I said:
A parameter (physical or not) like mu (friction coefficient) has nothing to do within the
bodies. This is an "inter-bodies" parameter and the bodies are rigid.
The answer was:
Right, but with this approach you can do what you want. For instance, if you
want mu=0.4 between A-type bodies, and mu = 0.2 between A-type and B-type
bodies you can do: mu_A = 0.4, mu_B = 0.0 and then mu will be defined as the
mean value.
I agree with that. It works fine. But I see two disadvantages:
1 - mu_A and mu_B have lost their physical meaning (if they had)
2 - I will have problem if someday (after bzr update) the mean rule if changed
for a max rule by someone well-intentioned
I understand that my comments are boring. Do not blame me please. The goal is
to help (maybe) but not to criticize.
Hi Vincent,
I don't think at all your comment is boring, you are the very needed
voice that cares about meaning of numbers (which we all tend to forget
with that many computers around); actually your GroupRelationData class
was a great inspiration for us when thinking in September with the
people in Oxford how to set restitution coefficient between two
materials to some value (like 1.0 for A-A and .8 for A-B). In the end, I
wrote MatchMaker, which does just that: you can define value for any
given couple of materials, and in addition a fallback function/value
(such as average, minimum, maximum etc) if that particular combination
is not handled explicitly.
And don't be so modest, your criticism is welcome, you have things to say!
Cheers!
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
