4165 new energy confinement scaling for ncst spherical tokamak

[grmtrkngtn]

Description

Adds new NCST confinement time scaling law.

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 66.66667% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 48.68%. Comparing base (cdccae0) to head (83f51b0).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
process/models/physics/confinement_time.py	60.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4480      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   48.65%   48.68%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         151      151              
  Lines       29714    29740      +26     
==========================================
+ Hits        14457    14478      +21     
- Misses      15257    15262       +5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

[chris-ashe]

@grmtrkngtn A documentation addition still needs to be done also

[ajpearcey]

I would note, that this will cause a lot of conflicts with #4386 which is also trying to add in a scaling number 51. with several of the same name changes made.

I would also note that all the code has currents and current fraction with variables names like f_c_plasma_bootstrap, f_c_plasma_auxiliary, f_c_plasma_inductive. I personally think changing some subsections of the current variable names and leaving other is confusing. I'd spin this part out into it's own PR.

[timothy-nunn]

I would note, that this will cause a lot of conflicts with #4386 which is also trying to add in a scaling number 51. with several of the same name changes made.

I would also note that all the code has currents and current fraction with variables names like f_c_plasma_bootstrap, f_c_plasma_auxiliary, f_c_plasma_inductive. I personally think changing some subsections of the current variable names and leaving other is confusing. I'd spin this part out into it's own PR.

@ajpearcey we can try and get this in today (see comments on your PR) and then Graeme can update this PR

[grmtrkngtn]

I would note, that this will cause a lot of conflicts with #4386 which is also trying to add in a scaling number 51. with several of the same name changes made.
I would also note that all the code has currents and current fraction with variables names like f_c_plasma_bootstrap, f_c_plasma_auxiliary, f_c_plasma_inductive. I personally think changing some subsections of the current variable names and leaving other is confusing. I'd spin this part out into it's own PR.

@ajpearcey we can try and get this in today (see comments on your PR) and then Graeme can update this PR

If this one is ready to go shouldn't it go in first? 😇

[ajpearcey]

I would note, that this will cause a lot of conflicts with #4386 which is also trying to add in a scaling number 51. with several of the same name changes made.
I would also note that all the code has currents and current fraction with variables names like f_c_plasma_bootstrap, f_c_plasma_auxiliary, f_c_plasma_inductive. I personally think changing some subsections of the current variable names and leaving other is confusing. I'd spin this part out into it's own PR.

@ajpearcey we can try and get this in today (see comments on your PR) and then Graeme can update this PR

If this one is ready to go shouldn't it go in first? 😇

Someone is going to have to rebase. If this is ready merge it. I think the comments on that PR should be addressed in a separate PR.