My gut reaction is that the second implementation is probably better, as it
should be possible to make things more implicit and coupled, even though you're
"wasting" calculation of PDE1 over most of the 2D domain where you don't care
about it.
> On Jul 14, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Guyer, Jonathan E.
> What’s the best way to implement this problem in FiPy?
Don't!
Assuming you won't take that advise, I've posted a couple of attempts at this
problem at:
https://gist.github.com/guyer/bb199559c00f6047d466daa18554d83d
> On Jul 9, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Gopalakrishnan, Krishnakumar
> wrote:
>
Thank you everyone. This helps a lot!
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Guyer, Jonathan E. Dr. (Fed) <
jonathan.gu...@nist.gov> wrote:
> That should be OK. FiPy automatically maps the constraint onto the
> faceValue of a CellVariable.
>
> > On Jul 13, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Keller, Trevor (Fed) <
> tre
Dear Dan,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
In the 'hacked' source term to handle this special boundary condition, i.e.
fp.ImplicitSourceTerm((mesh.faceNormals * implicitCoeff *
mesh.facesRight).divergence)),
my implicitCoeff turns out to be also a function of the x-coordinates of the
system.
i
