Re: Natural Convection and FEM

Thread View: sci.math.num-analysis

1 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

1 total messages Started by Han de Bruijn Sun, 27 Dec 1992 21:24

#887

Author: Han de Bruijn
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 21:24

27 lines
2014 bytes

In article <a1grvn-@SantaFe.edu> Andy Mell writes:
> Dont bother with FEM, its overcomplicated for problems such as this.

Still very true. Alas ...

In article <1992Dec23.094321@roper.mc.ti.com> W. Donald Rolph writes:
> I always get amused by comments such as this.

Well, *I* get always amused (not really) by stubborn comments such as THIS:

> FEA is merely the establishment of a set of trial functions which are valid
> over a specific region in the domain (rather than the total domain),
> and which are typically constructed in such a way that the valid domain need
> not be rectilinear. As such, virtually every numerical method is a subset
> of FEA (I admit to some issues with Boundary Element Methods).

Gee, I thought I had posted in this newsgroup every possible counter-argument
& even created an "anonymous ftp" site (with SUNA articles), each one of these
aiming to _prove_ that the above statement is definitely incorrect. Instead, it
is a prejudice of the severest kind. It will get us nowhere. And it does really
big harm to the science of numerical methods as a whole. Because it will widen
the gulf between FEA and FV methods.
-- 
* 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

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads