|From:||"JhonY. I." <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:35:15 +0000|
Thanks a lot for your advices really, Matt and Vikas.|
I've tested variation of conditions on fix thermal/condcutivity and fix ave/spatial.
As best one among them, I've got attached result (figure.jpg) using
fix 3 all ave/spaitial 200 1000 20000 z lower 1.4345 .....
fix flux all thermal/conductivity 40 z 24 swap 2
It seems that the tmp profile near thermal sink (1st layer) is too steep while tmp profile seems somewhat fine in other region including that of thermal source (14 layer).
This (problem on abstruptness near thermal sink) has been the common tendency in my other tests in which the condition is varied (I've also tested frequency of 20 or 25 instead of 40 in "fix thermal/conductivity command").
How about the result? Will it be fine in spite of it?
Otherwise, should I take more optimal data?
It is hard to take better profile near thermal sink.
Is there any recommendable way to get good data near thermal sink region?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:56:38 -0400
Subject: Re: [lammps-users] questions on tmp.profile
CC: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
In addition to Matt's suggestion, again it helps if you post a graph instead of putting the numbers in a table form, especially for the question you are asking.
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Matt K. Petersen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
It looks to me like you need to sample longer, and/or swap more
윈걸의 좌충우돌 UCC 제작기, 지금 확인해보세요!