There are no forums with similar traffic. A few code vendors run forums for their own customers, but these code-specific forum are often quite empty. If you are interested in other CFD links check out the links to links section here of CFD Online. There is also a special link section about online communities. The most interesting alternative forum is probably the usenet news group, where there sometimes is some traffic from other CFD people. The other forums have very little forum traffic.

I think CFD-Online does a very sound job. Thanks Jonas.

I wonder if you'd consider a theoretical discussion forum at any point in the future? One where we could get into meaty theoretical discussions, & away from the general day-to-day 'Main' or Miscellaneous forum.

Perhaps this could even be structured slightly differently to encourage idea flow? A lot of this info could later be filtered back into the Wiki.

mw...

I'm glad that you like CFD Online. About a special theoretical discussion forum. I think that it is difficult to get any action in a too narrow forum. Discussions tend to die out quickly if there are not enough people to sustain a continious discussion. That is why we have kept most subjects in the main forum.

I see what you want to achieve with a separate forum though - slower and more elaborate and serious discussions. Perhaps we could try to open a separate forum for this to see how it works out. But as I said I'm a bit hesitant that this type of forum can not maintain a critical mass of users and hence will self die. I think that this kind of forum should use a slightly different format with a more clear topic division and it should require registered users. Anyone else interested in testing a new kind of "more serious" forum using a different kind of forum software?

Thanks Jonas. I agree with your comments regarding the nature & dynamic of such a forum. Perhaps it could be a separate 'room' launched off the original site?

mw...

When you get down to discussing finer points, the interest group can get very small, and as Jonas said, can lack the critical mass to be self-sustaining.

A format that might work might be a kind of mini-wiki. For each topic, groups would lay out the background and context for the discussion topic. Then the discussion would proceed from an agreed-upon point, and discussion positions would have to be consistent and add to the overall understanding as maintained in wiki format. When something is added, mail could be sent out to all registered participants so that they might check in.

The existing Wiki is appropriate for that, isn't it?

I tend to become a little constricted with a Wiki-type format - it seems to formal to me, somehow. It's ok as a final reference, but as a work-in-progress, it scares me.

A thought could be a layout similar to what you have now, in a separate forum, but with the power to build up discussions. You could kick it off by porting many historic discussions to the new forum so that it doesn't appear too stark.

This could be a place to discuss some of the old chestnuts, as well. Anyway, as more posters respond, you will get a better picture.

mw...

The CFD-wiki rejects anything that is not established doctrine as documented in publications. Given that it often takes two years for an article submitted to a journal to appear in print, the CFD-wiki will always be at least two years behind the cutting edge of thought and research.

One problem with discussions and argumentation arises when people argue while having different concepts of the problem or different meanings for the words used. My "wiki-type" suggestion was to promote an agreed-upon statement of the problem and context for the discussion.

Finally, nothing better facilitates the understanding of a problem than trying to explain it to others who come with different experiences and different points of view. There is no better test of an idea than to make it stand up in diverse circumstances. That is the basis of the scientific method.

Well stated, Jonas.

For me, personally, I find the traditional scientific approach of 'trial by journal' to be far too restrictive, too slow & frankly - outdated. I'd agree with your concept of establishing a general framework for discussion - setting the rules of an open discussion - & creating an environment where challenge becomes the norm.

I really think this concept has merit. How, & more importantly - *when* are we going to get it working?

mw...

CFD-Wiki is not really a good place to discuss things. However, CFD-Wiki does include talk pages for each normal page where discussions about the topics covered in the page can occur. The advantage with using CFD-Wiki is that this makes it possible to include images and equations (using latex syntax). I'm not aware of any forum software which has these possibilities. Using CFD-Wiki would also make everyone work on one document to describe a topic and then the discussions can be made in the talk page related to that topic. This would make it necessary to write the main topic page in a way that everyone unerstands and agrees upon. Interesting idea!

There we go, Jonas - you have a challenge... I think we have some truly excellent members on CFD-Online & if we really get the right format going, this could be a very useful discussion & thought-provoking medium.

mw...

If we are going to use the wiki it is already there for use right now. I would also recommend that we use the wiki forum for more simple discussions about more elaborate wiki content. The wiki forum is today mainly filled with administrative messages and it has very little traffic so content posted there stays for a much longer time than here on the main forum.