Talk:Lattice Boltzmann methods

message: In the section 'algorithm', please define what are f, \delta_t\,\!, the index i. People can't guess, unless they allready know about LB...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.81.88 (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Define notations

message: I am no expert on the field, but from what I've gathered, CFD is not the sole application of lattice-Boltzmann methodology; e.g. Succi (the very same as referenced in the article) has done work on computational quantum mechanics with LBM. LBM in magnetohydrodynamics also seems to be a rather big field of study (is magnetohydrodynamics a subset of CFD, though?). There are a bunch of other computational fields benefiting from the LBM-approach: Would this be worthwhile of mentioning?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALambda (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only CFD? 

message: The last sentence in "Development from the LGA" is incomplete. Flüssigkristall (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development from the LGA - method missing words 

message: The last sentence of the second paragraph of section "Development from the LGA method" begins with "In addition, th also ".
"th" is not a word, I'm am not sure what was intended to be written here, so I will leave it to another person to decided how this sentence should be written. Mathew Lewis (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the sentence, as it's unsourced and I couldn't suss out the meaning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021 

message: The Limitations section is written in an argumentative style, with every single limitation followed by a counterargument. This gives the false impression that there are no real limitations of LBM, only unsolved problems due to its infancy. I am not familiar enough with LBM to rewrite this section, but there are undoubtedly genuine, fundamental limitations with the approach, e.g. it is only really useful for a limited subset of fluid problems, usually at relatively small spatial scales. The last two sentences also violate WP:SYNTH.
Scleractinian (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I read some books on this, as far as I know, LBM is the newest development in CFD, it's hard to write a comparison to older methods when they are all worse than LBM, and therefore gives this impression. Although you do have a point, the whole section almost has little to do with actual limitations...LackOfInspiration1 (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I changed the title to "Limitations and development" and structured it a little bit. LackOfInspiration1 (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Limitations'' section is not neutral 

message: The variable names in the example implementation are unclear due to their short length, I fail to see why some variable only get five letters when other, less often used ones, get several more. Maybe even consider adding a comment on the lines they are declared on to add an explanation or a reference to a section of the article.
Guessing the purpose of each variable is usually possible when sifting thorough previous lines, however it would be far easier for a novice in this field if variables like "velof" or "bae" were fully written out. LionSt1 (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, LionSt1, I am the author this program, in my opinion the comments are sufficient, but nonetheless I edited the variable names, now "bae" is "DummyVariable" and "velof" is "velocityField", on reference part, I did not reference this article, I referenced a paper by E. M. Viggen, but now I have edited the expression so it's easy to find parallel to this article.
Please Review and if you have more ideas to improve, See if you can do it yourself.42.2.90.203 (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Thank you, this is much improved, I appreciate the effort. I would have done it myself, but I didn't want to anger anyone by editing their code without at least asking if anybody else felt the same way.  LionSt1 (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, I was not complaining about it, I weren't thinking you *should have* done it yourself, please don't feel you need to explain. :) 42.2.90.203 (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear variable names in example implementation