<https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-AWTUGFh7EUw/WWu3HoSW8uI/AAAAAAAACOs/R5jUIIIHez8KRmeb90i-UfJPerRGsLzdwCLcBGAs/s1600/orig_func_single_dim.png> <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-rpWk5kwPuIs/WWu4kBzX5xI/AAAAAAAACO4/AZMgykd_u2kLjFbPr1sDaROSk__9syrGQCLcBGAs/s1600/full_func.png>
The full original equation I want to implement is shown in the first image above. In my question before I omitted the second \nabla, but during tests with dealII and own code I found out that it is important (while writing the code, not mathematically). In one dimension the equations above can be written different (with N, T_E and T_L as 1d-matrices) as shown in the second image above. Thus I would assume that my initial equations can be written as shown in the third image above, here for 3 dimensions. For 2 dimensions the z-dimension can be omitted. This should be solvable using example 33, but during my tests I had the problem that I not only had to get the value for N, T_E or T_L, but also the value for the gradient (\nabla T_E, for example). But in the current version, I have to calculate that before calling the function for creating the flux matrix, and not in the function itself. Did that explain my problem better? -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing list/forum options, see https://groups.google.com/d/forum/dealii?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "deal.II User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
