Timeline for Similarities between grand circulation solvers and mantle convection solvers
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2015 at 19:45 | history | edited | Neo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 515 characters in body
|
| Dec 8, 2014 at 19:39 | answer | added | stali | timeline score: 7 | |
| Dec 3, 2014 at 16:28 | vote | accept | Neo | ||
| Dec 3, 2014 at 6:42 | answer | added | Isopycnal Oscillation | timeline score: 12 | |
| Nov 17, 2014 at 4:38 | comment | added | Neo | Sean, that actually makes a lot of sense... Runge Kutta is not robust though... so It kind of saddens me. | |
| Nov 17, 2014 at 2:29 | comment | added | Sean | I believe last time I checked the code, the mantel convection solvers were using techniques like particle in cell, ue to very high viscocity associated with problems. The circulation solvers would use high order Runge Kutta. I will edit the comment when I remember the book on this topic, and add it. | |
| Jul 30, 2014 at 15:39 | comment | added | Paul | I've noticed that this question has remained unanswered for quite some time now. This question is also a good fit for the Computational Science SE site: scicomp.stackexchange.com. You may want to consider asking this question there. | |
| S Jun 26, 2014 at 7:05 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jun 26, 2014 at 7:05 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jun 18, 2014 at 5:09 | history | bounty started | Paul | ||
| S Jun 18, 2014 at 5:09 | history | notice added | Paul | Authoritative reference needed | |
| S May 21, 2014 at 23:53 | history | suggested | Azzie Rogers | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed grammer
|
| May 21, 2014 at 23:52 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 21, 2014 at 23:53 | |||||
| Apr 29, 2014 at 16:42 | comment | added | Neo | Maybe the better question would be to highlight the differences between the two processes. | |
| Apr 29, 2014 at 15:52 | comment | added | arkaia | The issue here is the dominant process and the scales are different. The heat dynamics are fundamental in Mantle Convection and the Nusselt Number (relation between conductive and convective heat) is critical. In ocean dynamics, the Rossby (rotation versus inertia) and Ekman (friction versus rotation) numbers are much more important and they are usually taken as close to zero in mantle convection. | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 4:23 | comment | added | Isopycnal Oscillation | Current Ocean models may provide a clue. Due to the vast disparity between temporal and spatial scales, there are at least 3 classes of solvers which use different techniques depending on the scale, you have particular solvers for the very small scales such as DNS, to LES, then to RANS, and so on. That alone indicates that the convection solvers and circulation solvers would be different. They both solve the NS equation, but they employ (one would hope) different mathematical/computational techniques to extract the information relevant to their problem at the least computational cost possible. | |
| Apr 22, 2014 at 17:38 | comment | added | Mark Rovetta | I would be surprised if these two systems (Mantle and Oceans) were truly dimensionally similar. That is you should show that the appropriate dimensionless numbers in these two cases are of similar magnitude. Are they? | |
| S Apr 21, 2014 at 9:02 | history | suggested | plannapus |
corrected typo in tag
|
|
| Apr 21, 2014 at 8:43 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 21, 2014 at 9:02 | |||||
| S Apr 21, 2014 at 8:33 | history | suggested | BHF | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Add links to cited models, taking the freedom to change from Citcom to CitcomS
|
| Apr 21, 2014 at 8:14 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 21, 2014 at 8:33 | |||||
| Apr 16, 2014 at 16:16 | comment | added | Semidiurnal Simon | The problem with getting this answered is that it probably needs somebody who is an expert in ocean modelling and mantle convection modelling... which is not a criticism of the question - I am now curious too! | |
| Apr 16, 2014 at 5:49 | comment | added | Neo | My fear is that until this site grows, this will go unanswered. Perhaps we can revisit it in the future. | |
| Apr 16, 2014 at 2:37 | comment | added | naught101 | This is quite a cool question, but I doubt there are many similarities, because you're dealing with things at such different scales (vertical scales, resolution, and very different viscosities), the approximations needed for the gridded models would probably be quite different. | |
| Apr 15, 2014 at 22:11 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 17, 2014 at 23:17 | |||||
| Apr 15, 2014 at 22:04 | comment | added | InquilineKea | I love this question. | |
| Apr 15, 2014 at 22:03 | comment | added | winwaed | In my u/g days, the mantle convection guys used a lot more physical lab models using fluids with scalable properties (Tate&Lyle Golden Syrup seemed popular!). Real world observations in those days were virtually nil, and even today it must still be an observation-poor environment. | |
| Apr 15, 2014 at 21:55 | history | asked | Neo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |