←back to thread

58 points breve | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.32s | source
Show context
pinkmuffinere ◴[] No.45676350[source]
> The motor’s performance on the dyno has exceeded even our most optimistic simulations

Not to take away from the exciting achievement, but I always found comments like this kindof unusual. Really, it exceeded even your _most optimistic_ simulations? If the high end of your simulated performance was below what you actually measured, I am worried that your simulation is seriously neglecting something. I used to work in decent depth with three phase bldc motors, so I feel I can say with some authority that these things _can_ be simulated, and while real world data is hard to exactly predict, getting something outside of the predicted range would generally be interpreted as a sign that your simulation isn't so good. But maybe this is just marketing-speak, and their simulations are actually totally fine.

replies(4): >>45676422 #>>45676723 #>>45677110 #>>45678211 #
bouchard ◴[] No.45677110[source]
Depends if you make overly conservative assumptions in your modeling...
replies(1): >>45677583 #
Dylan16807 ◴[] No.45677583[source]
If you have simulations with varying levels of optimism, but all of them were too conservative, then you screwed up.
replies(1): >>45677643 #
1. bouchard ◴[] No.45677643[source]
Meh, depends what's the goal. Exceeding predicted performance is not a screw up, it's just providing a minimum guaranteed performance aka playing it safe (under promise, over deliver).

Also, we don't know by how much the most optimistic predicions were exceeded.

Makes for nice marketing ;)