🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan20.120623.18611@dutrun2.tudelft.nl>, I wrote:
> Wouldn't it help if people first _unify_ F.V. (fluid) and F.E. (solid) 
> methods? 

In article <1993Jan20.162622@roper.mc.ti.com> 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: Han.deBruijn@RC.TUDelft.NL --| Fax: +31 15 78 37 87 ----* Blood