Skip to main content
17 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 20, 2020 at 9:57 answer added user21 timeline score: 0
Apr 20, 2020 at 9:55 comment added Paul Harrison @user21 Thanks, now I understand! [At least part of "the problem" is that the user is not an expert :-) ]. Perhaps this will also help with my wider problems. Will try it now.
Apr 20, 2020 at 9:52 comment added user21 @PaulHarrison, the fact that ImplicitRegion[z>=0,...] bevels the box that you specify is not wanted but a problem with the generality of the algorithm creating the mesh. Cuboid gives additional information (that the region is a cuboid, something with ImplicitRegion[z>=0,..] does not give) and a better algorithm can be used for the Cuboid case.
Apr 20, 2020 at 9:48 comment added Paul Harrison @user21 Thanks for the tips. I can try these. Cuboid, I had considered, but was unaware initially that if I specify explicitly a box-shaped volume, that the mesh creation would soften the corners, but not do the same to a Cuboid (which is a box-shaped region). Why would it not do the same to Cuboid? I also do not understand what putting True as an argument to ImplicitRegion does. I guess I can find it in the documentation, somewhere.
Apr 20, 2020 at 9:37 comment added user21 @PaulHarrison, I still do not understand the problem. Why do you not just use Cubiod or ImplicitRegion[True,...] to represent your region?
Apr 20, 2020 at 8:58 comment added Paul Harrison @user21 Ps. The reason the bevelled corners were a problem is that (as I understand it) BCs, where unspecified, are inserted as Neumann BCs. My BCs are (obviously) only specified at the main faces of the box (z==0, x=-rng etc.). The little bevelled edges effectively form 12 additional faces, which by default get their own Neumann BCs, and distort the fields in the corners. I was concerned about that and thought the best way to deal with it was to follow the (your) prescription at the SE post I linked to my original question above, which was also about similarly cut-off corners (albeit in 2D).
Apr 20, 2020 at 8:46 comment added Paul Harrison @user21 I am solving a Poisson-type equation (Laplacian and load term) in 3D in the box with Dirichlet and (implicit) Neumann BCs. Hope that helps? In fact, I have found a work-around now, since I find that I can refine the corners of the box using a smaller MaxBoundaryCellMeasure, while keeping my MaxCellMeasure quite large. Probably dumb that I did not try that sooner. The workaround does not, of course, solve the bug which Szabolcs has posted for this case. (I am having another problem now, which I will post as a separate question).
Apr 20, 2020 at 8:23 comment added user21 I have trouble understanding what your final objective is. Cloud you elaborate a bit on that?
Apr 18, 2020 at 21:00 history tweeted twitter.com/StackMma/status/1251616502232633345
Apr 18, 2020 at 19:43 answer added Steffen Jaeschke timeline score: -1
Apr 18, 2020 at 19:38 history edited Szabolcs CC BY-SA 4.0
edited tags
Apr 18, 2020 at 19:33 comment added Szabolcs WARNING: RegionUnion just crashed my kernel with these meshes.
Apr 18, 2020 at 18:51 comment added Paul Harrison @Tim Laska. This looks interesting. I will have a play with it. Thanks for your help!
Apr 18, 2020 at 18:40 answer added Tim Laska timeline score: 5
Apr 18, 2020 at 17:23 comment added Tim Laska I think that you should consider using the new OpenCascadeLink. OpenCascade is an open source cad package and it does a good job preserving sharp edges on boolean operations. I showed a couple of usage examples in my answer here.
Apr 18, 2020 at 16:25 history edited Paul Harrison CC BY-SA 4.0
Simplified example code slightly (still shows problem)
Apr 18, 2020 at 15:04 history asked Paul Harrison CC BY-SA 4.0