I'd love to hear what you found most helpful and what questions/topics you'd like addressed in future episodes! So please comment below or send an email to podcast@cfd4industry.com
That episode was amazing! The creativity of the CFD developers in using pure physics to describe complex phenomena is truly inspiring. Thank you very much!
AMAZING KADE; I have no other words !! The way Saplding spotted the problem, "Parabolic equation has no diffusion that propagates upstream." That is accurate, but imagine when they were learning and developing all that knowledge. It may be common sense today but look at it from the eyes of the people developing all this... I worked on parabolized Navier Stokes Equations at the beginning of my PhD and it struck me the simplicity and its resolving power simultaneously! That reminds me about the elliptic nature of disturbance in the BL; I remember I had a discussion with a lecturer many years ago about the nature of signals that trigger transition !! AMAZING !!
Thank you so much for your feedback, Julio. Reminds me of this statement from Hirsch's text "As with many ideas which appear simple afterwards, the orginal development required deep understanding of the problems both numerical and physical."
I think what resonated with me was the distinction between being a scientist and an engineer. Which is the difference between good enough to solve problems vs state of the art accuracy. Sometimes there can be frustration from CAE simulation engineers in small teams dealing with both method development and production pipelines, that designers do not care enough to understand the physics and limitations behind the insights given to them, they just expect an answer of go/no-go. When designs have less margins due to cost and efficiency reasons, models which were previously sufficiently accurate suddenly need improvement and this is where engineers need to put on scientist hats to figure things out. I think ability to adapt to this role switch is important to have in a career in this field.
I enjoyed our discussion very much. For the next sessions, I recommend that 1. It would be great to have an expert working on CFD and AI (ML) together, most likely on flow past over airfoils, cylinders, etc., 2. CFD and parallel computation Thank you.
I am very grateful for your efforts, not only in delivering such valuable content but also in bringing together perspectives that emphasize the contrast between traditional teaching methods and those employed by individuals with true expertise. His approach to writing, which involves starting with a brief overview of the concept before diving into details and using pictures and diagrams to clarify physical phenomena, resonates with me deeply. It's a concern I've had for some time-how the teaching process often jumps straight into details, causing us to lose sight of the overall objective. Additionally, the absence of clear diagrams or the over-reliance on text can be distracting and confusing. For instance, rather than beginning with the intricate details of equations or concepts, wouldn’t it be more effective to first present the big picture and then explore the process and specifics? Another critical aspect is the use of diagrams, charts, and visuals to elucidate complex phenomena, particularly in physics, where words alone can sometimes lead to misunderstanding. I might be reflecting a tradition in UK science, especially among those who have significantly impacted the history of science, where there's a focus on simplifying the explanation of physical phenomena. Take Isaac Newton, for instance, and how he developed his second law, F = ma. Although this law is not mathematically proven, its validity was originally established through experience and experimentation. Similarly, in one of your previous podcasts, Aksahi Runchall shared how his mentor Brian explained complex fluid dynamics concepts in an extraordinarily simple way.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment here. So much to unpack, but yes, I agree that teaching methods are lagging in traditional education. Chris Greenshields and I discussed this theme in EP 020. I realize not everyone learns the same, but I am certain we can be more effective at teaching. It makes those who can do it so well that much more awesome.
In fact, the previous comment was meant for Chris's podcast! Regardless, I agree that teaching methods can significantly impact understanding. Chris's insights, especially about those who contributed to developing programs like OpenFOAM, emphasize their deep comprehension of theoretical concepts, allowing them to visualize and simplify these ideas effectively.
@@FOSSCADandCFD-bz6us I did wonder if that was commented on the wrong episode (: Anyway, totally agree. Thanks for supporting the channel and sharing your thoughts!
Hey dear. I saw your TH-cam channel. Your channel has many videos but not enough views and subscribers. Your channel should be optimized, your videos are very good but your video optimization is very bad Example: SEO score is zero, no perfect title - description - no SEO friendly tags added, no social media sharing Platform and some in your TH-cam channel Settings are not correct. Because of this your video is not reaching the people who are interested and you are not getting enough views, likes and subscriptions Many problems for which your video views and subscribers are not good. As a result, your video views are not affected. You need SEO for your TH-cam channel immediately. As a video SEO expert, I look forward to your response. Thank you.
I'd love to hear what you found most helpful and what questions/topics you'd like addressed in future episodes! So please comment below or send an email to podcast@cfd4industry.com
That episode was amazing! The creativity of the CFD developers in using pure physics to describe complex phenomena is truly inspiring. Thank you very much!
Glad you enjoyed Aki's wealth of experience!
AMAZING KADE; I have no other words !! The way Saplding spotted the problem, "Parabolic equation has no diffusion that propagates upstream." That is accurate, but imagine when they were learning and developing all that knowledge. It may be common sense today but look at it from the eyes of the people developing all this... I worked on parabolized Navier Stokes Equations at the beginning of my PhD and it struck me the simplicity and its resolving power simultaneously!
That reminds me about the elliptic nature of disturbance in the BL; I remember I had a discussion with a lecturer many years ago about the nature of signals that trigger transition !! AMAZING !!
Thank you so much for your feedback, Julio. Reminds me of this statement from Hirsch's text "As with many ideas which appear simple afterwards, the orginal development required deep understanding of the problems both numerical and physical."
I think what resonated with me was the distinction between being a scientist and an engineer. Which is the difference between good enough to solve problems vs state of the art accuracy.
Sometimes there can be frustration from CAE simulation engineers in small teams dealing with both method development and production pipelines, that designers do not care enough to understand the physics and limitations behind the insights given to them, they just expect an answer of go/no-go.
When designs have less margins due to cost and efficiency reasons, models which were previously sufficiently accurate suddenly need improvement and this is where engineers need to put on scientist hats to figure things out. I think ability to adapt to this role switch is important to have in a career in this field.
Yes, the scientist improves the enigneer's tools and the engineer can focus the scientist's effort!
This was amazing 🎉 Thanks Kade for this insightful podcast.
So glad you enjoyed it! Aki had a wealth of knowledge to share (:
Really insightful words from Dr. Akshai Runchal. Thanks for sharing Kade
I agree! Dr. Runchal is full of wisdom.
That's it what I am looking for in this platform. Thanks for this content ❤love from India🇮🇳
I love hearing that. Thank you so much!
I enjoyed our discussion very much.
For the next sessions, I recommend that
1. It would be great to have an expert working on CFD and AI (ML) together, most likely on flow past over airfoils, cylinders, etc.,
2. CFD and parallel computation
Thank you.
Thank you for the feedback! I've got some ML episodes lined up.
Great podcast. I feel very related with the research hat and consulting hat in CFD project ^^
Thanks for the feedback. I've spent the majority of my career in CFD consulting and Aki hit the nail right on the head.
I am very grateful for your efforts, not only in delivering such valuable content but also in bringing together perspectives that emphasize the contrast between traditional teaching methods and those employed by individuals with true expertise. His approach to writing, which involves starting with a brief overview of the concept before diving into details and using pictures and diagrams to clarify physical phenomena, resonates with me deeply. It's a concern I've had for some time-how the teaching process often jumps straight into details, causing us to lose sight of the overall objective. Additionally, the absence of clear diagrams or the over-reliance on text can be distracting and confusing. For instance, rather than beginning with the intricate details of equations or concepts, wouldn’t it be more effective to first present the big picture and then explore the process and specifics? Another critical aspect is the use of diagrams, charts, and visuals to elucidate complex phenomena, particularly in physics, where words alone can sometimes lead to misunderstanding. I might be reflecting a tradition in UK science, especially among those who have significantly impacted the history of science, where there's a focus on simplifying the explanation of physical phenomena. Take Isaac Newton, for instance, and how he developed his second law, F = ma. Although this law is not mathematically proven, its validity was originally established through experience and experimentation. Similarly, in one of your previous podcasts, Aksahi Runchall shared how his mentor Brian explained complex fluid dynamics concepts in an extraordinarily simple way.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment here. So much to unpack, but yes, I agree that teaching methods are lagging in traditional education.
Chris Greenshields and I discussed this theme in EP 020. I realize not everyone learns the same, but I am certain we can be more effective at teaching. It makes those who can do it so well that much more awesome.
In fact, the previous comment was meant for Chris's podcast! Regardless, I agree that teaching methods can significantly impact understanding. Chris's insights, especially about those who contributed to developing programs like OpenFOAM, emphasize their deep comprehension of theoretical concepts, allowing them to visualize and simplify these ideas effectively.
@@FOSSCADandCFD-bz6us I did wonder if that was commented on the wrong episode (: Anyway, totally agree. Thanks for supporting the channel and sharing your thoughts!
Valid insights...
Lee Melissa Jackson Deborah Lewis Charles
Hey dear.
I saw your TH-cam channel. Your channel has many videos but not enough views and subscribers. Your channel should be optimized, your videos are very good but your video optimization is very bad Example: SEO score is zero, no perfect title - description - no SEO friendly tags added, no social media sharing Platform and some in your TH-cam channel Settings are not correct. Because of this your video is not reaching the people who are interested and you are not getting enough views, likes and subscriptions
Many problems for which your video views and subscribers are not good.
As a result, your video views are not affected.
You need SEO for your TH-cam channel immediately. As a video SEO expert, I look forward to your response.
Thank you.