[MITgcm-devel] RE: Higher order dissip on the cube

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Hi Alistair,

> I don't know where the bug is

I did nice plots to show where the differences are 
and sent 2 emails to MITgcm-devel arround Jan 25.
I just put here below the response of Chris + original message.

Jean-Michel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:09:20 -0500
From: Chris Hill <cnh at mit.edu>
Reply-To: MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
To: MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
Subject: RE: [MITgcm-devel] Re: Problem with Exch2

JM,

 The numbers should still be valid for uvel(snx+1,-1) and they should be the
same on one or n processors [but they will not be valid for vvel(snx+1,-1)].
Can you talk with Andy so he can see what you mean and can see if something
broke in check in.

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mitgcm-devel-bounces at mitgcm.org 
> [mailto:mitgcm-devel-bounces at mitgcm.org] On Behalf Of 
> Jean-Michel Campin
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 7:06 PM
> To: MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> Subject: [MITgcm-devel] Re: Problem with Exch2
> 
> 
> > the exhc2 does not give the same uVel(sNx,-1) as the old exch_uv.
> 
> The problem is in (sNx+1,-1) and also in (sNx+1,sNy+2) but 
> not not in uVel(sNx,-1).
> Sorry for this.
> 
> Jean-Michel
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://dev.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
> 

_______________________________________________
MITgcm-devel mailing list
MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
http://dev.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel