> On Apr 3, 2019, at 6:36 PM, Dario Panada <dario.pan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Many thanks, I think that is making more sense now. I assume I could also > change D to be expressed in terms of 0.042**(2./3) to keep consistency? (It > would be a bit of a bizarre setup I admit..)
If you choose to scale things on a length of 0.042**(2./3), then you should do so for both d(x|y|z) and for D. I reiterate, there is no computational benefit to doing so. Further, if it matters to you that your cells are 0.042 mm**3, it is unlikely that you'll derive any conceptual benefit from a dimensionless representation. > As a separate question, if not boundary conditions are specified what does > this default to? (If anything) No flux _______________________________________________ fipy mailing list fipy@nist.gov http://www.ctcms.nist.gov/fipy [ NIST internal ONLY: https://email.nist.gov/mailman/listinfo/fipy ]
