My dear fellow CFD friends

Can anyone give my some sort of review or impression on the book by Warsi, Z. U. A.

Fluid Dynamics, Theoretical and Computational Approaches

CRC Press

I read the very positive reviews at Amazon.com, but are in search of some reassurance, as the book is quite expensive from my pockets point of view.

I thank you all.

(1). I don't have the book, so you don't need it. (2). I think I have seen the book at a book store once, but it wasn't attractive to me. (3). To buy a book, you have to read it first, to see whether it matches your background and interest. Do this several times, until you really like the book, otherwise, find some other books.

John,

You say that you don't have this book so nobody else needs it. You saw it on a shelf and it wasn't attractive to you, so you didn't buy it.

Then you tell us that before you buy a book, you should read it over to make sure it fits with your own background and interests. I am sure that not everyone's background and interests are the same as yours, therefore this book may still be of value to Tom. Did you take your own advice and read this book over several times before you decided not to buy it? Or did you just not like the color of the cover?

If you are going to give contradictory advice on such simple matters as buying a book, how can you expect us to hold your CFD advice in high regard?

Franco

(1). I am sorry, it is a little bit confusing to you I guess. (2). I am going to try it second time, to make it as clear as possible. (3). My suggestion is: It is not worth buying. (4). This is not a CFD question or answer. You are free to spend your money in any way you like.

Well done John. Continue with this new found level of coherence in all of your future posts and we will all be better off.

Franco

(1). Is this also a CFD question?

"1). Thank you very much. (2). I have put on it a new seat, new tires and handle bar cork tapes. (3). and I will be testing it in the park tomorrow. The park is beautiful and has two duck ponds, one golf course, biking trails, and model airplane field.

A lot of trees and green grass. (4) Anyway, I need to stay away from the computer and do more outdoor exercises"

Was this a CFD question or a CFD answer from you John?

(1). That's not a CFD question. (2). It is related to the background of my CFD answers. (3). In other words, it reflects the quality of (or lack of quality) my CFD answers. (4). The current issue of the Industry Standard says on the cover that "The Fall of the West. Dot-coms are dying....", so I guess we are also having problems in quality here. (5). The fact is: there are CFD vendors, claiming that they are doing research, there are schools saying that they are teaching CFD, there are many dozens of CFD books available to newcomers as well as researchers, there are printed journals dedicated to CFD research, there are meeting for CFD conferences, there are online CFD electronic papers,etc.... (6). There must be a reason why people still come here and read the cfd forum, with flea market quality. (7). I don't have the answer, but all I know is the weekend flea market in the college parking lot is really packed with people, even though the stock price is coming down to machine zero.

Well ..Tom,

I did read the Boundary layer theory from this book by Warisi. I must tell you it was a very coherent and clear description. The book seems to fill in many of the missing steps which authors normally take for granted. On the whole I have a good impression of 'Warisi' books.

Prabhu

Dear Prabhu

Thank you for the response, its been of great help to me. Unlike John, I love buying books on subject matter, and the book did seem to be worth the odd 95 dollars when looking at the index on this site.

Thank you Tom

(1). Save the money for the bad time, and check out the book from the library.

Tom,

This question has sparked a humorous set of responses on who should and how a book should be judged.

I personally have borrowed this book a number of times from the University library which tells me that I should probably think of buying it. In terms of content, it is one of the modern efforts to include some computational methods in a standard fluid mechanics text rather than leaving it all to a final chapter (usually by another author) or to specific CFD books. This is a nice idea as it gets the student thinking along the way as to how one might solve the various problems numerically and usually adds to the physical understanding as well.

Best of luck .....Duane

stop it guys

I'm sorry to say but.. you are so arrogant and dogmatic, man~. If you go on like this, no one in this forum will trust you. I've heard some university CFD class uses Warsi's as a textbook. Why do they use it? And many people,i think, like that book (visit amazon). If you can write better CFD book than Warsi, I will believe you. You are not an expert in teaching students. I always feel you says as if you know everything, your comment is always a truth. Am i wrong? Why not write a GREAT CFD BOOK?

(1). That's a very good suggestion. (2). If one does not know which book to read, it is hard to learn CFD. (3). And if you can learn CFD by reading a book, everyone would be expert by now. (4). The fact is you can only learn CFD by writing your CFD code. (5). To write a CFD book was one of my plan 25 years ago. It is hard to make money that way, so I have given up that approach already. (6). You are encouraged to read his book and try to become an expert in CFD. (7). If he is good at writing CFD book, why not print his CFD codes in the book as well. (8). So, it is your turn to read his book, and see whether you can write a CFD code to solve a turbulent flow problem. (I have written many large CFD codes long before his book was published.)

(1). Why? (2). Even MIT is trying to give away a couple of thousand class course notes on Internet. (3). It is old fashion approach to buy a book. (4). And there is no way one can protect the copying of a CD, as claimed by my son who is a computer science graduate. (5). A book is normally copied in the library by student using the copying machines there. In other places, there are copying services available to do copying for you. (6). The issue here is "whether it is worth buying or not". (7). I simply do not buy a book because someone says that the book is good for him. For a textbook, the students have no choice. It is determined by the teacher, not by the student. And without the teacher, I don't think the book is designed for self-study of fluid dynamics and CFD. (8). MIT is not afraid of giving away the class notes free on Internet, because they claimed that a book is not equal to a school + a professor + a student participation. (9). Since I am getting some free Internet connection hours at the begining of a month, I can still write here. (9). For the numerical grid generation, I have two copies of Joe Thompson's book, one is paper cover, and the other is hard cover. This is a good reference book to have.

Yes, you can make code. And any other one can do it. Programming is just a technique. Not a math, not a physics. You are just a technician.

But not everyone, including you, cannot make or develop new numerical scheme. You may say you can. Then, how may papers did you have published in SIAM, AIAA, J. Comp. Phys, etc.? Do you have more papers than the authors of famous textbooks? I expect you may justify yourself by saying "the development of numerical scheme is not important, the more important is how to use it."

You're no more than an arrogant programmer. I'm really disappointed.

(1). CFD is not about mesh generation. I had used a general cfd code back in early 80's. It was some kind of finite volume method. Unfortunately, we were able to create complex mesh, but not the converged solution. (2). So, I have to say that, once again, CFD is not CAD or mesh generation. CAD and mesh generation alone is useless in CFD. The numerical method of generating mesh by solving a set of elliptic partial differential equations developed by Joe Thompson and co-authored by Warsi is a good example. Unfortunately, it is just too complicated and time consuming for 3-D problems. It is very hard to control the mesh using their method. This is because, they are mathematician. (3). If you like to read numerical methods, please visit the webpage of Professor Jameson at Stanford University, Department of Aeronautics. There, you can see a long list of papers related to the numerical schemes. He is very good at inventing new numerical schemes, artificial viscosity terms, etc... (4). Many many years ago, I had come across a paper written by a Russian researcher, in the paper, he listed a couple of dozen numerical schemes, using different combination of nodal points. So, inventing new numerical schemes is not that difficult at all. (5). Then there is this turbulence modeling. Do you think that LES and DNS will answer the question of turbulence modeling in the near future? (less than one year, because companies are disappearing more than once in a year now) Some commercial cfd codes are still using algebraic turbulence models, like Baldwin-Lomax model developed for attached boundary layer , in complex separated turbulent flows. The method was developed more than twenty years ago. (the same is true for the two-equation models, which were developed in early 70's) (6). We can also get into the post-processing area of computer graphics. Most of the technologies were developed ten, twenty years ago. (7). The question is: Is the numerical mesh generation, by solving a set of elliptic partial differential equations, a popular and efficient method to generate a mesh for cfd application today? Is it the right way to go in the future? (8). The same is true. One can ask a question: Are you going to follow the numerical methods developed by Prof. Jameson to solve your complex internal flow problem? (9). It is not important whether you are disappointed or not. The most important thing is : given a flow problem, can you get the right solution? (10). The difficulty is: the useful information is normally not published. and likewise, the black box remains a black box. (11). The funny thing is, people are developing automatic cfd design procedures, but at the same time, they don't know how to generate a mesh, select a numerical scheme, adjust a turbulence model, and bring the solution to converge. (12). By the way, I am not providing answers here. I don't have the answer. Even if I have the answer, it is not going to be free here. (13). It is very hard to change a person, so you will not be changed by reading the forum, this includes your feeling. (14). I think it is quite simple to do CFD, it is like running an experiment or wind tunnel testing. The only purpose is to get the accurate result. And even if many people are saying that "mesh independent solution" is important, still 99% of people are not doing it. And my goal is to write something in the forum, that's all. I am sure, people will keep doing their own thing, even if they think it is important to change, because it is impossible. And so companies die. (15). The biggest utility company (gas and electricity) in California has just filed the chapter-11 (bankruptcy). The good news is I am still writing, and you are still reading. That's important. The important thing is you have to define your goal. We need solutions not methods.

I bought this book three years ago. I reffered many time to the book during my CFD job. So I see it as a good reffernce book.

Tareq

That's not an answer what i expected. Your long long sentences are beside the point. Do not make people confused by writing those strange long long sentences which is out of the point, please.

The only thing you know is about turbulence modelling and mesh generation. Are there no other things except mesh generation, turbulence modelling in numerical schemes ? There are many many others. You do not know real mathematics, real physics.

One definite thing is you are not a scholar at all.