Talk:Lattice Boltzmann methods

Define notations

In the section 'algorithm', please define what are $f$, $\delta _{t}\,\!$, the index $i$. People can't guess, unless they allready know about LB... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.81.88 (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Only CFD?

I am no expert on the field, but from what I've gathered, CFD is not the sole application of lattice-Boltzmann methodology; e.g. Succi (the very same as referenced in the article) has done work on computational quantum mechanics with LBM. LBM in magnetohydrodynamics also seems to be a rather big field of study (is magnetohydrodynamics a subset of CFD, though?). There are a bunch of other computational fields benefiting from the LBM-approach: Would this be worthwhile of mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALambda (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Boundary Conditions

Can someone add a boundary conditions section? I have not gotten to that in my readings yet. Thanks.

Deeper explanation and derivation

Can the more intelligent physics students add a more thorough discussion to the math section. I have a moderately good group but adding all these equations is exhausting. Also, I know the derivation from the LBE equation to Navier Stokes but if someone wants, can they throw that in there?

Graphics

Some pictures of the lattices would be good to see. Most papers have them and should be just some copy and paste for the DnQm section.

what about taking pictures from http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Lattice_Boltzmann_Method ? The article is under creative commons. The pictures there too? Further i would suggest to use even more pictures in the rest of the text.--92.205.45.139 (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Still a good idea! yoyo (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

When faced with good idea, a central tenet of Wikipedia's philosophy is that you should 'be bold', and make a start on making those changes yourself! (If you have the time and skill.)

Nevertheless, in general it is not safe to literally "copy and paste" from others' publications, as this would be at serious risk of copyright infringement. Elements published under Creative Commons licences are often OK to include, although to be sure a closer inspection of the precise type of Creative Commons licence needs to be made. For example: "Works distributed under the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license are not compatible with many open-content sites, including Wikipedia, which explicitly allow and encourage some commercial uses." (see Creative Commons criticisms).

—DIV (120.17.237.127 (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC))

Utility of the derivation of the Navier–Stokes equation

In Lattice Boltzmann methods § Derivation of Navier–Stokes equation from discrete LBE, the article presents an overly detailed process of mathematical manipulation, most of whose steps are lacking motivation, even when they wouldn't be totally opaque to an interested lay reader. Surely an article of this sort need do no more than:

1. state that such a derivation is possible, and
2. (ideally) include reasons why having it is worthwhile?

The details of this derivation really belong in an engineering methods manual - they're pretty close to a "how-to" guide. So, I think we should remove them - or at least make them support the kind of statement I described above. What use is the derivation to our (non-specialist) audience? yoyo (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No, yoyo, I think a derivation of this kind is critical, especially for newcomer, where they can see why this method works.

And yes, steps are lacking motivations, but I would not call this article complete without linking this to the first principal (N-S eq.) 42.2.90.203 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Development from the LGA - method missing words

The last sentence in "Development from the LGA" is incomplete. Flüssigkristall (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021

The last sentence of the second paragraph of section "Development from the LGA method" begins with "In addition, th also ". "th" is not a word, I'm am not sure what was intended to be written here, so I will leave it to another person to decided how this sentence should be written. Mathew Lewis (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I just removed the sentence, as it's unsourced and I couldn't suss out the meaning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Limitations section is not neutral

The Limitations section is written in an argumentative style, with every single limitation followed by a counterargument. This gives the false impression that there are no real limitations of LBM, only unsolved problems due to its infancy. I am not familiar enough with LBM to rewrite this section, but there are undoubtedly genuine, fundamental limitations with the approach, e.g. it is only really useful for a limited subset of fluid problems, usually at relatively small spatial scales. The last two sentences also violate WP:SYNTH. Scleractinian (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I read some books on this, as far as I know, LBM is the newest development in CFD, it's hard to write a comparison to older methods when they are all worse than LBM, and therefore gives this impression. Although you do have a point, the whole section almost has little to do with actual limitations...LackOfInspiration1 (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done I changed the title to "Limitations and development" and structured it a little bit. LackOfInspiration1 (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Unclear variable names in example implementation

The variable names in the example implementation are unclear due to their short length, I fail to see why some variable only get five letters when other, less often used ones, get several more. Maybe even consider adding a comment on the lines they are declared on to add an explanation or a reference to a section of the article.

Guessing the purpose of each variable is usually possible when sifting thorough previous lines, however it would be far easier for a novice in this field if variables like "velof" or "bae" were fully written out. LionSt1 (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Hello, LionSt1, I am the author this program, in my opinion the comments are sufficient, but nonetheless I edited the variable names, now "bae" is "DummyVariable" and "velof" is "velocityField", on reference part, I did not reference this article, I referenced a paper by E. M. Viggen, but now I have edited the expression so it's easy to find parallel to this article.

Please Review and if you have more ideas to improve, See if you can do it yourself.42.2.90.203 (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, this is much improved, I appreciate the effort. I would have done it myself, but I didn't want to anger anyone by editing their code without at least asking if anybody else felt the same way. LionSt1 (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

oh, I was not complaining about it, I weren't thinking you *should have* done it yourself, please don't feel you need to explain. :) 42.2.90.203 (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

On "too technical for most readers"

Hello fellow editors, I'm thinking about simplifying this article, this will require significant change or even complete rewriting this, any thoughts? 58.152.67.161 (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That depends on who the target audience for this article is. To me it seems like the target reader is already at least vaguely familiar with a) fluid dynamics and b) numerical methods, or at least interested enough in those topics to be able to grasp most of the concepts with some supplementary reading. Maybe adding a simple.wikipedia article is better idea than an extensive rewrite, but that is just my unqualified opinion. Maybe write a simpler introduction and put the current introduction in a sort of "motivation" section right below it? LionSt1 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a brilliant idea in fact, but however, I see that too a bit much of supplementary reading is needed for comprehension of this article, solving this concern by write another article will generate a bit too much informational disparity between this and...what you have suggested, simple.wikipedia.

And on you other idea, that is very much practical, as current intro is more about motivation than actual intro, as it mentions LGA and NSE and languages that is only defined in the article itself, an actual Recursion, So let consider that. -OP(LackOfInspiration1) 23.166.24.185 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)