Could you please check my writing?

Question

Making precise geometric model is essential, but what is more important, and known as a skill, is meshing. Shape and size of meshes for each part has a significant effect on the results. By defining smaller size for meshing, the simulation needs more time to analyze and produce the results. The simulation must be run over many times to harvest sufficient outcomes to make a conclusion. Therefore, to have the best results with the minimum time, different meshing size is used for each part. The areas with highest gain on the results are the areas near the wafers, distinctively their edges. Hence, the smallest meshing size is defined for those areas.

Enoon · Accepted Answer

Making a precise geometric model is essential, but what is more important, and known as a skill, is meshing. Mesh shape and size for each part both have a significant effect on the results.The smaller the defined mesh size, the longer the simulation takes to analyze and produce the results. The simulation must be run many times over to harvest sufficient outcomes to make a conclusion. Therefore, to have the best results with the minimum time, a different meshing size is used for each part. The areas with highest gain on the results are the areas near the wafers, especially [???] their edges. Hence, the smallest meshing size is defined for those areas.

I didn't understand the green parts. It seems to me that you would have to produce a thing before you analyzed it, for example.

USF · Answer

Thank you , dear enoon.

enoonand known as a skill

I meant choosing optimum size and shape of meshing is a kind of an art. You know, there are unlimited ways to mesh a geometric model in a simulation software. There is general rules, but using a proper meshing is as important as the speed computer we use to run the simulation. Because we run simulation for many times, and if we chose, e.g. larger meshing for where is not so effective on the results, then again, we could use smaller meshing for all parts and run that in a higher speed computer.
And the meshing can be both 2-D and 3-D for a 3-D geometric model, if you like I will explain. So it is possible to use triangle, square, and other 2-D shapes or pyramid, square, and other 3-D shapes. So we have a lot of options on our hands, and it is known as a skill.

enoonanalyze and produce the results

It means, the software should analyze the model and conditions and then produce results, like figures, diagrams, and tables for specific parameters.

enoonhighest gain on the results are the areas near the wafers

I meant, changes in those areas have more effects on the results, in this case the deposition rate.

enoonespecially [???]

I meant to point that the area has more effect than the other areas, I used "particularly" in other areas, and I guess "specially" is not formal or technical. I don't know.

And dear enoon. I have finished the first version of my article, private message is disabled in your profile, but I opened that. I would appreciate it if you could provide me with an email address, so I can send it to you, if you like. I guess the whole article would be easier to understand. It is in Word 2007.

Enoon · Answer

Who is this written for? Who is supposed to read it?

USF · Answer

Well, it supposed to be a paper for a technical journal. And is used mostly be read by technical persons.
I am the previous leopard boy, I changed the username. Do you remember?

Enoon · Answer

USFWell, it supposed to be a paper for a technical journal. And is used mostly be read by technical persons.I am the previous leopard boy, I changed the username. Do you remember?

Of course. I saw through your flimsy disguise immediately.

Your piece has all sorts of problems, many of which are subtle and depend very much on the meaning intended. For instance, is meshing actually more important than making an accurate geometric model? It seems to me that if you mesh the wrong shape, it doesn't matter how well you mesh it.

USF · Answer

enoonflimsy disguise

How was it flimsy?

enoonFor instance, is meshing actually more important than making an accurate geometric model? It seems to me that if you mesh the wrong shape, it doesn't matter how well you mesh it.

Actually, yes. In simulation using a finite element software, the software solve the equations for each parts. e.g. Triangle meshing gives far from reality in e.g. a cylinder, but it is good for spheres, of course only if it weren't a solid sphere. Squares are faster to solve and so on.

Enoon · Answer

USF enoonflimsy disguise How was it flimsy?enoonFor instance, is meshing actually more important than making an accurate geometric model? It seems to me that if you mesh the wrong shape, it doesn't matter how well you mesh it.Actually, yes. In simulation using a finite element software, the software solve the equations for each parts. e.g. Triangle meshing gives far from reality in e.g. a cylinder, but it is good for spheres, of course only if it weren't a solid sphere. Squares are faster to solve and so on.

Who else does wafers in here?

I am sure I'm being dense, but I don't think you answered my question. I understand the basic principles in your piece, including meshing. It is similar to the tessellation I deal with in video games. But if you want to do a torus, and the geometric model you create is a cube, all the meshing in the world is not going to give good results. In your piece you say, "what is more important ... is meshing." I am not convinced that meshing is more important than the geometrics.

USF · Answer

Actually, you are brilliant. But I didn't get your point. You mean I don't want to give you information? Which I asked you to have my whole article. But I guess, it is because I don't understand your question, actually. I guess you are mentioning that I haven't provide enough evidence. Right?

enoonBut if you want to do a torus, and the geometric model you create is a cube, all the meshing in the world is not going to give good results

Why not? It could be an estimation, and by reducing the size, you will get the accurate results.

enoon In your piece you say, "what is more important ... is meshing." I am not convinced that meshing is more important than the geometrics.

Do you mean from the geometric the shape of the meshing? Well, actually, I meant if you use similar sizes, then the geometric shape of the mesh is important.

And enoon, thank you for replying. I appreciate that.

Enoon · Answer

USFBut I didn't get your point. You mean I don't want to give you information? Which I asked you to have my whole article. But I guess, it is because I don't understand your question, actually. I guess you are mentioning that I haven't provide enough evidence. Right?

Right. I don't pretend to understand the work you are doing in detail. I just want to be sure we are communicating effectively, such that I don't let you write anything false by mistake. I was not sure you understood my question, but now I am.

Making a precise geometric model is essential, but what is more important is the fine art of meshing. Mesh shape and size for each part both have a significant effect on the results.The smaller the defined mesh size, the longer the simulation takes to run the analysis and produce the results. The simulation must be run many times over to harvest sufficient outcomes to make a conclusion. Therefore, to achieve the best results in the minimum time, a different meshing size is used for each part. The areas with most significant effect on the results are the areas near the wafers, especially their edges. Hence, the smallest meshing size is defined for those areas.

I don't know why you put "near" the wafers. Do you also model the space around them and the rack?

I prefer to do this forum ship-in-a-bottle style. I don't PM, IM or e-mail anybody. Sorry.

USF · Answer

Thank you, enoon, and I don't expect any further favor, you have been very kind and helpful.

Thanks. I didn't want to look like that I am hiding or don't want to give enough information.

enoonI don't know why you put "near" the wafers. Do you also model the space around them and the rack?

Yep. The flow of the gas, and the space around solid parts. It is possible to define that too.

enoonI prefer to do this forum ship-in-a-bottle style. I don't PM, IM or e-mail anybody. Sorry.

I didn't understand the metaphor. I guess the ship-in-a-bottle, is those tiny ships that literally are in a bottle, but I didn't understand why is that related to being stealth. Or perhaps you meant keeping away from touching or contacting, but that is interesting if it wasn't a expression. I mean it is interesting if you made it up, now. You know why? Because, it shows the way of modeling! in your mind or the mind of an English speaker.

And thanks again.

Could you please check my writing?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions