Talk:Finite element analysis

message: I would like to point out that there is an error on your page.Accuracy of the FEA method cannot -practically- be improved indifinitevely. There is an upper limit.This limit is determined by convergence check performed by all FEA analysts. After a number of elements  accuracy stays practically the same, while computing time increase
And what about FEA freeware?
1.Does FEA include FEM and FDM?
2.The current article seems to explain info already contained in FEM page.Why not try to explain when does FEM becomes FEA,and explain some practical applications and uses of FEA?--Sahodaran 18:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc unorganized 

message: I changed the line that said "some free and some commercial", which seems to imply that free software cannot be commercial, to "both free and proprietary". I hope this doesn't become an issue. (I'm a bit new to the Wikipedia community.) Swap 01:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free vs Commercial 

message: Should we have some references for these historical statements?--Jbaylor 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for FEA history 

message: One of the sentences is:
:Equations of equilibrium, in conjunction with applicable physical considerations such as compatibility and constitutive relations, are applied to each element, and a system of simultaneous equations is constructed. 
It seems like
*the concept of equilibrium should be linked
*links that do exist should be put through to more specific pages.
I am not sure where compatibility should go; does this refer to compatibility of deformations?  (I know I have encountered this as the sense compatibility is enforced in the structural FEA derivations I've worked with, but I have a feeling it might be more general.  I don't see anything on the disamb that would work. 
Also, constitutive should probably be linked better.  I think Constitutive equation is our man, right? Notthe9 20:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: The bottom part of this article seems to be very... not Wikipedia. Notthe9 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text could also be copyright material that has been dumped in here. John Vandenberg 21:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I won't be surprised this is just copy&paste from somewhere. Look for example at the section headings (which I just changed). Nobody would bother writing those 2.1.2.1 numbers by hand I would think. But I could not find any matched on google for this text. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How about cutting it out? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked for some indication of the origin of the text from the author on User talk:Lesliej.  We should assume good faith and wait for a response as the contributor is new to Wikipedia.  John Vandenberg 12:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive read up a bit on WP:CV, and even cases where the copyright owner submits the work (i.e. a thesis) are not as clear as I thought -- unless the work has been published with a clear free licence.  At the same time, I found this: :meta:Avoid Copyright Paranoia.  What do you guys think?  John Vandenberg 07:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify/Copyvio 

message: How come there's a bunch of content about the truck industry in this article? What makes them special?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.199.251 (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody with a small area of expertise wrote all they knew.Greglocock 08:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with all the stuff about trucks? 

message: I've removed several redlinks and external links from the software list, because there is nothing to indicate the notability of those items, and they could easily be interpreted as spam.  The bluelinks are at least notable enough to have surviving Wiki articles, so I've left them intact.
Before re-adding those links, please think carefully about whether they warrant inclusion, specifically whether they are notable enough (see WP:Notability).  The best bet would be to try creating Wiki articles for these items; if the articles are deleted, it'll be a sure sign they aren't notable enough to warrant inclusion here.
Regards, Oli Filth(talk) 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the cleanup. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of links 

message: I removed two 'citation needed' tags from the opening paragraph.  One was that finite element is used in engineering analysis - since we have an entire (referenced) section on its application in mechanical engineering, I don't see this as needed.  The other was that there are many FE packages 'both free and proprietary'; since the article has external links to public domain and commercial packages, this seems redundant.
Jovial Air (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation-needed tags in opening 

message: This page contains large portions of the same material as Finite element method.  I would suggest a page (name Finite Element Methods) that grabbed all the history and general discussion together, then another page including a more technical discussion.  As it is both pages seem to be competing for the same content -Art187 (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion with [[Finite element method]] 

message: Currently, there are three main articles on the FEM. The article Finite element method presents an introduction to the theory of FEM as a technique for numerical solution of PDE--This mathematically oriented approach is particularly useful for non-structural applications. The article Finite element method in structural mechanics, on the other hand, presents FEM from the stress analyst's point of view as the FEM was initially developed--An approach that is intuitive, natural and easily comprehensible to structural engineers. Finally, the article Finite element analysis gives a survey of current practice and applications of FEM in stress analysis.
The three articles have different emphases and cater to very different interests. Merging all or any two of them will lengthen, complicate the article and burden the readers with unnecessary baggage and requisite background.
I tried to look for but did not see any written rationale for merging the articles. I suggest that whoever makes the suggestion should first make the case and put forward a merged version for public critique. TVBZ28 16:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion continued at Talk:Finite_element_method#The_merge. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with [[Finite element method in structural mechanics]]