CFD Online Discussion Forums

CFD Online Discussion Forums (
-   Main CFD Forum (
-   -   Turbulence problem is dead (

John Kim May 21, 2000 13:38

Turbulence problem is dead
Dear colleagues,

Turbulence has been solved. Soon it will be clear for all.

J. Kim

kees rijk May 21, 2000 14:11

Re: Turbulence problem is dead
been dead for ages

(since direct simulation)

Ji May 21, 2000 19:34

Re: Turbulence problem is dead
Dear sir,

In our country there is also somebody saying that turbulence has been solved for many times. I think it is a problem of human brain, may be it has no answer anyway! but we can model turbulence for engineering usage.

However I still want to know the details that you said.

John C. Chien May 21, 2000 20:30

Re: That's fine, many are still trying to solve inviscid or laminar flow problems
(1). Turbulence modeling is one aspect of CFD. (2). There are still enough problems to keep engineers very busy in CFD, such as handling of complex geometry, easy mesh generation methods, fast numerical algorithms, 3-D presentation of results. (3). This requires background in geometry, calculus, 3-D modeling, CAD, numerical methods,aerodynamics, fluid mechanics, heat transfer,combustions, etc. (4). That's should be enough to keep this cfd forum alive. Well, the cold war is still around, not to mention the real war and the conflict with communism. The world is actually becoming more unstable and can easily lead to turbulence.

Mahesh Prakash May 22, 2000 02:33

Re: Turbulence problem is dead
So what if the turbulence problem is dead? The world goes on and cfd goes on.

Doru Caraeni May 22, 2000 02:52

Please show us the proof. Thank you !
Dear Dr. Kim,

If you are that John Kim (Kim & Moin DNS of channel flow Re 3300), we will believe you if you send us also the proof. Probably you have in mind to characterize the turbulence in terms of statistical properties (as it is a chaotic phenomenon, I can't see any deterministic way of describing the turbulence - I may be wrong?) If you didn't make a joke (:)) it may be the biggest discovery of this century. I can't wait to find out more details! Please, send us some details!

With all my consideration,

Thank you!


Robin Bornoff May 22, 2000 03:44

Re: Turbulence problem is dead
One man's solution is another man's problem.

Mohit Agarwal May 22, 2000 10:23

Jonas - can you read this?
Hello Jonas,

I believe that you are the only one who can do this.. Could you please check out the IP address or the site from where this message originated. Curious.. simple reason. Want to know whether it is John Kim (Rockwell International Professor - UCLA) himself.


Jonas Larsson May 22, 2000 11:48

Re: Jonas - can you read this?
Yes, I can check it but I won't disclose it publicly here, sorry - this is not an "abuse" case and I only want to use this kind of information if we have a real problem. The email address given in the orginal message is not the email address of Professor John Kim at UCLA though, draw your own conclusions ;-)

John Kim May 22, 2000 13:11

Re: Turbulence problem is dead
It was brought to my attention that I posted a message saying that the turbulence problem is solved. This message was not from me. It must have been another John Kim at UCLA or an imposter.

John Kim Professor Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering UCLA

Mohit Agarwal May 22, 2000 13:53

Probably the last message in the thread!
I believe that this one would be the last message in this thread. People have a general tendency to say things without knowing a bit about those. Take for instance a message posted a couple of days back, titled 'Grid size in LES'. A part of it reads: "In my opinion, LES is the simplist model for (large scale) turbulence." What would anybody reply to that? Funny things!

And if a similar thing is posted under the name of someone who is well known in the field, it is bound to recieve attention. Jin Li - I'm not blaming you for anything, just citing an example.

Although Jonas might say that this not an "abuse" case, I tend to disagree with him on this part. Nothing else.

regards, M.

Peter May 22, 2000 14:43

The problem with "turbulence problem is dead" is dead

I posted the false John Kim message.

Sorry for the joke; I just wanted to see your response.

Of course, turbulence is not dead; this site is a proof.

I won't do it again.


PS: I almost died of a heart attack when I saw true John Kim Message.

Mahesh Prakash May 22, 2000 17:46

Re: The problem with "turbulence problem is dead" is dead
Dear Peter

You had better be a little more prudent the next time you use this forum for such jokes.


MDC May 25, 2000 16:38

Re: The problem with "turbulence problem is dead" is dead

I think you have done a really evil thing, although maybe you don't have an evil intention. Seeing that you have admitted so quickly, I suggest that you voluntarily do 2 month service in your community. Remember that God still loves you.

Phil Gresho June 5, 2000 13:50

Re: Turbulence problem is dead
Is this the JOHN KIM, from NASA/ Stanford, that I know????

Jonas Larsson June 5, 2000 15:32

Re: Turbulence problem is dead
No it is not. The real "John Kim" posted a response above stating that he did not post the original message. The imposterer has also stepped forward (see replies) and apologized.

Phil Gresho June 5, 2000 17:35

Re: Turbulence problem is dead
YES; i TOO saw the others....but only AFTER sending mine!! Thx.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 00:18.