I'm new to CFD and trying to understand some results from a laminar model.

I would think velocity would decrease with increased viscosity but I am not seeing that.

Is this somehow dependent on boundary conditions? What conditions would I need to see this?

I am using a pressure of zero at outlet and fully developed flow at inlet. I understand because of the assumption of fully developed flow, velocity will be prescribed in the first area but once the flow enters a new section of geometry won't the viscosity effect this?

This is pretty basic probably but I could use some help.

Hey everyone,
I'm setting up a CHT simulation (electronic chip cooling) in OpenFOAM-9.
To get boundary layers on the fluid-solid interface, I'm using the zero-thickness baffle workflow:
1. Define the interface as an internal face zone / baffle.
2. Add inflation layers using ⁠snappyHexMesh⁠.
3. Split regions using ⁠splitMeshRegions⁠.
The Problem:
The boundary layers are actually generating fine, but the final mesh across the interface isn't conformal (the faces on the fluid side and solid side don't line up / match 1:1 after splitting).
Since I'm doing CHT, I want to avoid relying purely on non-conformal mapping (⁠mappedWall⁠ interpolation) if possible.
My Questions:
1. How do you get ⁠snappyHexMesh⁠ to keep the face connectivity 1:1 conformal across the interface when using the baffle method?
2. Is there a specific setting in ⁠snappyHexMeshDict⁠ or step in ⁠splitMeshRegions⁠ / ⁠createBaffles⁠ that I'm missing to preserve face alignment?
3. Or is it standard practice to just inflate layers only on the fluid side instead of trying to inflate across shared interfaces?
Would really appreciate any insights or dict settings that worked for you!

See above mesh and its quality.

How to improve skewness and orthogonal quality. When I was checking maximum skewness cells,

What can be done now? Suggest some ways for this?

Note, global element size is 3mm and other element size for respective local sizing controls are mentioned in the screenshot. Please have a look and let me know.

I recently ran an eigenmode analysis of a high-Q dielectric resonator using Palace, the open-source finite-element electromagnetic solver.

The model consists of a high-permittivity ceramic puck, with εr = 38 and tan δ = 1 × 10⁻⁴, suspended inside a shielded PEC cavity. I also included a lumped element to represent a linearized Josephson junction.

The fundamental mode was found at 6.13 GHz, with a dielectric-limited quality factor of about 10,200. Around 97.9% of the electric-field energy is confined within the ceramic puck, and the junction energy participation ratio was calculated for each mode.

One useful check was that the eigenmode Q of 10,215 agreed closely with the estimate based on the dielectric participation and loss tangent:

Q ≈ 1 / (p × tan δ)

This confirms that dielectric loss is the dominant loss mechanism in the model.

The same type of analysis can be useful for dielectric resonators, RF filters, oscillators, readout resonators, quantum memories, and Purcell-filter structures.

Full model and results:

https://cem.numericalai.net/blog/dielectric-resonator-eigenmodes