Talk:Lagrangian–Eulerian advection

Untitled

• I have removed the {{prod}} tag which proposed that this article be deleted, because I think that this article has merit and so should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here as notification. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article as that process is only to be used when there is no opposition. Warden (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Issues with recent addition

Original research was added to Lagrangian–Eulerian advection, and it's not even on topic. A visualization was added, which doesn't even use the techniques described and then added original research claiming it can be improved with the technique. Information about Lagrangian techniques was added that is so vague as to be useless which doesn't actually make any attempt to explain the approach in a way that is relevant for the present case. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It could take several hours to code a Lagrangian–Eulerian visulisation, unless someone can find a public domain one, couldnt see one from a quick look on source forge. Not sure its worth the time when there are so many articles desperatly needing improvement. A pic is often worth a thousand words, and it immediatly helps a non scientific reader grasp what the topic is all about. At least two of those wanting to destroy the article seemned to think it should be understanable for all.

Not sure an OR tag is warranted. IMO the Jobard source supports about 75% of the new addition. The only parts it doesnt are common knowledge for anyone who knows much about graphics, and the bit on lab experiements with real dye is surely known to most who took science at school? ( I seem to recall we even did those experiements at under 16 level, though could have been at the A level stage, too old to remember). Anyway I wont revert again if others want to remove the new addition, but I will ask that you try to replace it with something thats easy to understand. Tarc made a good point at the AfD that we should try to a general everyman encyclopaedia. If elite scientists want to have terse, dense articles and conversations, they have their own conferences, journals and dedicated web sites. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• The image is excellent and close enough to our topic to assist the reader's understanding. The caption just seemed to need trimming to avoid overclaiming and I have done this. Warden (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is perhaps better to request an image on the topic from a related wikiproject, rather than getting one on one that doesn't use the same method, but actually a different topic. It would be like including an example solved with the Euler method on a page about RKF. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Conceptual breakdown

I removed:

Advection is a process by which particles are moved by the force of currents in flowing fluids or bodies of air. As pure forces cannot be seen, a common way for scientists to visualize non linear forces is to observe the motion of dye particles added to the fluids being studied. Sometimes this is done with real dye in lab experiments. There are advantages to using computer simulation, but although the motion involved in advection can in principle be modeled by differential equations, it can be challenging to develop programs that accurately generate the detailed images required, especially in a real time scenario.

Lagrangian techniques use simplifications that make it easier for computers to create rapidly changing images. However the simplifications can prevent images being generated with the full detail that scientists will sometimes like to see.

Eulerian techniques can capture advection in much more detail, but they are error pone, and the error correction equations can rapidly become too complex even for powerful computers to generate a smoothly moving image. By using a combination of Lagrangian and Eulerian techniques, programmers can produce detailed and high performance graphics.

It contains inaccuracies, wikilinks to unrelated topics, and original research in disagreement with scientific consensus. I suggest only to add such a section if sufficiently supported by references to reliable secondary sources, see also WP:BURDEN. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, see the above section. I agree that it's mostly unrelated and OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)