TLM is what came to mind, here as well. There is an existing TLM tool called Microstripes, I took it for a spin and was impressed, compared to my HFSS experience. Anyway, Walter, could you post some links for us to see your material? You can't attach stuff to freelists. Lars 2008/10/12 walter steffe <steffe@xxxxxxxxxx> > Hi Steve, > you have rised a lot of important questions. Now I will try to answer to a > few of them. I will come back next to give a better picture. > > Up to now my method has been tested only on a few test cases but in > priciple > it should work on any closed problem (for the moment I do not intend to > address > antennas problems). > The most complex test I have done is an interdigital filter. This exercise > is > described in the two attached pages which are extracted from my Informl > Business > Plan. There you can see the domain decomposition and the kind of mesh I am > using > (each subdomain is described by a its meshed boundary). > > On a single processor the computational time required to solve this test > case with > my method is not much different that time used by the other commercial > simulator. > My method is anyway much more well suited for the parallelization because > the computations > of the different subcircuits are independent tasks. Other methods are much > more difficult > to parallelize in an efficient way due to the large amount of data exchange > among the > different parts of the computational domain. > So I am thinking to deploy my software on a large grid (as the Sun Grid) > and sell > it as a service. In this way the customer will be able to get a quick > result and, > at the end, he will have to pay only for the actual work (measured as total > CPU time) > and not for the number of used processors (as it happens with the more > traditional > licence scheme). > > An other important difference is in the kind of result that is provided. > In my view a spice circuit is much more valuable than a set of curves. > It is true that there exist some techniques which allow to extract an > equivalent circuit from a set of simulated (or even measured) data. > I do not think anyway that these methods can work very well with large > circuits and expecially with a large number of ports (let say 1000 ports). > With my method every big problem can be split in a large number of small > subproblems that are solved in parallel. Today the processors are quite > cheep > but you have to be able to parallelize your computation in an efficient > way. > > A third important advantage, which is also related to the domain > decomposition > strategy, comes into pay when there is the need to perform an optimization. > Here my method can achieve a dramatic imrovement in the computational > efficiency > because a local change in the geometrical or physical parameters of a given > subdomain affects only the related subcircuit and there is no need to > recompute > the subcircuits associated with the other (unchanged) parts. > All other traditional full-wave simulators treat the electromagnetic device > as > an unstructured black box and need a complete rexecution after any small > change > of the structure. > > The previus comments are a (partial) responce to your points 1 and 3. > For what concerns point 2 it is too early to say that my method can not > break down where others do well. The actual behaviuor of my method will > also depend on the quality of the domain decomposition and of the mesh. > The development of a software tool which is able to perform an automatic > domain decomposition with a good quality is my next high priority. > Up to now the test cases have been generated with an academec and very > rudimentary software tool. This is the main reason of my difficulties in > the preparation of an exhaustive set of benchmarks. > On the other side I can say that, for sure, there is a case where all other > full-wave methods fail and my method performs very well. > This case is the accurate characterization of the electrical response near > the zero frequency. Other methods became very ill conditioned (FEM and MoM) > or very inefficient (FDTD) when the frequency approaches zero. > Of cource you can use a quasistatic method which give an accurate result > near > the zero frequency but in this case you will have bad results at the higher > frequencies. If you want an equivalent circuit that is accurate over the > full > band (from zero to the highest freq) my method is the only choice. > > To summaryze my view of case I would say that: > > 1) My method exibit clear advantages in a few important areas and this > gap can not easely be filled by other methods. > 2) The market value of these advantages is not totally claer to > me because I am not an expert of SI (which I thing is the most > interesting market of my software). I hope that this forum will > help me to gain a better insight on this subject. > 3) I would prefer to avoid involving an univerity because I would > have to publish too many details which would decrease the value > of my invention. > 4) There is still work to be done in order to reach the point where > my software is at least minimally commercially viable. > The highest priority is the development of a good > CAD/mesh interface. > > > > Walter > > > > > On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 02:57 -0700, steve weir wrote: > > Walter, I see a couple of challenges: > > > > 1. Proof that the method works as intended over a useful range of > problems. > > Do those problems cover all the types of problems that existing tool / > > tools handle? > > What problems can it handle that existing tools can't or can't handle > > well. Why? Other than adopting your method, what might an existing > > vendor do to cover the gap? > > > > 2. Determination if and where the method has exceptional cases. > > Are there situations where the method breaks down or generates results > > that are less accurate than existing products? > > > > 3. Ultimate computational efficiency of the method for common problems. > > Can the method solve problems handled by existing tools on similar > > computer platforms and in similar or better run times? > > > > 4. Ultimate accuracy of the method for common problems. > > Are the results similar, better, or worse than those generated by > > existing tools. > > > > 5. A business plan that shows that if the method does everything that > > you believe it does that investors would see a profit from it. > > Better mousetraps can be a hard sell. Is there an application area > > where the method is or will in the near future become a "must have"? > > > > It can take years to get through the first four steps, and then many man > > hours to code the results into a tool and test it rigorously. It can be > > very difficult to convince an established player that the risk and > > investment is worthwhile. In order to do that, you will need to be able > > to show that your method has commercial value either by: providing > > greater accuracy, faster results, supporting problems they cannot, or > > some combination of all three that provide compelling value versus the > > costs required to develop and deploy it. > > > > There are several ways that you might start: > > > > 1. Write one or more academic papers that compare the method to others > > and show what it can do / can do better than other methods. > > 2. Get support from a university as a cosponsor to the property to > > develop it to the point that it is at least minimally commercially > > viable. Universities are cheap sources of labor and many also have good > > relationships with industry. > > 3. If you can show that the method addresses a critical high dollar > > problem today, or one that will become apparent within a short time > > frame, you may be able to attract investment capital. > > > > Off hand I think that the commercial targets for you would be 2.5D > players. > > > > Steve. > > > -- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis -- > -- Type: application/pdf > -- File: pg_0010.pdf > > > -- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis -- > -- Type: application/pdf > -- File: pg_0011.pdf > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe from si-list: > si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field > > or to administer your membership from a web page, go to: > //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list > > For help: > si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field > > > List technical documents are available at: > http://www.si-list.net > > List archives are viewable at: > //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list > or at our remote archives: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages > Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: > http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from si-list: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field or to administer your membership from a web page, go to: //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list For help: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field List technical documents are available at: http://www.si-list.net List archives are viewable at: //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list or at our remote archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu