It's actually you that dont seem to understand. If you understand antenna you wont use that silly mainlobe analogy. You like to overcomplicate things and use of buzzwords.
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.
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
It's actually you that dont seem to understand. If you understand antenna you wont use that silly mainlobe analogy. You like to overcomplicate things and use of buzzwords.
Minding orders of magnitude and significance levels for measurement instruments is basic high school science...Well it's not much TBH and i would love to see at least one academic source doing this. Like if it curved surface.. do i need to break it down to something like 1 mm box ?
The real object is not faceted at the resolution that your digital wireframe is. Reflections *will* change when you introduce the greater curvatures of the real world object.But then you can no longer claim it will provide smaller lobe when pitted against larger wavelength.
And other people are allowed to point out whatever other issues with analysis you miss or choose to omit.I always discuss them tho. like the importance of statistics and i havent done them yet. also the lack of at least agreed standards.
Let me put it this way. If you have a polygonal shape with a lot of points (let's say 50) the RF energy will transmit at every point in that polygonal shape. If you have the same general shape except most of the edges are smoothed and you have much fewer points (let's say 5), the pattern and breadth of transmission *will be different*. A 3.5 mm wavelength beam will transmit more narrowly against features faceted with say 2 mm resolution than facets with say 7 mm resolution. This will *alter* how narrow and concentrated the lobes are, and depending how the more faceted shape is smoothed into the less faceted shape, *even* the reflected angle of incidence.It's actually you that dont seem to understand. If you understand antenna you wont use that silly mainlobe analogy. You like to overcomplicate things and use of buzzwords.
It's not that I'm overcomplicating the analysis with buzzwords. It's that you don't know how to apply these concepts in more complex analytical contexts.
Minding orders of magnitude and significance levels for measurement instruments is basic high school science...
Yeah and there has to be known good. and there is reference.
The real object is not faceted at the resolution that your digital wireframe is. Reflections *will* change when you introduce the greater curvatures of the real world object.
Yeah so you basically suggesting use of STEP file instead of what i am usually used. I wonder what take you so long to just suggest me to use that file ?
And other people are allowed to point out whatever other issues with analysis you miss or choose to omit.
Of course except that i also have right to scrutinize them too. and you dont seem to like it.
Let me put it this way. If you have a polygonal shape with a lot of points (let's say 50) the RF energy will transmit at every point in that polygonal shape. If you have the same general shape except most of the edges are smoothed and you have much fewer points (let's say 5), the pattern and breadth of transmission *will be different*. A 3.5 mm wavelength beam will transmit more narrowly against features faceted with say 2 mm resolution than facets with say 7 mm resolution. This will *alter* how narrow and concentrated the lobes are, and depending how a more faceted shape is smoothed, *even* the reflected angle of incidence.
Yeah and if i ask for number ? will you answer with numbers ? Lobes have units which is Radians or degrees.
You are.It's not that I'm overcomplicating the analysis with buzzwords. It's that you don't know how to apply these concepts in more complex analytical contexts.
If you need sources to accept basic methods of analysis even high school science kids learn then your problem is not the lack of sources but basic comprehension.Yeah and there has to be known good. and there is reference.
However which way you want to improve your model resolution *shrug*.Yeah so you basically suggesting use of STEP file instead of what i am usually used. I wonder what take you so long to just suggest me to use that file ?
lol the problem is your "scrutiny" amounts to a charge that other people don't understand physics while you're the one oversimplifying how the physics actually works...Of course except that i also have right to scrutinize them too. and you dont seem to like it.
Yeah and if i ask for number ? will you answer with numbers ? Lobes have units which is Radians or degrees.
I already told you how coarse is coarse and how fine is fine. If your significance is determined by centimeter levels of difference you need at least centimeter if not millimeter level resolution (ability to measure 0.01-0.1 m^2). If your significance is determined by millimeter levels of difference you need millimeter level resolution (ability to measure 0.001-0.01 m^2). Otherwise, stochastic errors overpower significance.
I already gave you numbers dude. Please actually read what I'm saying.
A simple point only sounds complicated to someone who doesn't have good comprehension of the simple point.You are.
If you need sources to accept basic methods of analysis even high school science kids learn then your problem is not the lack of sources but basic comprehension.
We're not talking about 1+1=2
I am talking the same standard one use to write a thesis.
Imagine long talks about mm wave resolution etc.. and this ? Milady my search so far is a standard that everyone or most would accept. and there currently is none.However which way you want to improve your model resolution *shrug*.
My client can supply me with blender files, STL, STEP or others. and what i need is some acceptable standard to make them not only readable by Ansys but also the result is accepted by people. Since i dont have academic credentials clearly i have to seek one which have.
lol the problem is your "scrutiny" amounts to a charge that other people don't understand physics while you're the one oversimplifying how the physics actually works...
Well not really and i am not oversimplifying. I tried to make myself understood. by others. and that dont or dont always need fancy words.
I already gave you numbers dude. Please actually read what I'm saying.
Yeah and i asked when the surface is curved am i supposed to break it into a box with mm width ? and is there any academic source ?
If you ever write a thesis, you cannot answer with "it's basic science in school".
We're not talking about 1+1=2
I am talking the same standard one use to write a thesis.
No we're talking about whether you can resolve 1 mm details with 1 meter long ruler marks. No one is citing something that elementary in a thesis.
Imagine long talks about mm wave resolution etc.. and this ? Milady my search so far is a standard that everyone or most would accept. and there currently is none.
Okay, go get it peer reviewed then Mr. Thesis Writer.
If you don't have academic credentials *maybe* you'd be more receptive to criticisms that are meant to make your analysis more rigorous.My client can supply me with blender files, STL, STEP or others. and what i need is some acceptable standard to make them not only readable by Ansys but also the result is accepted by people. Since i dont have academic credentials clearly i have to seek one which have.
If you don't have the vocabulary to understand the basic language from within a discipline you're going to have a very tough time doing good work in that discipline...Maybe if you haven't had formal training try to learn the language rather than complain that people are using words you have trouble following...Well not really and i am not oversimplifying. I tried to make myself understood. by others. and that dont or dont always need fancy words.