8 ms·
This is an ok introduction to CFD in that you discretize a problem, but it is not insightful and not scientific in its approach. The author routinely admits he
by otterdude 4mo ago
This is an ok introduction to CFD in that you discretize a problem, but it is not insightful and not scientific in its approach. The author routinely admits he doens't know how certain portions of the code work.
This is a much better approach to CFD / Navier-Stokes and will help you understand the various phenomenon along the way.
https://lorenabarba.com/blog/cfd-python-12-steps-to-navier-stokes/ https://lorenabarba.com/blog/cfd-python-12-steps-to-navier-s...
- gfaure 4mo agoAgreed. I started from this article a few years ago, and was frustrated enough by: > So that means, while I know what it does, I don't really know how, since all the work is in that mysterious function. that I spent the time to work it out myself. (answer: It arises from discretising the Laplacian -- 6 is the number of direct neighbours in 3D)
- wiz21c 4mo agoCFD start to become really painful when the fluid leaves the cells...
- otterdude 4mo agoThats why we have the courant number!
- amemi 4mo agoI agree; Dr. Barba's series is excellent. In addition, replicating Jameson et al. (AIAA 1981-1259) [1], is a worthwhile, more advanced follow up, great if you want to get into serious CFD development eventually. [1] http://aero-comlab.stanford.edu/Papers/jameson.aiaa.1981-1259.pdf http://aero-comlab.stanford.edu/Papers/jameson.aiaa.1981-125...