Apr 21, 2022·edited Apr 21, 2022Liked by Étienne Fortier-Dubois
Bonjour. Je propose un petit cas test. Comme dit dans mon commentaire dans la newsletter de février, je suis encore bloqué par mes difficultés à écrire en anglais, cependant ce n'est pas une excuse pour ne pas faire d'efforts. Voici un paragraphe (original puis réécrit à l'aide des différentes ressources que j'ai pu trouver sur ce blog ou ailleurs) d'un papier que je souhaite soumettre très bientôt :
--Original
- In Fig.1, x and y axes represent the density force perturbation normalized by the baseline density force and the relative permeabilities, respectively. The results were obtained for $S_1=0.3$ and $B=1$ . As shown, we found a plateau for perturbations in the range $10^{-4}<\xi<10^{-1}$ . For smaller values of the perturbation, the result is affected by numerical noise, whereas for larger values the flows are no longer similar, thus the results are not representative of a given flow. The existence of such a plateau is not guaranteed and must therefore be verified for each geometry. As an outcome, a perturbation of $\xi = 10^{-3}$ was selected for the 2D geometry. We recall that a value of ξ=0.2 was used in [13].
---Modified
- The relative permeabilities do not depend on the value of the density force perturbation in the range $10^{-4}<\xi<10^{-1}$ . For smaller values, the result is affected by numerical noise, whereas for larger values, the similarity condition of the two flows is not verified (Fig.1, results obtained for $S_1=0.3$ and $B=1$ ). This interval of constant relative permeabilities may not exist for different conditions and must therefore be verified for each geometry. As mentioned before, the authors used $\xi=0.2$ in [13], but the dependence with the value of the force perturbation was not checked. Here, a perturbation $\xi=10^{-3}$ is used for the 2D geometry.
J'imagine que sans le contexte il est difficile de juger. Mais je crois (j'espère) que la nouvelle version est plus claire.
Bonjour. Je propose un petit cas test. Comme dit dans mon commentaire dans la newsletter de février, je suis encore bloqué par mes difficultés à écrire en anglais, cependant ce n'est pas une excuse pour ne pas faire d'efforts. Voici un paragraphe (original puis réécrit à l'aide des différentes ressources que j'ai pu trouver sur ce blog ou ailleurs) d'un papier que je souhaite soumettre très bientôt :
--Original
- In Fig.1, x and y axes represent the density force perturbation normalized by the baseline density force and the relative permeabilities, respectively. The results were obtained for $S_1=0.3$ and $B=1$ . As shown, we found a plateau for perturbations in the range $10^{-4}<\xi<10^{-1}$ . For smaller values of the perturbation, the result is affected by numerical noise, whereas for larger values the flows are no longer similar, thus the results are not representative of a given flow. The existence of such a plateau is not guaranteed and must therefore be verified for each geometry. As an outcome, a perturbation of $\xi = 10^{-3}$ was selected for the 2D geometry. We recall that a value of ξ=0.2 was used in [13].
---Modified
- The relative permeabilities do not depend on the value of the density force perturbation in the range $10^{-4}<\xi<10^{-1}$ . For smaller values, the result is affected by numerical noise, whereas for larger values, the similarity condition of the two flows is not verified (Fig.1, results obtained for $S_1=0.3$ and $B=1$ ). This interval of constant relative permeabilities may not exist for different conditions and must therefore be verified for each geometry. As mentioned before, the authors used $\xi=0.2$ in [13], but the dependence with the value of the force perturbation was not checked. Here, a perturbation $\xi=10^{-3}$ is used for the 2D geometry.
J'imagine que sans le contexte il est difficile de juger. Mais je crois (j'espère) que la nouvelle version est plus claire.