Code and methods found to work repeatedly became the go-to method, but were still checked by someone else. Any large disparity was follow by another independent analysis using another method small disparities were resolved by choosing the more conservative. one by CFD/custom code of the era and one by other methods) and then checked by someone else. In my office, critical hydrodynamic analysis was accomplished by two engineers independently (i.e. In the big scheme of functional ship design it was kinda nice to use as a visualization tool for the non-hydrodynamicists that approve the projects and write the checks otherwise it was just another tool in the box to measure something that is impossible to measure.
When I was actively employed in the field, which was throughout the development of "modern" ubiquitous desktop CFD, I used it occasionally to get a bounding condition a little closer to truth than could be given by "classical" methods. Don't forget the reason behind the coke-bottle SWATHs. Even today with obsessive need for "detail" in the models it is all JMJ (Just More Junk) that realistically is still subject to GIGO and nothing that a really-really fast anal-retentive math major couldn't do. You mean it doesn't stand for Colourful Fanciful Drawings?Īnd also do you mean a CFD program (pick your poison.or rather your error), Navier-Stokes, source-sink, or some other hand method? Really isn't any mathematical endeavor to achieve a specific value a "computation"? Or are we just limiting it to computer automation? Lots of early non-visual CFD programs where just digital automation of hand methods.
0 kommentar(er)
