NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/math/numanal/3913

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 2.0 KB | 40 lines

Newsgroups: sci.math.num-analysis
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!dutrun!dutrun2!dutrun2!rcpshdb
From: [e-mail] (Han de Bruijn)
Subject: Re: Theory about Fluid-Structure ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (UseNet News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: dutrun2.tudelft.nl
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Han de Bruijn)
Organization: Delft University of Technology
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:57:22 GMT
Lines: 26

In article <[e-mail]>, I wrote:
> Wouldn't it help if people first _unify_ F.V. (fluid) and F.E. (solid)
> methods?

In article <[e-mail]> W. Donald Rolph (hi, Don!):
> ................... (pardon Han!) the requirement here is that the shape or
> trial functiosa [ he means: functions ] across the interface be compatible.
> Under these conditions (oh well here we go again) the FV for the fluid
> becomes essentially indistinguishable from FEA for the fluid, certainly at
> the boundaries at least, and the problem easily reduces to a tractable form.

Oh yeah? Let's take a combustion engine as an example. I have a the solid parts
modeled with MARC, and the fluid parts modeled with PHOENICS. According to Don,
it would be a "tractable" matter now to roast the beef.

Or else, let's start from the basics: take some F.E. ingredients for the solid
parts, take some F.V ingredients for the fluid parts. Then ... take a BIG MAMA,
and "the problem easily reduces to a tractable form".

One world or no world. Once F.V. and F.E. have been unified into ONE universal
numerical method, the true practical problems will remain hard enough to solve.
--
* Han de Bruijn; Applications&Graphics | "A little bit of Physics * No
* TUD Computing Centre; P.O. Box 354   | would be NO idleness in  * Oil
* 2600 AJ  Delft; The Netherlands.     | Mathematics" (HdB).      * for
* E-mail: [e-mail] --| Fax: [phone] ----* Blood