http://third-bit.com/blog/archives/1569.html Data is ones and zeroes | Software is ones and zeroes and hard work. Tue, 22 May 2012 16:23:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://third-bit.com/blog/archives/1569.html#comment-1762 John Mon, 26 May 2008 19:13:29 +0000 http://pyre.third-bit.com/blog/archives/1569.html#comment-1762 Terrific interview. I completely agree that most scientists would be better off learning about version control than MPI. In my field, biostatistics, I don't see so many people distracted by HPC, but I do see serious problems with reproducibility. Terrific interview. I completely agree that most scientists would be better off learning about version control than MPI. In my field, biostatistics, I don’t see so many people distracted by HPC, but I do see serious problems with reproducibility.

]]> http://third-bit.com/blog/archives/1569.html#comment-1761 Bryan Mon, 26 May 2008 09:33:08 +0000 http://pyre.third-bit.com/blog/archives/1569.html#comment-1761 Rich: and how do you deal with the influence and validation of subscale physical parameterisations? (p.s. haven't listened to the interview ... yet) Rich: and how do you deal with the influence and validation of subscale physical parameterisations? (p.s. haven’t listened to the interview … yet)

]]> http://third-bit.com/blog/archives/1569.html#comment-1760 rich Sun, 25 May 2008 20:15:29 +0000 http://pyre.third-bit.com/blog/archives/1569.html#comment-1760 I liked the interview and agreed with everything you said. Your implication that it is impossible to validate CFD is one I disagree with however. The best validation approach for complex codes is .... you write down (in closed form) any flow field that satisfies the boundary/initial conditions. Substitute this into the governing field equations (analytically) and whatever residual you get, you then introduce as a (closed form) body force in your code. You then have a perfectly good analytical closed-form solution (albeit with an obscure body force) that confirms your code is solving the equations you think it is, and enables you to perform convergence studies to ensure it is converging in a manner appropriate for the chosen discretization scheme. I liked the interview and agreed with everything you said. Your implication that it is impossible to validate CFD is one I disagree with however. The best validation approach for complex codes is …. you write down (in closed form) any flow field that satisfies the boundary/initial conditions. Substitute this into the governing field equations (analytically) and whatever residual you get, you then introduce as a (closed form) body force in your code. You then have a perfectly good analytical closed-form solution (albeit with an obscure body force) that confirms your code is solving the equations you think it is, and enables you to perform convergence studies to ensure it is converging in a manner appropriate for the chosen discretization scheme.

]]>