Quote:
Originally Posted by California98Civic
I wasn't trying to diss the original post. I appreciate it. I thanked the original post too. I am not trying to dampen anyone's enthusiasm. I take ConnClark's point about training, and I don't mind admitting again that I have none. I respect the training you all have. I'm asking questions of it. Even with training, how do you judge the usefulness of the visualized data? How do you set up reasonable parameters for the simulation? If there is no standard for converting these velocity and viscosity figures into "real world" numbers don't you have to wonder about confirmation bias in judgements about what flow simulation looks correct? What would you say the tool teaches best?
|
I'll speak for myself because ConnClark surely has something to say about it too. (CC, what do you do for a living, if I may ask?)
I have "calibrated" it based on ChazinMT's recommendations but noticed slight discrepancies between the data and my tuft testing. Not sure what to do about that, but once you get it locked in it should be pretty accurate for most tests, right?
I have no training outside Phil's lectures and other things on this site. I don't have the money for Hucho's book so it's mostly just studying what people say and studying tuft and smoke images (including independent "research" via tuft testing on the Probe). Still, when CC says "99.9%" of people don't know what to look for, I would wager that that other 0.1% is the members on this site, reading this thread, and using the software. If not us, who?
Curious to see what others say.