Jonathan,
your remark is very instereting. I will take time tomorrow to write and send
a mathematical description of the work.
The frame is the resolution of the elasticity equations for 3D unstructured
meshes using operations on tensor variables (equivalent to a 3*3 matrix
variables defined for each cell).
The resolution is the one provided by Jasak :
Jasak, H. and Weller, H.G.: Application of the Finite Volume Method and
Unstructured Meshes to Linear Elasticity, Int. J. Num. Meth. Engineering
2000, v 48, n 2, pp 267-287
Joël
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Guyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: Loss of RAM
On Nov 28, 2007, at 11:49 AM, joelvuillon wrote:
in my script there is :
a = numerix.MAtake(b,c)
and c is masked : c represents the 6 adjacent cells of each cell in an
hexaedral meshing. c can be only defined for 3, 4 or 5 cells on the edge
of the meshing and consequently c takes masked values.
If you have an idea to by-pass the use of MAtake in this case, I am ok.
For example I can use 0 values of the indices instead of masked values
but I still have to take care to the real 0 indice of the first cell of
the meshing in the connectivity table.
I'm curious what you're trying to accomplish mathematically with this
operation (either MAtake or MA.take). This tends to be at a lower level
than we intend for FiPy users to have to work. Is FiPy lacking a
discretization that you need? Some other operation? There may be a better
way to accomplish your goal if we know the higher-level mathematical
operation that you are trying to accomplish.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database:
269.16.9/1155 - Release Date: 27/11/2007 20:30
