The battle of the methods

EM simulation provokes strong feelings amongst true believers, particularly when discussing which tools should be used and the merits of different methods. Amongst the main points of contention are time domain versus frequency domain and hexahedral vs. tetrahedral. I have come to the conclusion that the only "right" method is the one that fits your application. All the better if you can easily switch between them to find out.

If you fancy reading more, then you can check out the Microwave Journal Expert Advice column "A Brief Explanation of 3D EM Simulation Methods" this month.

Here's an abstract:

It is widely accepted that three dimensional numerical simulations of electromagnetic fields are essential to passive component design success. Obviously simulating a virtual prototype is much cheaper than building hardware and measuring it, in particular if you take the design cycle time into consideration. If we look at modern optimized antenna designs, for example, it is arguable whether these designs would have been possible at all without electromagnetic (EM) field simulation tools, without automatic optimization, without the possibility to visualize the previously invisible. But saying “all right, let’s go and buy a 3D EM field simulator and everything will be fine” is probably not enough to guarantee success.

I believe the first five people to comment on the article on the MWJ site will receive a copy of the Electrical Engineering Handbook (very generous, those MWJ guys) so get reading.

Please feel free to add your thoughts to this post.
Martin