Quote:
Originally Posted by eeeehaw
I beg to differ. I am constantly building antennas for amateur radio, and I start with a modeling program (3 actually), because it saves a TON of time. Yes, I agree that modeling programs are imperfect, and that there is nearly always empirical "tweaking" of the finished design needed to get it "perfect".
|
I originally stated that I agree with the computer modeling in the beginning. It is one of the most important steps to aquiring a valid framework to base one's design on. My original quote below.
"Seriously, you are putting a tremendous amount of effort into theoretical models.
I laud you on this, but there is a point when theory breaks down and one must make a physical representation of ones work. I can't wait to see a finished product."
Quote:
Originally Posted by eeeehaw
I think it's pretty cool that he's modeling on a computer first, ie starting with known science to predict outcomes. As my interest grows in aerodynamics, I'm now looking for free or inexpensive fluid modeling programs.
|
I work at a manufacturer for filter paper and what works on Paper doesn't always work as Paper, if you catch my drift. We are constantly using projections of theories to determine the course we should take, but we have to make actual paper to confirm what we anticipated.
Also, just because it's "known" science, doesn't mean that it doesn't have limits. For example, in chemistry there are limiting reactants. In these reactions, one of the chemicals in the reaction is consumed first and terminates a theoretically perfect reaction. The final yeild is the actual, whereas the theoretical yeild is what was calculated on paper.