[Getdp] ... Formulation question ...

[mkoch at gvtc.com]

Hello Olivier,

thanks for the follow-up. Yes, I did see your comment about the following:

Galerkin{ [ Spd[]*    Norm[{d Phi}]  , {Phi} ] ... }

I guess it is only different from what I was trying in the Dof{} term, i.e.:

Galerkin{ [ Spd[]*Dof{Norm[{d Phi}]} , {Phi} ] ... }

However, if I leave out the Dof{} term, won't that mean that Phi is no  
longer treated as a variable to be solved for, but rather as something  
given already? In other words, I won't be solving the right problem?

Thanks,

Matt Koch


----- Message from castany at quatramaran.ens.fr ---------
     Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 20:19:16 +0100
     From: Olivier Castany <castany at quatramaran.ens.fr>
Reply-To: Olivier Castany <castany at quatramaran.ens.fr>
  Subject: Re: [Getdp] ... Formulation question ...
       To: mkoch at gvtc.com


> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 04:24:58PM -0600, mkoch at gvtc.com wrote:
>> Hello Olivier,
>>
>> and thanks for the quick response. I was afraid you were going to say
>> something like you did. Is there at least a way to define Norm(Grad
>> Phi) as a quantity somewhere, say call it NrmGrdPhi, (perhaps in
>> Quantity under Formulation), and then use it in the Galerkin term. So
>> something akin to this:
>>
>> Formulation{
>>    Quantity{NrmGrdPhi; [Norm[Grad Phi]];}
>>    Galerkin{[Spd[]*Dof{NrmGrdPhi},{Phi}];In Vlm;Integration Int;}
>> }
>>
>> I suppose this would be cheating, too, but I got to give it a try. Any
>> thoughts?
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I went on the GetDP mailing list this evening and I don't see the answer
> I posted in response to your message yesterday evening...  maybe I did
> something wrong.
>
> So :
>
> did you get my answer where I was saying that you could use a non
> linear solving scheme with : Galerkin{ [ Spd[]*Norm[{d Phi}] , {Phi} ]
> ... } ?
>
> Regards,
>
> O.C.
>
>


----- End message from castany at quatramaran.ens.fr -----