Response from ECCOMAS General Assembly

Here is the response to my letter to the General Assembly of ECCOMAS recorded in the previous post:

Dear Professor Johnson,your email of July 21, 2014, was discussed in the ECCOMAS General Assembly meeting on July 22, 2014. The members of the General Assembly unanimously arrived at the following conclusions:

1. The selection procedure followed the official dedication of the ECCOMAS Ludwig Prandtl Medal, acknowledging your outstanding and sustained contributions in the area of computational fluid dynamics.
2. It was confirmed that the award ceremony had to follow the established procedure consisting of a short introduction of the awardees and a brief summary of their major scientific achievements, not providing the possibility for addresses by the awardees. The award ceremony on Monday, July 21, 2014, executed by the organizers of the joint WCCM-ECCM-ECFD conference, exactly followed these rules.
3. The ECCOMAS General Assembly regrets your decision not to accept the award of the Ludwig Prandtl Medal. However, it respects your decision.
4. The ECCOMAS General Assembly considers the discussion on this matter as finished.

Best regards,Ekkehard Ramm, Ferdinando Auricchio, Pedro Diez, and Josef Eberhardsteiner
President, Vicepresidents, and Secretary of ECCOMAS

Here is my comment on this conclusion of the General Assembly "unanimously arrived at":

My condition for accepting the Medal was that a very short statement authored by me was voiced at the award ceremony, by me or the chairman or the person presenting my work. What I wanted to express was that I through my work have found that Prandtl's boundary layer theory is not in accordance with observations. In short, that my work was not in agreement with Prandtl's.  

This could not be accepted by the Organizers, who demanded me to either give up my condition  of voicing my statement or not accept the Medal. 

When presenting my decision to not accept the Medal at the award ceremony, the Organizers stated according to reports that the reason I could not accept the Medal was that the findings of my research was in opposition to Prandtl's boundary layer theory.

This was not the true reason, which was that my voice was suppressed. I had said that I can accept the Medal if my view on Prandtl's boundary layer theory is not suppressed.

In any case, the Organizers de facto made the very statement at the award ceremony, which could not be made, namely that my view is in opposition to Prandtl's. Nothing was thus gained by forcing me to  not accept the Medal.

And No, the discussion on "this matter" is not all "finished". We are only at the beginning of a long discussion to come in the world of CFD, then outside the body of ECCOMAS, where the focus can continue to be to  "exactly follow established procedures" for  "acknowledging outstanding and sustained contributions in the area of CFD". 

There must be members of ECCOMAS, and others, who do not applaud the handling of the 2014 Prandtl Medal. To suppress expression of scientific theory and observation is to violate the most basic principle of science of free expression. It is nothing for ECCOMAS to be proud of.

If the General Assembly respects my decision to not accept the Medal, I do not respect the decision by the Organizers to force me to do so.

Letter to the General Assembly of ECCOMAS

I want to direct the attention of the General Assembly to the following actions taken by a group of representatives of ECCOMAS in connection to the Prandtl Medal, which was to be awarded to me at the opening ceremony of the IACM-ECCOMAS Conference July 21-25 in Barcelona:

1. I was informed that I had to arrange and pay travel and accomodation myself.

2. I was not invited to the Conference Banquet and informed that the cost was not covered by ECCOMAS.

3. I was not given a fair possibility of expressing my views: No very short statement authored by me was permitted to be voiced at the award ceremony. After a long hazzle I was given a last empty slot in one of 49 parallel sessions in a room of 34 m2 accomodating at most 20 people.

4. The abstract of my talk and link to a related post on my professional blog was not put up on the conference web page, despite repeated requests by me.

5. I was met by an unfriendly uncivilized attitude in a long correspondence recorded on my blog:

with related posts here, here, here and here.

As a consequence of mainly 3. I could not accept to receive the Medal.

I ask the General Assembly to study the details of this story, which to me has been a completely unexpected and unprecedented harrassment..

I expect the General Assembly to report back to me and in particular inform me if the reception I have met as Medalist is the normal standard of ECCOMAS.

Sincerely, 

Claes Johnson

PS Letter to the Organizers asking for reimbursement of my expenses created by the Prandtl Medal Award:

To the Organizers IACM-ECCOMAS Barcelona 2014

I ask you to reimburse me for the following costs in connection to the Prandtl Medal 2014 awarded to me,  which have been drawn on my personal bank account:

Hotel Rey Juan Carlos, two nights:  SEK 2897

Flight Vueling  EBRC7K: SEK 2211

Total SEK: 5108 (around €600)

Please send the remimbursement to Handelsbanken Strandvägen 5B, Box 14222, 104 40 Stockholm

Clearingnumber: 6124, Swift/BIC: HANDSESS 

account xxxxxxxxx 

Please inform me ASAP when the payment has been done,  or if you for some reason are unable to make the transaction.

Sincerely, 

Claes Johnson

The effect of the letter will be reported in upcoming post.

The End of the Prandtl Medal

Here is the last exchange of emails concerning the Prandtl Medal between me and representatives for ECCOMAS offering the Medal to me and IACM co-organizing the conference at which opening ceremony tomorrow the Medal would have been hanged around my neck.

The correspondence (full account in previous post) shows that the contradiction of giving the Prandtl Medal to me was resolved into one of the two given possibilities: My view in direct contradiction to Prandtl's legacy was not allowed to be expressed in open scientific discussion. In this case the Prandtl Medal survived but I could not accept to receive it. 

The other possibility was that my view in direct contradiction to Prandtl's legacy would have been allowed to be expressed in open scientific discussion. In this case it would have been possible for me to accept the Medal, but further issues of the Prandtl Medal may have become meaningless. 

The Organizers chose the first option. The Medal Committee having voted for the second option was apparently run over by the Organizers. But I am still alive and can better express my happy message to the CFD community without the weight of a Prandtl Medal.

Friday July 18:

Dear Professor Johnson,

we already mentioned earlier that a very short award ceremony will take place following the tradition in our associations. This includes a brief introduction of the awardees and a short summary of their major work. Again we would like to point out that it is not possible to enter into a scientific discussion in this ceremony.

However, despite the short notice the organizers found a way for you to express your view in a subsequent CFD session, waived your registration, and include the abstract in the online version of the program. Moreover, your talk will be announced in the ceremony.

We would regret if this arrangement does not meet your expectations and you decide to decline accepting the medal.

Ekkehard Ramm, Pedro Diez, Ferdinando Auricchio, Josef Eberharsteiner- President, Vicepresidents and Secretary of ECCOMAS, Eugenio Oñate, Xavier Oliver, Antonio Huerta - Chairmen of WCCM-ECCM-ECFD 2014

Saturday July 19

Dear Professors and Organizers:

I certainly did not expect to be given the Prandtl Medal, but once being chosen as Medalist I expect a fair and correct reception (including e.g. an invitation to the conference dinner, instead of being asked  to invite and pay myself). I thus expect that the following statement of mine (in bold) will be read at the award ceremony, by myself or by the person presenting my person and work:

The famous Danish physicist Niels Bohr said: “How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.” 

And yes, to give the Prandtl Medal to me is a paradox, or a contradiction, and as such a starting point for making progress. The contradiction is that my work together with Johan Hoffman has shown that Prandtl’s boundary layer theory, Prandtl’s main contribution as the named Father of Modern Fluid Mechanics, is not in accordance with observations and thus incorrect as scientific theory. 

Our evidence consists of computational solutions of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations as the basic model describing slightly viscous turbulent flow, combined with slip boundary condition as a model of observed small skin friction, which does not generate any no-slip boundary layers, but nevertheless agree with observations of separation, drag and lift for a wide range of problems. 

We conclude that separation, drag and lift  in slightly viscous flow do not originate from thin no-slip boundary layers, in direct contradiction to Father Prandtl. 

Our work breaks the spell of Father Prandtl asking for impossible computational resolution of thin boundary layers beyond the capacity of thinkable computers, and thus opens a wide range of new possibilities for many users of CFD. I will present some of these possibilities in the session Advanced Methods in CFD I following this award ceremony. 

I see no rational reason that this statement by me as chosen Medalist cannot be made at the award ceremony. I further expect that a link to the abstract text I have sent will be put up on the conference web page announcing my talk, together with a link to the following related post on my professional blog:

• Breaking the Spell of Prandtl

I further remind you, for the third time, that I want my first name to be presented as Claes and not the double name Claes-Göran, which still occurs on the talk web page.

Looking forward to seeing you tomorrow.

Best regards,
Claes Johnson

Saturday July 19 11.06 PM 

Dear Professor Johnson, 

the sole intention of ECCOMAS to select you as the awardee of the 2014 Ludwig Prandtl Medal was to acknowledge your outstanding and sustained contribution in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics.

Your argument "... that Prandtl has had a devastating negative influence on 20th century fluid mechanics" has nothing to do with this intention. The award ceremony would certainly not be the proper forum for publicly voicing your criticism of Prandtl's boundary layer theory, because it would leave no room for instant counter arguments from the auditorium and, thus, would violate a fundamental principle of a fair scientific dispute. 

Therefore, we kindly ask you to withdraw your condition to use the award ceremony for such a criticism. Should you feel unable to do so, we request that you consider not to accept the medal. If you do not respond to this mail we understand that you will not attend the award ceremony on Monday Morning and that you have decided not accepting the medal. 

With best regards, Ekkehard Ramm, Pedro Diez, Ferdinando Auricchio, Josef Eberharsteiner- President, Vicepresidents and Secretary of ECCOMAS Eugenio Oñate, Xavier Oliver, Antonio Huerta - Chairmen of WCCM-ECCM-ECFD 2014


Sunday July 21

To ECCOMAS and Organizers of IACM-ECCOMAS Barcelona 2014

After an extended correspondence with representatives of IACM-ECCOMAS, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot accept to receive the Prandtl Medal given to me. The reason is that I have been denied a fair possibility to present my view as the result of my research the last 20 years, that Prandtl's boundary layer theory is not in correspondence with observations and thus incorrect as scientific theory.

My positive message to the CFD community that computational simulation of slightly viscous flow is today possible without resolution of thin no-slip boundary layers, which is in direct contradiction to Prandtl's legacy as the Father of Modern Fluid Mechanics, has not been allowed to be voiced at the conference, except under unreasonable limitation approaching full suppression. This is a tragedy for CFD, ECCOMAS and IACM and I can only hope that reason finally will win.

If there is tomorrow a glimpse of reason, my above motivation for declining the Medal should be read at the award ceremony.

Sincerely,
Claes Johnson

Breaking the Spell of Prandtl: From Impossible to Possible CFD

When I accepted to receive the Prandtl Medal I stated as a precondition that my views on Prandtl's legacy as the Father of Modern Fluid Mechanics should be made clear when the award is presented at the opening ceremony and then be combined by an open scientific discussion. I will in the mini-session Advanced Methods in CFD I following the opening ceremony present evidence of the unfortunate dominating influence of Prandtl as the Father of Modern Aerodynamics, which has effectively blocked progress for 100 years, under the title:

• Breaking the Spell of Prandtl: From Impossible to Possible CFD (slides)

with the following abstract:

I was surprised of recieving the message that I had been awarded the ECCOMAS 2014 Prandtl Medal, because my work in CFD since 20 years together with Johan Hoffman and his group at KTH gives evidence that Prandtl's main contribution as Father of  Modern Fluid Mechanics, his boundary layer theory initiated in his famous 1904 article On Motion of Fluids Flow with Very Little Viscosity claiming that separation, lift and drag in slightly viscous incompressible bluff body flow (Reynolds number larger than $10^6$) all originate from thin no-slip boundary layers, is not in accordance with observations and thus is incorrect as scientific theory (listen to Prandtl expressing his discovery here with perspectives here and here and here, and comment by Euler here).

The evidence consists of computational solutions of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with slip boundary condition, which does not generate any no-slip boundary layers and is motivated by the observation that skin friction is small in slightly viscous flow, do agree with observations with the accuracy increasing with increasing Reynolds number. The evidence shows that separation, lift and drag in slightly viscous flow do not originate from no-slip boundary layers. 

I have thus been awarded the Prandtl Medal while my main contribution contradicts Father Prandtl himself, a somewhat unusual happening.

Our work breaks the spell of Prandtl asking for computational resolution of thin boundary layers which is impossible on any forseeable computer, which has paralyzed CFD since start, by showing that direct computational simulation of turbulent slightly viscous flow is today possible on a supercomputer and tomorrow on a laptop, simply by solving the Navier-Stokes equations with slip boundary conditions using a stabilized finite element method, without any user specified turbulence modeling. This makes CFD of slightly viscous flow possible today for a wide range of users and thus opens many new roads. 

As an example of what can be achieved, we have developed a new theory of flight exhibiting the actual fluid mechanics of flying, which has hitherto been hidden. Another is a characterization of slightly viscous incompressible bluff body flow as potential flow modified by 3d rotational slip separation. 

More complete presentations are listed under Presentations by CJ on this blog.

To get perspective on the Prandtl Medal (including Medals given to Prandtl), I advise to read and contemplate:

• Making of the Prandtl Myth by John D Anderson
• The Dusk of Fluid Mechanics
• Dr Faustus of Modern Physics

The net result is that I can only accept to receive the Prandtl Medal under the condition that my view that Prandtl was wrong, in several respects, is made clear together with the award.

Here is the statement I have asked to be read by me or the person presenting my work at the award ceremony:

The famous Danish physicist Niels Bohr said: “How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.” And yes, to give the Prandtl Medal to me is a paradox, or a contradiction, and as such a starting point for progress.

The contradiction is that my work together with Johan Hoffman has shown that Prandtl’s boundary layer theory, Prandtl’s main contribution as the named Father of Modern Fluid Mechanics, is not in accordance with observations and thus incorrect as scientific theory. Our evidence consists of computational solutions of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations as the basic model for slightly viscous turbulent flow, combined with slip boundary condition as a model of observed small skin friction, which does not generate any no-slip boundary layers but nevertheless

agree with observation of separation, drag and lift for a wide range of problems.

We conclude that separation, drag and lift  in slightly viscous flow do not originate from thin no-slip boundary layers, in direct contradiction to Father Prandtl. 

Our work breaks the spell of Prandtl asking for impossible computational resolution of thin boundary layers beyond the capacity of thinkable computers, and thus opens a wide range of new possibilities for many users of CFD. I will present some of these possibilities in the session Advanced Methods in CFD I following this award ceremony.  

Correspondence about the Prandtl Medal

Here is correspondence (in reverse order) with the Organizers of the conference during which the Prandtl Medal issued by ECCOMAS will be given, to me. My request to connect a scientific discussion to the award ceremony, which I posed when accepting to receive the Medal, has finally been taken up to consideration by the Organizers and I am now awaiting the result: Medal + Scientific Discussion, or No Scientific Discussion + No Medal?

It is interesting to note that the reason to give the Medal to me is presented in general unspecific  terms, but it is made very clear that the Medal is not a decoration for "work showing that Prandtl was wrong".  What kind of "decoration" is then the Medal?

Recall that when Einstein received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics (in 1923) for his "discovery of the Law of Photoelectricity", it was explicitly stated by the Prize Committee that the Prize was not given for Einstein's main contribution to physics, his Special/General Theory of Relativity, nor for his derivation of the Law of Photoelectricity. Sometimes Prize Committees have difficult problems to resolve.  

Note that despite the expressed view of Prof Ramm that "a basic element of science is rational dispute", the schedule for the opening ceremony is so tight (2 full hours) that it is "impossible raising any scientific discussion on one particular award during this ceremony". The conclusion can only be that the Medal is not awarded because of scientific reasons.I now have to think over if I am the right person for the Medal.


Also note that I am kindly informed that I have to pay myself for the Congress Banquet. In fact, I am not sure that I am invited at all. Sometimes awardees have difficult decisions to deal with.




Saturday July 19 11.06 PM


Dear Professor Johnson, 

the sole intention of ECCOMAS to select you as the awardee of the 2014 Ludwig Prandtl Medal was to acknowledge your outstanding and sustained contribution in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics. 

Your argument "... that Prandtl has had a devastating negative influence on 20th century fluid mechanics" has nothing to do with this intention. 

The award ceremony would certainly not be the proper forum for publicly voicing your criticism of Prandtl's boundary layer theory, because it would leave no room for instant counter arguments from the auditorium and, thus, would violate a fundamental principle of a fair scientific dispute. 

Therefore, we kindly ask you to withdraw your condition to use the award ceremony for such a criticism. Should you feel unable to do so, we request that you consider not to accept the medal. 

If you do not respond to this mail we understand that you will not attend the award ceremony on Monday Morning and that you have decided not accepting the medal. 

With best regards, 

Ekkehard Ramm, Pedro Diez, Ferdinando Auricchio, Josef Eberharsteiner- President, Vicepresidents and Secretary of ECCOMAS Eugenio Oñate, Xavier Oliver, Antonio Huerta - Chairmen of WCCM-ECCM-ECFD 2014

Saturday July 19

Dear Professors and Organizers:

I certainly did not expect to be given the Prandtl Medal, but once being chosen as Medalist I expect a fair and correct reception. I thus expect that the following statement of mine (in bold) will be read at the award ceremony, by myself or by the person presenting my person and work:

The famous Danish physicist Niels Bohr said: “How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.” And yes, to give the Prandtl Medal to me is a paradox, or a contradiction, and as such a starting point for making progress.

The contradiction is that my work together with Johan Hoffman has shown that Prandtl’s boundary layer theory, Prandtl’s main contribution as the named Father of Modern Fluid Mechanics, is not in accordance with observations and thus incorrect as scientific theory. Our evidence consists of computational solutions of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations as the basic model describing slightly viscous turbulent flow, combined with slip boundary condition as a model of observed small skin friction, which does not generate any no-slip boundary layers, but nevertheless

agree with observations of separation, drag and lift for a wide range of problems.

We conclude that separation, drag and lift  in slightly viscous flow do not originate from thin no-slip boundary layers, in direct contradiction to Father Prandtl. 

Our work breaks the spell of Father Prandtl asking for impossible computational resolution of thin boundary layers beyond the capacity of thinkable computers, and thus opens a wide range of new possibilities for many users of CFD. I will present some of these possibilities in the session Advanced Methods in CFD I following this award ceremony. 

I see no rational reason that this statement by me as chosen Medalist cannot be made at the award ceremony.

I further expect that a link to the abstract text I have sent will be put up on the conference web page announcing my talk, together with a link to the following related post on my professional blog:

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2014/07/breaking-spell-of-prandtl-from.html

I further remind you, for the third time, that I want my first name to be presented as Claes and not the double name Claes-Göran, which still occurs on the talk web page. 

Looking forward to seeing you tomorrow.

Best regards,

Claes Johnson

Friday July 18

Dear Professor Johnson,

we already mentioned earlier that a very short award ceremony will take place following the tradition in our associations. This includes a brief introduction of the awardees and a short summary of their major work. Again we would like to point out that it is not possible to enter into a scientific discussion in this ceremony. 
However, despite the short notice the organizers found a way for you to express your view in a subsequent CFD session, waived your registration, and include the abstract in the online version of the program. Moreover, your talk will be announced in the ceremony.

We would regret if this arrangement does not meet your expectations and you decide to decline accepting the medal.

With best regards

Ekkehard Ramm, Pedro Diez, Ferdinando Auricchio, Josef Eberharsteiner- President, Vicepresidents and Secretary of ECCOMAS
Eugenio Oñate, Xavier Oliver, Antonio Huerta - Chairmen of WCCM-ECCM-ECFD 2014

Friday July 18

To the Organizers of IACM-ECCOMAS 2014

Please acknowledge the reception of my letter of yesterday which is enclosed below. I need an answer 

by tomorrow to decide if I will be able to accept to receive the Medal or not. 

Sincerely,

Claes Johnson

Friday July 18

To the Organizers of IACM-ECCOMAS 2014

When I accepted the receive the Prandtl Medal I stated that my work during the last 20 years has led me to a very critical view of Prandtl's legacy as the Father of Modern Aerodynamics. The evidence I have gathered over the years together with my coworkers, shows that separation, lift and drag of slightly viscous flow do not originate from thin no-slip boundary layers, which is in direct contradiction to Prandtl's boundary layer theory as his signum. Prandtl has made CFD of slightly viscous flow into an impossibility by demanding computational resolution of thin boundary layers beyond the capacity of any thinkable computer. I have thus found that Prandtl has a had a devastating negative influence on 20th century fluid mechanics. With this my experience I will only be able to accept the Medal if these my views are made very clear at the award ceremony and I will be given a fair chance to present my evidence to the community thereafter.

So far these conditions have not been met: I have been informed by the Organizers that in no way is the Medal a "decoration for showing the Prandtl was wrong". Moreover, I have only been given the possibility to express my view in one of 49 parallel sessions to a very small group of people. My repeated request to put up link to an abstract and related post on my professional blog has not be effected.

In short, I can only accept to receive the Prandtl Medal if is made very clear at the award ceremony and in open discussion accessible to the community thereafter and through relevant links on the conference web site, that my work in CFD, if anything, shows that "Prandtl was wrong", in fact seriously wrong both in science and politics.

I hope the Organizers understand that my message is good news for computational science, and bad news only for traditional non-computational fluid mechanics following Father Prandtl, and then will use the occasion to advance CFD.    

So I ask the Organizers to seriously consider my renewed statement of my conditions for being able to accept the Medal and inform me before Sunday July 20 about the result. The case is unusual and must be handled accordingly.

Open discussion allowing established text book truths to be scrutinized and confronted with new evidence is a crucial element of science, which always has to be protected from limitation by politics of science, and politics.

Sincerely

Claes Johnson 

Thursday July 17

Dear Claes,

I am very happy to tell you that I have been able to negotiate with the provider, as a special attention to you, that a link will be introduced connected to the title.

However, it is mandatory that the abstract follows strictly the conference template.

Please send us asap the abstract within the template I am adjoining.

Best regards,

Antonio

Wednesday July 16

Dear Antonio:

Since the printed program is out and web abstracts appear to be closed, I suggest as a service to the scientific community that you put up a link on the minisymposium web page presenting the title of my talk, to the following post on my blog: 

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2014/07/breaking-spell-of-prandtl-from.html

where anyone interested can find the slides of my talk and the text of the abstract. Please inform me if this is not feasible and if so the reason why.

Best regards,

Claes

Tuesday July 15

Dear Antonio

I suggest that you simply put up a link to the abstract from the page where my talk is announced.

Thank you,

Claes


Tuesday July 15

Dear Claes,

The printed program is already out. So there is nothing we can do to include your talk. 

However, in the online program the title of your talk with the correct name will be duly posted. Note that we recommend all attendants to use the online web-based program because it has all the last minute changes, such as your talk.

I will check to see if we can include the abstract. But I do not have many expectations because the book of abstracts was closed long time ago given the large number of attendants to the wccm-eccm-ecfd join congress.

Best regards,

Antonio

Tuesday July 15

Dear Organizers:

Could you please append the enclosed abstract of my talk to the conference program.

Could you also, please, change my first name from Claes-Göran to simply Claes in the announcement 

of my talk, as requested before.

Sincerely

Claes Johnson

Thursday July 10:

Thank you Prof Ramm for this prompt answer. I am glad to hear that you have found a slot for discussion, and I hope that this can be announced at the award ceremony.

The title of my talk is: 

Breaking the spell of Prandtl: From impossible to possible CFD. 

Best regards

Claes Johnson

Thursday July 10:

Dear Professor Johnson,

I would like to answer your questions raised in your last two mails.

As you know this is a joint meeting of three big conferences; this requires naturally some time for the opening session containing besides welcome addresses and an opening lecture also slots for the presentation of several awards of the two organizing associations.This procedure follows a long tradition in our communities.

For the ECCOMAS Awards I am in charge of this rather short ceremony. This in turn means that the presentation can address only the major scientific accomplishments of the awardees and cannot be a deep examination of certain scientific aspects.

Concerning your last mail I want to point out that I only referred to your own formulations used in a preceding mail. The fact that medals often carry the name of a famous scientific figure in history does in general not necessarily imply that the work of the awardee is directly related to that of the eponym; however it does also not exclude this connection. I repeat that ECCOMAS awards the Ludwig Prandtl medal to distinguished scientists for outstanding and sustained contribution in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics.

The organizers have informed me that your lecture is scheduled as the last presentation in the session 

"Advanced Methods in Computational Fluid Dynamics I" ,
 Monday 21 July 2014, 11:00-13:00, room Ponent 2, Hotel Rey Juan Carlos 1. 
The allocated time is 20 minutes for presentation and questions.

I suggest that you send the title of your talk to Professor Antonio Huerta(antonio.huerta@upc.edu), with CC to me so that I can announce your talk in the award ceremony.

Best regards

Ekkehard Ramm


Thursday July 10

Dear Profs Ramm and Eberhardsteiner:

I am puzzled by not hearing from you concerning the questions I have posed and if I will be given the opportunity to express some of my views on CFD in some connection to the Prandtl Medal, or not. 

We surely agree on the importance of open scientific discussion where different viewpoints can meet,  and so I hope that you can find a slot for this, on the Monday since I am going back on Tuesday. 

Sincerely

Claes Johnson

Tuesday July 8:

Dear Prof Ramm

I have a further question concerning the award ceremony connecting to your information to me that the Medal is  

"not a decoration for "work showing that Prandtl was wrong"". Will this standpoint of the Organizers be made clear during the ceremony, or will it be hidden?

Sincerely,

Claes Johnson

Tuesday July 8:

Dear Prof Ramm:

Thank you for this information. To judge if you have chosen the right person for the Prandtl Medal, I would like 
to know how my work will be presented at the opening ceremony as background and motivation for the award: How long time is allocated for this presentation, who will give the presentation and what parts of my work will be highlighted, if any? I am further puzzled about your statement that the schedule is so tight that no scientific aspects on any award, in particular not on any 
of the two Medals, can be raised during the (2 hour) opening ceremony. Could you please explain this in more detail to me?

Sincerely

Claes Johnson 


________________________________________
From: Ekkehard Ramm [ramm@ibb.uni-stuttgart.de]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 8:45 PM
To: Claes-Göran Johnson
Cc: Josef Eberhardsteiner; Antonio Huerta
Subject: Re: ECCOMAS Ludwig Prandtl Medal

Dear Professor Johnson,

we can inform you that the chairs of the joint WCCM, ECCM and ECFD 
conferences  notified us about their decision. As mentioned earlier it 
was again stated that the schedule for the opening ceremony is so tight, 
that it makes it impossible raising any scientific discussion on one 
particular award during this ceremony.

However in consideration to ECCOMAS and your request as newly Prandtl 
medalist, they will schedule your presentation during the first 
"Advanced Methods in Computational Fluid Dynamics" contributed session 
(Monday morning, 11:00 - 13:00). They  will also waive the "Reduced 
Delegate Registration (not Including Congress Banquet)".

We will ask the organizers about the time allocated for your talk.

With best regards

Ekkehard Ramm
Josef Eberhardsteiner


Monday July 7 from me to Prof Ramm

Dear Prof Ramm

I am glad to see that we share the conviction that a basic element of science is rational dispute, and this is what I want to see in connection with the Prandtl Medal, to make it meaningful to the scientific community, and to me. With this agreement established I am sure that you can find a convenient setting for such a dispute during the meeting.

Sincerely

Claes Johnson
________________________________________
From: Ekkehard Ramm [ramm@ibb.uni-stuttgart.de]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 12:47 PM
To: Claes-Göran Johnson
Cc: Josef Eberhardsteiner; Antonio Huerta
Subject: Re: ECCOMAS Ludwig Prandtl Medal

Dear Professor Johnson,

we would like you to understand that it is a very difficult logistic problem for the organizers finding a slot in an appropriate session in such a late stage. We talked to the organizers today; they will try to solve the problem today and shortly thereafter will communicate the result to you.

ECCOMAS awards the Ludwig Prandtl medal to distinguished scientists for outstanding and sustained contribution in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics. So it is definitely neither a distinction awarded exclusively "for work in the spirit of Prandtl" nor a decoration for "work showing that Prandtl was wrong".  In other words the nominators as well as the members of the selection committee recognize the overall scientific achievements of a candidate.

A basic element of science is the rational dispute of a subject in the scientific community, even if the debate is controversial.  In history many examples occurred. In several cases substantial assumptions in theories were questioned and had to be abandoned or modified. Even if this is the case the reputation of a scientist, who had developed the original ideas, must not necessarily suffer.

With best regards

Ekkehard Ramm, President
Josef Eberhardsteiner, Secretary


Am 06.07.2014 20:54, schrieb Claes-Göran Johnson:

To the Organizers of the WCCM/ECCM/ECFD 2014 in Barcelona

During 2 weeks I have in repeated messages to Prof Eberhardsteiner tried to get into contact with the Organizers of WCCM/ECCM/ECFD 2014 in Barcelona concerning the Prandtl Medal with a request to accompany the delivery of the Medal with a scientific discussion of my work vs the work by Prandtl.

My work during the last 10 years is in direct contradiction to Prandtl's main contribution as the Father of modern fluid mechanics identifying no-slip boundary layers as the origin of separation, lift and drag in slightly viscous flow. My work, together with my coworkers Johan Hoffman and Johan Jansson, shows that computational solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations with slip without boundary layers agree with observations of separation, lift and drag in slightly viscous flow, and thus shows that Prandtl's main contribution does not agree with observations: Separation, lift and drag in slightly viscous flow do not originate from no-slip boundary layers. Our work breaks the CFD spell of Prandtl asking for computational resolution of thin boundary layers beyond the capability of any forseeable computer.

I have not been informed about the motivation to award me the Prandtl Medal. If it is supposed to honor work in the spirit of Prandtl, then the Medal has been given to the wrong person. If the motivation is that my work shows that Prandtl was wrong, then the award is very remarkable and that must be made clear together with the delivery.

So again I ask the Organizers to inform me which of these possibilities is real, so that I can decide if I am worthy of receiving the Medal. I expect to get a true response this time  and not just another letter from Prof Eberhardsteiner telling me that my request has been forwarded.

Sincerely,

Claes Johnson
________________________________________
From: Josef EBERHARDSTEINER [josef.eberhardsteiner@tuwien.ac.at]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 11:01 PM
To: Claes-Göran Johnson
Subject: Re: ECCOMAS Ludwig Prandtl Medal

Dear Prof. Johnson,

I once more forwarded your request to the organizers of the WCCM/ECCM/ECFD Conference in Barcelona. I will immediately inform you when I receive an answer.

Best regards,
Josef Eberhardsteiner


Am 02.07.2014 um 19:44 schrieb Claes-Göran Johnson :

Dear Prof Eberhardsteiner

I have not received any response on my letter of June 27, enclosed below. I would appreciate if you could
give me some feedback.

Sincerely,

Claes Johnson
________________________________________
From: Claes-Göran Johnson
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 10:10 AM
To: Josef EBERHARDSTEINER
Cc: Ekkehard RAMM
Subject: RE: ECCOMAS Ludwig Prandtl Medal

Dear Prof Eberhardsteiner

Although somewhat contradictory, I accept ECCOMAS policy for Medals, and will cover the cost of travel and accommodation myself. No problem.
Am I also supposed to register and pay the conference fee?

When I accepted to receive the Medal in person I expressed a wish to accompany the delivery at the Opening Session by a scientific discussion and said
that I would be willing to contribute my view, which you forwarded to Prof Olivier. But I have not heard anything from him, and so I wonder if you
have some information about the status of this question.

Sincerely,

Claes Johnson
________________________________________
From: Josef EBERHARDSTEINER [josef.eberhardsteiner@tuwien.ac.at]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 3:22 PM
To: Claes-Göran Johnson
Cc: Ekkehard RAMM
Subject: Re: ECCOMAS Ludwig Prandtl Medal

Dear Prof. Johnson,

Up to now there is no deadline fixed for the next Newsletter, this will be done in Barcelona. I will inform you when it is available.

You are right, we kindly ask you to arrange travel and accommodation by yourself. Unfortunately, no such provisions are made in the ECCOMAS budget.

Looking forward to meeting you soon in Barcelona.

Best regards,
Josef Eberhardsteiner


Am 23.06.2014 um 12:00 schrieb Claes-Göran Johnson :



Dear Prof Eberhardsteiner

Yes, I can write  4 page article on our work for the Newsletter. What is the timeline?

Am I supposed to arrange travel and accommodation myself, or will that be supported by Eccomas?

Sincerely,

Claes Johnson
________________________________________
From: Josef EBERHARDSTEINER [josef.eberhardsteiner@tuwien.ac.at]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 3:00 PM
To: Claes-Göran Johnson
Cc: Ekkehard RAMM
Subject: Re: ECCOMAS Ludwig Prandtl Medal

Dear Prof. Johnson,

Thank you very much for your quick and comprehensive reply, and for raising this interesting problem in connection with Prandtl's main idea. I forwarded your wish for a platform for a scientific discussion at the joint WCCM-ECCM-ECFD 2014 conference in Barcelona to Prof. Xavier Oliver, who is the organizer of the ECFD 2014. I very much hope he can offer you a satisfactory solution.

In addition, I would like to encourage you to provide me with a 4-page article on the respective topic for the next ECCOMAS Newsletter, which should be published at the end of this year.

Once more congratulations, and best regards,
Josef Eberhardsteiner

Am 16.06.2014 um 11:13 schrieb Claes-Göran Johnson >:

Dear Profs Ramm and Eberhardsteiner

Thank you for this great honor, which I will be very happy to receive in person at the conference opening.

The award has an interesting aspect from scientific point of view in that my work (with Johan Hoffman), shows that Prandtl's main idea of the fundamental role of the boundary layer, for both separation and drag and lift, crowning him as the Father of Moden Fluid Mechanics, is incorrect. We show that separation, drag and lift originate from instability of slightly viscous flow and not from a boundary layer. The evidence comes from solving the Navier-Stokes equations with slip boundary condition, which does not give rise to any boundary layer, and we obtain results in full agreement with observations. We conclude that separation, drag and lift in slightly viscous flow does not originate from a boundary layer and thus that Prandtl's main idea is not in agreement with observations.

I would appreciate if this will be made clear to the public at the conference and I would certainly be willing to shortly expose the reasons why Prandtl was wrong.

The fluid dynamics community will not applaud the reward, since 20th century fluid mechanics has followed the Father in search of the origin of separation, drag and lift in the boundary layer. This has had a catastrophic impact on computational fluid mechanics leading to the strong belief that correct results require resolution of the boundary layer, which however is impossible even in thinkable future since quadrillions of mesh-points would be required. The result is a dead-lock of rational science. We show that drag and lift of an airplane can today be accurately computed over the entire range of angles of attack including stall, by solving the Navier-Stokes equations with slip using a couple of millions of mesh points.

The award thus brings a major scientific question to the podium and I hope it can be accompanied by a scientific discussion.

Sincerely,

Claes Johnson

Perspective on the Prandtl Medal: Model vs Reality

                Prandtl with his model of reality in the form of a little water tank in Göttingen in 1904.

The Prandtl Medal to be given to me (and my coworkers) on July 21 in Barcelona connects to the basic question in science and engineering of model vs reality: As far as I can understand the award expresses a recognition of our work showing that the basic idea of Prandtl of the boundary layer as the origin of lift and drag of an airplane wing, is incorrect.

Our evidence is computed solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations with slip boundary condition, which does not give rise to any boundary layers, but yet fit closely with observations. The agreement improves with increasing Reynolds number beyond $10^5-10^6$, because slip models a turbulent boundary layer. For a jumbojet the Reynolds number is $10^8$ or larger.

More precisely, the computations with slip show somewhat better lift and stall characteristics (higher lift and delayed stall) than experiments.

There are two basic approaches to handle a difference between model and reality: Change the model or change the reality. The second option represents an engineering approach with the goal of constructing a wing so as to realize slip also for moderately large Reynolds numbers (of size $10^5$). One way of doing that is to use rotating cylinders at leading and trailing edge and/or a moving upper wing surface, which indeed shows to improve both lift and stall.

The Prandtl Medal thus invites to redesign of wings according to the model, rather than changing the model to represent existing wings constructed in the spirit of Prandtl as the Father of Modern Aerodynamics.

See also:

• The Spell of Prandtl's Laminar Boundary Layer
• The Spell of Kutta-Zhukovsky Circulation Theory.

Obama vs Developing Countries and Refrigerators

Obama revealed to graduates at UC Irvine the reasons behind his climate policy:

• I’m going to talk about one of the most significant long-term challenges that our country and our planet faces: the growing threat of a rapidly changing climate.
• Developing countries are using more and more energy, and tens of millions of people are entering the global middle class, and they want to buy cars and refrigerators. 
•  So if we don’t deal with this problem soon, we’re going to be overwhelmed. These nations have some of the fastest-rising levels of carbon pollution.

Obama seeks support among students to "deal" with the problem of a rapidly growing middle class around the globe demanding refrigerators as a necessary means to improve living standard.

The Ludwig Prandtl Medal

Today I received the following message:

Dear Professor Johnson, It is our great pleasure to inform you that you are the winner of the 2014 edition of the ECCOMAS Ludwig Prandtl Medal. The decision has been taken by the ECCOMAS Award Committee in a two-round voting procedure. Please receive our warmest congratulations. 

The Ludwig Prandtl Medal will be delivered at the Opening Session of the WCCM-ECCM-ECFD 2014 Conference in Barcelona, July 21, 2014 (8:30-10:30). We would very much appreciate if you can confirm your participation.

With our best regards and congratulations,

Ekkehard Ramm
ECCOMAS PresidentJosef Eberhardsteiner
ECCOMAS Secretary

Here is my answer:

Dear Profs Ramm and Eberhardsteiner

Thank you for this great honor, which I will be very happy to receive in person at the conference opening. 

The award has an interesting aspect from scientific point of view in that my work (with Johan Hoffman), shows that Prandtl's main idea of the fundamental role of the boundary layer, for both separation and drag and lift, crowning him as the Father of Moden Fluid Mechanics, is incorrect. We show that separation, drag and lift originate from instability of slightly viscous flow and not from a boundary layer. The evidence comes from solving the Navier-Stokes equations with slip boundary condition, which does not give rise to any boundary layer, and we obtain results in full agreement with observations. We conclude that separation, drag and lift in slightly viscous flow do not originate from a boundary layer and thus that Prandtl's main idea is not in agreement with observations.

I would appreciate if this will be made clear to the public at the conference and I would certainly be willing to shortly expose the reasons why Prandtl was wrong. 

The fluid dynamics community will not applaud the award, since 20th century fluid mechanics has followed the Father in search of the origin of separation, drag and lift in the boundary layer. This has had a catastrophic impact on computational fluid mechanics leading to the strong belief that correct results require resolution of boundary layers, which however is impossible even in thinkable future since quadrillions of mesh-points would be required. The result is a dead-lock of rational science. We show that drag and lift of an airplane can today be accurately computed over the entire range of angles of attack including stall, by solving the Navier-Stokes equations with slip using a couple of millions of mesh points. 

The award thus brings a major scientific question to the podium and I hope it can be accompanied by a scientific discussion.
Sincerely, Claes Johnson

Lena Andersson om Grundorsaken till Skolans Kris

Lena Andersson ger i dagens DN en insikstfull skarp analys av grundorsaken till den djupa kris inom svensk skola, som så så många omvittnar men så få vill förstå och ingen vet någon lösning på:    

• De dystra rapporterna från skolan ger upphov till frågan om inte felet sitter i det absurda mötet mellan auktoritärt och antiauktoritärt.
• Tanken borde åtminstone prövas att skolans tvång och likriktning är vad som hämmar just motivationen och insikten. 
• Fundamentet för skolan är auktoritärt, bokstavligen instängande. 
• Eftersom tvång och straff hör dåtiden till och övriga samhället går mot autonomi och frivilliga avtal gör skolans modernt sinnade personal vad den kan för att kompensera formernas hårdhet med mjukhet i innehållet.
• Skolans upplösthet möjliggörs av de antiauktoritära formerna, men orsakas inte av dem.
• Orsaken står snarare att finna i krocken mellan oförenligheterna tvång och löshet. 
• Genom psykologi­vetenskapen och erfarenheten vet vi att människor reagerar mycket dåligt på relationer av dubbelbindande natur, exempelvis föräldrar som säger ett och visar ett annat, och där det inte undgår barnet vad som sägs i mellanrummet och att det gör fel hur det än gör
• Varför skulle man inte reagera likadant på en psykologiskt dubbelbindande institution som upptar så många år av ett ungt liv?

Detta är vad jag själv försökt uttrycka men ingen velat lyssna på. Frågan är om någon vill lyssna på LA? 

Matematik är skolans hårdaste kärnämne där krocken har sitt tydligaste uttryck. Utbildningsminister Jan Björklund, som ingenting begriper av vad LA säger, satsar nu miljarder på att lära alla svenska elever bråkräkning i ett tvingande Matematiklyft, som alla inblandade redan vet kommer att misslyckas. 

I detta lyft ingår ingenting av den IT-Matematik som skulle kunna ge mening åt matematikämnet för många av de elever som nu är dömda att stämplas som icke godkända i för dem meningslös exercis, med vida konsekvenser för självbild och livsprojekt. 

Vill Matematikersamfundet Diskutera Skolans Matematikundervisning?

Redaktör Per-Anders Ivert uppmanar Sveriges yrkesmatematiker, enligt önskemål på denna blogg, i majnumret av Svenska Matematikersamfundets medlemsblad Bulletinen, att engagera sig i diskussion av matematikundervisningen i dagens skola.  I väntan på inlägg i Bulletinens nästa nummer, som kommer till hösten någon gång, inbjuder jag nu till diskussion här.

Hoppas att någon är intresserad av att uttrycka någon tanke om skolmatematiken, som ägnas så mycket möda och tid och som anses vara så viktig för Sveriges överlevnad som kunskaps och teknik-samhälle.