L
loucy
Guest
in the realworld , there is no 2.5D object. I thought 2.5D=2D line, that is, 2D move around line ; the shell of trajectory is 2.5D;
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
R
Rautio
Guest
Hi Wangyang -- As for definition of 2.5-D see my first posting above (way back there!). I notice the article I posted is no longer there, don't know if I did something wrong or what. If you send me an email, I will reply with the article attached if you like.
Also incidentally, one thing that is the same about 3-D arbitrary and 3-D planar (what some people like to call 2.5-D even though the term has problems in this use, as described in my paper) is that they all fail to analyze real world objects, and they all give the wrong answer.
(Wow! Did Rautio really say that?) Yes I did. They all give the wrong answer. The only question we can hope to answer is how much wrong the answer is. All computer modeling is an abstraction from reality. It is not and never will be reality. It can only give us a hint as to what will really happen when we really build it.
To answer the question of how wrong is it, we can use handwaving discussion to indicate possibilities in a most general and uncertain fashion. If one stops there for a real project, one is not doing engineering and does not deserve the title of engineer. If you want to do engineering, when things like "How wrong is it?" are important, you have to do numerical experiments and quantify it. Engineers (real engineers) want numbers. But quantifing error is another topic and I have quite a few papers on that if people are interested, feel free to start a new topic. -- Jim Rautio
Also incidentally, one thing that is the same about 3-D arbitrary and 3-D planar (what some people like to call 2.5-D even though the term has problems in this use, as described in my paper) is that they all fail to analyze real world objects, and they all give the wrong answer.
(Wow! Did Rautio really say that?) Yes I did. They all give the wrong answer. The only question we can hope to answer is how much wrong the answer is. All computer modeling is an abstraction from reality. It is not and never will be reality. It can only give us a hint as to what will really happen when we really build it.
To answer the question of how wrong is it, we can use handwaving discussion to indicate possibilities in a most general and uncertain fashion. If one stops there for a real project, one is not doing engineering and does not deserve the title of engineer. If you want to do engineering, when things like "How wrong is it?" are important, you have to do numerical experiments and quantify it. Engineers (real engineers) want numbers. But quantifing error is another topic and I have quite a few papers on that if people are interested, feel free to start a new topic. -- Jim Rautio
L
loucy
Guest
Among other things, Dr. Rautio must be referring to the stripline benchmark problem for which we can find interesting and impressive details on Sonnet's website. Anyone using EM solvers shouldn't miss that.
In the reference list (on Sonnet's website), there are two papers (letters in a column about MIC simulation in IJMMW) whose titles suggest some exchange with Zeland on the problem. I think that must be very interesting, but unfortunately I don't have access to those volumes of the Journal. I would deeply appreciate it if Dr. Rautio or some one else can post the relevant materials here.
I notice that EM3DS offers an example on simulation of thick stripline, which I don't see being discussed on Sonnet's website. Obviously the purpose of that example is to show the accuracy of EM3DS' 3D model. The conductor is however perfect, thus the currents stay on the surface and the reuslt of that example doesn't say too much about the 3D model. It would be very interesting to compare the results for a thick lossy stripeline between Sonnet and EM3DS.
In the reference list (on Sonnet's website), there are two papers (letters in a column about MIC simulation in IJMMW) whose titles suggest some exchange with Zeland on the problem. I think that must be very interesting, but unfortunately I don't have access to those volumes of the Journal. I would deeply appreciate it if Dr. Rautio or some one else can post the relevant materials here.
I notice that EM3DS offers an example on simulation of thick stripline, which I don't see being discussed on Sonnet's website. Obviously the purpose of that example is to show the accuracy of EM3DS' 3D model. The conductor is however perfect, thus the currents stay on the surface and the reuslt of that example doesn't say too much about the 3D model. It would be very interesting to compare the results for a thick lossy stripeline between Sonnet and EM3DS.