(1). Well, I kind of agree with you. I am not a scholar at all. No one has called me by that name before. (2). I have just noticed that the number in the parenthesis is 244,which gives some indication about the active readers of this forum. The peak is 361. (3). It is a very small number when compared with the world population of some 5,000,000,000 people? I will have to stop here, because I am running out of my free Internet time again. As long as someone is still reading and writing, I think, it is good enough.

(1). Out of 248 visitors of this message, only a few (less than 5) said they have seen the book.

Sure~

Greetings all,

A few comments about Warsi's book that hopefully will be of some assistance:

I bought the book because Dr. Warsi required it (not surprisingly) in the two fluid mechanics courses I took from him (Incompressible Viscous Laminar Flow, Turbulent Flow). I've often wondered how useful the textbook would be to someone who hadn't had the benefit of learning directly from Dr. Warsi himself. I found the book to be challenging but well worth the effort.

Incidentally, my copy is the first edition. There's a 2nd edition available but I've only browsed through it briefly at the bookstore. I didn't notice any major differences but don't hold me to that.

In my opinion, the derivations in the book are detailed outlines, not line-by-line descriptions with all the relevant algebra. And that's precisely why it's such a rewarding book: you're forced to fill in the intervening steps yourself if you want to understand the material. Whether that style of learning is beneficial is a personal judgement, of course. It worked for me, although I had two semesters in which to cover the book. If you're looking to just sit down and read through it, you may be frustrated.

Don't get me wrong -- the book isn't "sketchy" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it's the most complete fluids book I can think of, with the possible exception of Batchelor. Warsi's book is more mathematical than Batchelor's book, but the level of treatment is similar.

The book isn't a CFD book. There are sections that briefly cover some of his elliptical grid generation work with Thompson and Mastin, and a short treatment of finite volume methods, iterative methods (e.g., Gauss-Seidel), and finite differencing. I hope I've got that right; I don't have the book in front of me. It probably isn't a worthwhile investment if you're looking for a CFD text. If you're looking for a solid work on incompressible fluid mechanics, this is an excellent book to consider.

The book uses Cartesian tensor notation heavily. I believe all of the necessary mathematics are included in the book. There is also some coverage of general tensors, as well as nice appendices on relevant topics from vector calculus (e.g., Green's theorem).

Some of the exercises require you to have small auxiliary computer programs for things like root finding, numerically integrating the boundary layer equations, etc. Basically a combination of canned routines from (say) Numerical Recipes and some do-it-yourself programs is needed to make sense out of those exercises.

My bottom-line recommendation: an excellent advanced fluids book which will place some demands on you but will become a rewarding reference after you've gone through it once. If you can get a first-hand look at a library copy that would be best (I think the bookstore copies are usually shrink-wrapped).

Well, I meant to be brief. Hope this helps! I would be interested in hearing your comments if you decide to buy it. Or from anyone else who's actually read it.

Paul

(1). Your comment is consistent with my brief encounter of the book at one time in a book store. (2). If you are thinking about studying the book on your own, you will have to become familiar with his tensor calculus and notations. (3). For CFD, you can't use the tensor notations directly in programming.

I`m student in final year and i`m looking for any informations concerning the modelling of the flow through in my case a ceramic candle filter, in general trough a porous materials......i`m waitint for your ansmer

(3). For CFD, you can't use the tensor notations directly in programming

What an intelligent observation. You are sure to get a nobel prize. Keep up the good work.

(1). With almost 30 years promoting cfd, the Nobel Prize has never been my goal. (2). I always think that the Nobel Prize is for some poor professors working day and night in the dark laboratories. (3). There will be a prize created in the future for researchers in cfd, but not right now. The field is not mature yet.

1) It might have just skipped you brilliant mind that the message given by CFD code writer has sarcasm in it. 2)....... 3)....... 4).......