volume-averaged quantities and ensuring that density-weighted temperatures are used consistently in calculations. The changes improve scientific clarity, correct some formulae, and align the code with the updated documentation.

Documentation improvements and clarifications:

• Clarified the definitions and notation for density-weighted and volume-averaged temperatures, introducing explicit symbols and updating the profile factor formula to use f_temp_plasma_electron_density_vol_avg instead of the ambiguous pcoef.
• Expanded the explanation for calculating central and volume-averaged plasma thermal pressure, emphasizing the use of density-weighted temperatures and correcting the description of the pressure profile factor for parabolic profiles.

Code consistency and scientific accuracy:

• Updated the calculation of central plasma pressure in process/plasma_profiles.py to use the correct energy conversion constant and clarified the formula.
• Modified the calculation of volume-averaged plasma thermal pressure to use the density-weighted temperatures and volume-averaged densities for electrons and ions, ensuring the result matches the updated scientific explanation.

These changes ensure that the documentation and code are aligned, and that the scientific calculations reflect best practices for plasma profile modeling.…ile independent

Description

Checklist

I confirm that I have completed the following checks:

• My changes follow the PROCESS style guide
• I have justified any large differences in the regression tests caused by this pull request in the comments.
• I have added new tests where appropriate for the changes I have made.
• If I have had to change any existing unit or integration tests, I have justified this change in the pull request comments.
• If I have made documentation changes, I have checked they render correctly.
• I have added documentation for my change, if appropriate.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 46.18%. Comparing base (62a64c4) to head (5369e10).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
process/io/plot_proc.py	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3938      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   46.19%   46.18%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         123      123              
  Lines       28358    28362       +4     
==========================================
  Hits        13100    13100              
- Misses      15258    15262       +4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[j-a-foster]

Happy with changes.