Re: [Yade-dev] Ip2_FrictMat_FrictMat_FrictPhys doc

Hi Jérôme, Thanks for pointing out what was missing. I tried to fix in [1]. Even though we all here are at ease with these models, I think the "young questions" we still face (me, few days ago here) should demonstrate there is room for improvement... Hoping to avoid another

Re: [Yade-dev] Ip2_FrictMat_FrictMat_FrictPhys doc

Looking at https://yade-dem.org/doc/yade.wrapper.html#yade.wrapper.Ip2_FrictMat_FrictMat_FrictPhys, I personally: - do not see anywhere that $E_i$ = Frictmat.young - do not see an exact expression for the shear contact stiffness. I only see mentions of a shear sphere stiffness, and a mixed

Re: [Yade-dev] Ip2_FrictMat_FrictMat_FrictPhys doc

Hi Jérôme, I am not in favor of removing some documentation, thank you for asking. In my view such patch would be a regression. I don't understand the motivation, see below. On 02/21/2018 05:59 PM, Jerome Duriez wrote: After seeing Yet Another Doubts on "young" meaning /

Re: [Yade-dev] Ip2_FrictMat_FrictMat_FrictPhys doc

When it comes to documentation, for me it’s: never remove anything, always improve :) On 21 Feb 2018, 22:25 +0100, Robert Caulk , wrote: > Hello Jérôme, > > I support clarifying the meaning of particle young in the class reference as > you suggest. There is no doubt that

Re: [Yade-dev] Ip2_FrictMat_FrictMat_FrictPhys doc

Hello Jérôme, I support clarifying the meaning of particle young in the class reference as you suggest. There is no doubt that newcomers to DEM and Yade confuse micro young's modulus with macro young's modulus all the time. I would vote for clarifying the general doc instead of full removal of

[Yade-dev] Ip2_FrictMat_FrictMat_FrictPhys doc

Hi, After seeing Yet Another Doubts on "young" meaning / Ip2_FrictMat_FrictMat_FrictPhys contact model (a PhD student in my institute), I'm proposing to explicitly mention the underlying equations in the doc, once for all. The corresponding would-be diff appears at the end of the email, you