NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/math/numanal/3684

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-27 | 1.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!mcsun!sun4nl!dutrun!dutrun2!dutrun2!rcpshdb
From: [e-mail] (Han de Bruijn)
Newsgroups: sci.math.num-analysis
Subject: Re: Natural Convection and FEM
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 92 21:24:56 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (UseNet News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Han de Bruijn)
Organization: Delft University of Technology
Lines: 27
Originator: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: dutrun2.tudelft.nl

In article <[e-mail]> Andy Mell writes:
> Dont bother with FEM, its overcomplicated for problems such as this.

Still very true. Alas ...

In article <[e-mail]> W. Donald Rolph writes:
> I always get amused by comments such as this.

Well, *I* get always amused (not really) by stubborn comments such as THIS:

> FEA is merely the establishment of a set of trial functions which are valid
> over a specific region in the domain (rather than the total domain),
> and which are typically constructed in such a way that the valid domain need
> not be rectilinear. As such, virtually every numerical method is a subset
> of FEA (I admit to some issues with Boundary Element Methods).

Gee, I thought I had posted in this newsgroup every possible counter-argument
& even created an "anonymous ftp" site (with SUNA articles), each one of these
aiming to _prove_ that the above statement is definitely incorrect. Instead, it
is a prejudice of the severest kind. It will get us nowhere. And it does really
big harm to the science of numerical methods as a whole. Because it will widen
the gulf between FEA and FV methods.
--
* Han de Bruijn; Applications&Graphics | "A little bit of Physics * No
* TUD Computing Centre; P.O. Box 354   | would be NO idleness in  * Oil
* 2600 AJ  Delft; The Netherlands.     | Mathematics" (HdB).      * for
* E-mail: [e-mail] --| Fax: [phone] ----* Blood