Timeline for Reaction-diffusion PDE with NDSolve: either very slow or very inaccurate
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 15, 2016 at 11:14 | comment | added | Tamás Czárán | @user21 - I have tried it (with version 10.3), and it gave me tons of error messages all the time (although it returned some result at the end), but the main problem was that the resulting InterpolatingFunctions were too rough for NIntegrate - it complained of singularities... But as I see also Alexei could do both NDSolve and NIntegrate without further hassles, which is kind of puzzling to me... | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 14:26 | answer | added | Anton Antonov | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 12, 2016 at 9:18 | answer | added | Alexei Boulbitch | timeline score: 5 | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 18:12 | history | edited | J. M.'s missing motivation♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 10, 2016 at 18:06 | comment | added | user21 |
Why do you have the restriction MaxStepSize -> .5. If you remove that it integrates much faster. Is the result not correct?
|
|
| Feb 10, 2016 at 15:25 | comment | added | Tamás Czárán | @Chris K Spatial configuration is a key factor in my problem, and it needs to be as close to a real situation as possible, but I will probably have to downgrade to 1D if everything else fails :-) | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 15:12 | comment | added | Chris K | Could you start with a 1D version? Sorry, more of a modeling idea than a Mathematica tip. | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 14:55 | comment | added | Tamás Czárán | @Chris K Thanks a lot for your reply, Chris! Difn=0 is a possibility for now, but I need to test the results against varying Difn later, so I will have to keep it positive. Are there no options of NDSolve possibly resulting in smooth InterplolatingFunctions without dramatically increasing computing time? | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 13:47 | comment | added | Chris K | A 2D PDE will probably be time-consuming. I notice that your two diffusion coefficients differ by five orders of magnitude, which probably contributes to the slowness. Could you make them more equal or get away with setting Difn=0? My preliminary running of your code shows that these speed up the NDSolve around 10X. | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 13:24 | comment | added | user9660 | Welcome to Mathematica.SE! 1) As you receive help, try to give it too, by answering questions in your area of expertise. 2) Take the tour and check the faqs! 3) When you see good questions and answers, vote them up by clicking the gray triangles, because the credibility of the system is based on the reputation gained by users sharing their knowledge. Also, please remember to accept the answer, if any, that solves your problem, by clicking the checkmark sign! | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 12:23 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 10, 2016 at 13:24 | |||||
| Feb 10, 2016 at 12:17 | history | asked | Tamás Czárán | CC BY-SA 3.0 |