On 02.09.2011 20:29 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/2/2011 5:17 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I have summarized my answers in respect to that the simulation
technology falls short of the simulation hypothesis at


It could be considered as some small empiric case study.

My practical experience with simulation has often been disappointing.
It works best when abstracting out a relatively small number of
relations and simple physics. But on the other hand, what can be
simulated has vastly expanded over the 50yrs of my career. So when
this or that ambitious project fails I don't conclude that the trend
is stopped.


Modern simulation software is actually not that bad. If one keeps things simple, then the chances to get the right answer for the first time are quite high even for a design engineer. I mean that default settings and default meshing are working reasonably well. This is one of the reasons that the simulation business grows extraordinary well: design engineers can solve for example a linear structural mechanics problems by themselves, the bachelor level suffices.

The problem in the real world however is not just simulate at any cost but rather to earn money. The IBM case is interesting exactly from such a pragmatic viewpoint. If the business does not bet anymore on monstrous supercomputers, then it is an interesting sign.

When I talk to engineers working on electromobility, I mention that theoretically one could think of simulating the whole hybrid vehicle at once (structural mechanics, heat transfer, CFD, electromagnetics in a single simulation) - they like it. Yet, they do not bet on that, they are pragmatic.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to