Talk:Computational fluid dynamics

message: Does Suhas Patankar warrant a mention in this article?  If so, could someone more knowledgable than I whip up a sentence to do so.  Thanks. -- John Fader 21:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I think some mention of the most common discretization methods (a sort of "where to go" if you're interested in discretization methods) is definitely called for in the article (although I agree it doesn't belong in the introduction).  For example, Patankar would be an excellent reference for the control volume subsection of the discretization section.  Finite volume, finite element, and particle methods would also be good to mention, since most discretization methods in use fall into one of these four categories.  If someone is qualified to add brief descriptions of another discretization method, that would be great.  In any case, each would be a short description linking to a main article. --Charlesreid1 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Patankar?

message: Perhaps the sections about turbulence models (DNS, RANS, LES) should be integrated more with their respective separate articles, to avoid having the same information in more than one place? -- Ehdr 15:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The general approach should be to give a brief description of each turbulence model, as it pertains to computational fluid dynamics, and use the  template to point readers toward the full article if they're interested. --Charlesreid1 (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate articles about the turbulence models 

message: I've gone through and added multiple cleanup templates, particularly , , , /, .  The style of writing in the article is terrible, it sounds more like an editorial than an encyclopedic treatment of CFD.  The sections could be greatly improved by simply adding some additional references and getting rid of weasel words and editorial phrases, but more work is sorely needed.  It's frustrating to see such an important topic get such a poor treatment. --Charlesreid1 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quality of article and references has seen a marked improvement. Charlesreid1 (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup templates 

message: I've lowered the article quality from C to Start due to the lack of citations and overall plethora of unverified claims.  I'm also including the Wikipedia editorial team's assessment table/criteria below.  I believe this article very clearly fits in the Start class, as it lacks citations, has had a  template since 2008, and leaves a majority of readers looking for a different source of information about CFD.
Accordingly, the number one task for improving this article should be to include additional references for unverified claims.

--Charlesreid1 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Revisiting the article rating, as the quality of this article has substantially improved over the years. The rating now seems to fit best in the B category. In keeping with WP:BOLD, changing article rating to B. Charlesreid1 (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowering Article Quality Rating 

message: This article states: "With high-speed supercomputers, better solutions can be achieved." This would imply that merely switching to a faster computer is going to help, which is of course not true. Higher mesh resolution will generally help get a "better" solution as will improving physical models - both of these require more computational resources, so if you want to get your answer in the same time, you'll need a faster computer, but a faster computer will not in itself do much for you in terms of accuracy, assuming that's what "better" is supposed to mean here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: Can someone review this newly created article? Not sure if it should be a stand alone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Combustion models for CFD]] 

message: Does someone know if CFD is regulary used in Aerospace accident investigations. I read about CFD investigations related to space missions, but is it typically used for investigations within the aerspace domain?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.124.114.42 (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD in Aerospace Accident Investigations 

message: I see no clear distinction between this article and the article Fluid simulation, so I propose that we merge them together. What do you say? —Kri (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would say that the Fourier synthesis is a form of CFD and that it does solve the underlying wave equations approximately after making some assumptions about the flow, since it is based on theory, which is really what all other CFD methods do as well. :) Although it is not a very powerful method and can only be applied to a very limited set of fluid dynamics problems, like those that are interesting in computer games and computer graphics. —Kri (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Respectfully, I disagree. As the Mastin, et. al., 1987 paper on Fourier synthesis of ocean waves describes, this particular fluid simulation is based on Fourier synthesis using a weighting based upon a Pierson–Moskowitz spectrum. The spectrum itself is an empirical, statistical one derived from ship wave data. While there is simulation of the appearance an ocean surface, there is no underlying numerical simulation of any equations of fluid dynamics. Mastin, et. al., were faking it and doing a good job of it--it was a big advance in computer graphics. But it wasn't CFD. --Mark viking (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Fourier synthesis method uses a differential equation to update the phase angle in the Fourier transform of the free surface elevation. This equation can be derived from the boundary element method applied to incompressible, irrotational ocean water, by linearizing the boundary integral equation and transforming it to the frequency domain. This results in that different eigenmodes map against different wavevectors. If this is not CFD, where along the transformation from BEM does it stop being CFD? When does the differential equation stop being an equation of fluid dynamics? —Kri (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  About the usage of a spectrum, that just affects the initialization of the system, so I don't see how that would affect the method itself. —Kri (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

text:  You and Christopherbatty make a good point. I'd support a better fitting rename. --Mark viking (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with ''Fluid simulation'' 

message: This is missing from the solution methodology. I think it is an important and interesting item and is also one in the to-do list topics to include of this article. 
I propose a section with a few bullet points regarding 
* The need for parallel computing
* Methodology
** Shared vs. distributed parallel computing
** Partitioning (principles and methods)
* Various protocols (MPI, PVM, etc)
* Best practices
** Nodes/CPU core
** Overlapping
* Parallel performance definition
* Massive parallel (thousands of CPUs)
I will soon drop a draft. 
Sankgeo 10:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parallel computing 

message: Article fails the B-class criteria with several November 2010 "citation needed" tags and several unsourced (as yet untagged) paragraphs and subsections. Reassess article to C-class. --  Otr500 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article issues and classification