SL
It's debatable and dependent on our perspective in my opinion. I have found around 95% of people would lump free energy technology and these forums into group 1 or 2. So while we could think were in group 4 or 5 any number of other people could see it as group 3 or lower. Which begs the question who is more correct?, we cannot all be correct. Thus it all comes down to our perspective, how we view other people and how well we accept criticism.
We could think of it this way, your probably going to disagree with anything I say if it doesn't agree with your thoughts and vice versa. So the actual rating system is more a matter of self-confirmation or populism isn't it?. We generally always think were more correct than everyone and would rate them lower than ourselves if we disagree.
So why not just state the obvious, you think CAE Analysis and equations are the way forward and I disagree. I disagree because I have written my own simulators and understand they can clarify what I know but not what I don't know. Ergo, if were not asking the right questions it cannot give us the right answers because it's only a computer.
Regards
AC
AC,The "Self Implemented Review" does not involve anyone but YOU, you rate ONLY YOUR posts with respect to your own criteria
and then evaluate using the scale of 1 to 5; nothing more:
So, on a scale of 1 to 5 => using your own criteria, rate your "Value Added" score:
1 = nonsense, silly, childish, banter - of no value what so ever
2 = mindless chatter, a few buzz words, but not related to the subject matter
3 = off topic but might, in some way, be related
4 = some value added to the subject; or a valid, properly asked and answerable, question
5 = good/great contribution to the subject
In simple terms, it's a Self Review! Nothing to do with anyone else or anything else - just you and how you evaluate your posts.
If you score yourself very high then so be it, if your score is low, then so be it as well - a self reflection so to speak.
CAENearly everything you use today has been developed, in some way or another, is involved with CAD, CAM, CAE - a simple fact, like
it or not. Even if you are living under a rock, this is still a fact. Think about that.
So, you've written a simulator but it didn't clarify what you didn't know, ergo, CAE simulation is utter garbage and proves nothing.
Man, that's about as dumb as it gets.
Every Engineering, Manufacturing and nearly every Services firm on earth uses CAD, CAM CAE, every last one!
So you can see why this discussion would be frustrating for someone like me - clear proof is provided but the idiot on the other
end will not even listen, never mind at least try to understand it - because their too engrained in their own myopic stupidity!
More than frustrating... infuriating. But, trying to educate you is not one of the primary tasks - remain ignorant - technology
will progress... whether you can appreciate it or not - it's unimportant and I don't think anyone cares one way or the other.
I know you enjoy this banter crap but I enjoy the excitement of technical progress and discovery!
Anyway, you keep doing your nay-say thing and I'll keep analyzing and designing.
SL
Author
Topic: Holcomb and other FE technology debate (Read 49826 times)
