Feature suggestion

[Robert C. Helling]

On Dec 5, 2012, at 9:18 PM, Jan Schubert wrote:

Hi,
> Yeah, as I said . I think Bühlmann would be good for the beginning. I
> think I've quite a good understanding of this model and would be able to
> support the implementation, but there is already quite many sources
> availalbe for this. Also interesting would be a implementation of VPM.
> It is said there is some free sourcecode available for this model but I
> did not manage to find some as of now. Most implementations are closed
> source in my understanding but it would be interesting to get this
> implemented by ourselves.
Buehlmann (like) models are pretty well documented and there are hundreds of implementations around. As I said, I have put this on my todo list but I have to find some time (and get a better understanding of the subsurface source first). As far as more modern, bubble based approaches go, I think gradient factors after all do pretty well (and are sufficiently similar to Buehlmann) and don't have any real disadvantage (given the poor empirical data given the number of parameters) to others like VPM. I have a text (in German) about this from the perspective of a theoretical physicist: http://euve10195.vserver.de/~robert/dekotheorie.pdf

Best
Robert


--                                                                              
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oO 
Robert C. Helling     Elite Master Course Theoretical and Mathematical Physics  
                      Scientific Coordinator                                   
                      Ludwig Maximilians Universitaet Muenchen, Dept. Physik    
print "Just another   Phone: +49 89 2180-4523  Theresienstr. 39, rm. B339       
    stupid .sig\n";   http://www.atdotde.de 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hohndel.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20121205/12077bf7/attachment.html>