| |
HB9ABX > TECH 27.08.05 14:11l 99 Lines 3529 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : ILVQSCHB9EAS
Read: GUEST DL1LCA OE7FMI
Subj: tech development - thoughts
Path: DB0FHN<DB0CL<DB0PDF<DB0SM<DB0EA<DB0SIF<HB9EAS
Sent: 050827/1204z @:HB9EAS.CHE.EU [Basel JN37TM] DP6.00 $:ILVQSCHB9EAS
From: HB9ABX @ HB9EAS.CHE.EU (Felix)
To: TECH @ WW
My opinion regarding computer simulation programs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Simulation Programs (CSPs) like EZNEC and
similar ones may
have a very high value in optimizing antenna systems
of well known structures.
But in order to search and evaluate new types of
antennas, it seems to me very
questionable to use such programs.
The programs are based on formulas, which were
developed to describe the behaving
of antennas of well known structures.
All formulas have a validity range, and using them
outside this range may lead to completely wrong results.
Unfortunately, this is
mostly disregarded in educating EEs, which is in
my opinion one of the main reasons, why large
engineering companies have lost their reputation,
their customers, and finally had to fire thousands
and tenthousands of employees ...
(e.g. BBC Brown Bovery and similar companies).
It is not done by teaching formulas and the mathematical
tools with the ability to write long mathematical derivations.
Most important is, to understand mentally all used formulas
and to be creative. That is the basis of successful engineering.
All used formulas describe an idealized behaving of
structures, disregarding small effects which remain unnoticed
under standard conditions.
Most people are very impressed by the beautiful
diagrams produced by these programs and
think, that the computer is modeling the full reality.
The result is good, if the evaluated structure
corresponds to the program, and
if the environment is specified correctly.
The output provided by these programs may represent
very closely the reality, but
it also may be completely wrong.
When searching new concepts and evaluating new ideas,
the only correct way is by doing experiments in real world.
Measuring the results may lead to new formulas which
describe this behaving,
and using these new formulas in a CSP helps then to
further optimize the construction.
That's the way new constructions and concepts are
found.
My personal experience in high tech engineering during
the last 3 decades demonstrated
very clearly, that large companies lost millions and
millions of dollars due to misuse of very good formulas
and programs - just by disregarding
the validity range of these very important engineering tools,
or caused by one dimensional thinking:
Just a simple example:
In the 1960s we developed the first phone line modems.
They operated at 200, 300, and 600 bps.
We were told by our professors, that the maximum speed
that ever could be reached would
be 3800 bps, as the phone line cuts frequencies above
abt. 3800 Hz.
You know what bps rate today is possible over the
phone line ...
They simply could not imagine, that you may combine
phase-, amplitude-, and frequency modulation simultaneously
in new techniques!
A further example:
Caused by misunderstanding of the applied formulas, a loss
of over 40 million dollars resulted in the development of a high
tech military product, the group being lead by doctors in
Physics and Mathematics ...
Even in large companies such tremendeous errors may not
occur frequently, as this will lead to that what happened ...
Similar things happen today in new antenna projects.
Never say "this is physically not possible", because
tomorrow one may show you, that it IS POSSIBLE.
The successful way goes through understanding and
real world experimenting !
Wishing you a good success
Felix, HB9ABX
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
