Re: Accuracy problem on results

On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 12:40 PM, John Assael wrote: > Dear Daniel, > I tried that and the results converge a little but not in a dramatic way. > Do you think I should experiment with my mesh more? > Sorry, I'm out of ideas. If you can find an inconsistency that makes debugging possible then I c

Re: Accuracy problem on results

Dear Daniel, I tried that and the results converge a little but not in a dramatic way. Do you think I should experiment with my mesh more? Thank you very much for your time! Best regards, J. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Daniel Wheeler wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:19 PM, John Assael wro

Re: Accuracy problem on results

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:19 PM, John Assael wrote: > I have uploaded all the files at: > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1wtpic28i8p8o45/AAARJRJn05X4VbvESJrGqL_1a?dl=0 > I got the files. Thanks. > > fipy_tmp.py - is the main script that produces the difference of > temperature at the radius of "mat

Re: Accuracy problem on results

dropbox is completely blocked at NIST. I've sent you a link to enable file upload. On Sep 9, 2014, at 1:19 PM, John Assael wrote: > I have uploaded all the files at: > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1wtpic28i8p8o45/AAARJRJn05X4VbvESJrGqL_1a?dl=0 > > fipy_tmp.py - is the main script that produces

Re: Accuracy problem on results

I have uploaded all the files at: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1wtpic28i8p8o45/AAARJRJn05X4VbvESJrGqL_1a?dl=0 fipy_tmp.py - is the main script that produces the difference of temperature at the radius of "mat1" mesh_com.msh - the mesh from comsol with average element quality 94% expected_results.txt

Re: Accuracy problem on results

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:02 PM, John Assael wrote: > Amazing! Changing T to a FaceVariable it really improved my results! > However, they still have a considerable gap from the optimal, I use scipy > LinearLUSolver, is there anything else I could do? > Maybe if you post your script (as simplifi

Re: Accuracy problem on results

Amazing! Changing T to a FaceVariable it really improved my results! However, they still have a considerable gap from the optimal, I use scipy LinearLUSolver, is there anything else I could do? Thank you very much for your help! Best regards, John On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Guyer, Jonathan

Re: Accuracy problem on results

On Sep 9, 2014, at 10:00 AM, John Assael wrote: > I believe the problem is that all my variables are cell variables. However, I > read in the FAQ that diffusion terms have to be FaceVariables. Coefficients to DiffusionTerms can be supplied as a CellVariable, but they will be linearly interpol

Re: Accuracy problem on results

Perhaps your errors in assigning the values are coming from the initial creation of the coefficients. I do recommend looking over the 1D diffusion example carefully. Note that when declaring the coefficient

Re: Accuracy problem on results

Dear Raymond, Thank you for your fast reply. No I don't have that problem as my T variable represents the thermal conductivity k, and it is not described in terms of position, it just changes from material to material. Exactly rho * cp are the transient terms. Finally the equation results dT t

Re: Accuracy problem on results

Hi, John. I'm not completely sure if this is related, but I do want to make sure it's not something like that discussed in the recent thread about the heat equation on this list: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.fipy/3556/focus=3565 Is your "diffusion coefficient" (typically called alph

Accuracy problem on results

Hi, I keep getting inaccurate results on my heat conduction experiment, 0.1 missing accuracy except if the shape is extremely and abnormally dense. In the beginning I though its the time steps but they are already very small and make no difference if I shorten the intervals. I am trying to replica