A very close friend of mine I eventually realized is , in fact , Dale Gribble . <| sep |> Nothing to read there ? <| sep |> Pfft , Laserdisc is where its at <| sep |> Laphroaig QC , Laphroaig 18 , Caol Ila DE , Talisker 10 among others . <| sep |> This is almost as bad as the National Anthem . <| sep |> The issue becomes how do you upgrade hundreds of thousands of phones , servers , laptops , homecomputers , and ATMs to handle the more demanding algorithms of quantum computers ? <| sep |> It means she was joking or being sarcastic and you ' re actually the dumb one for taking it a little too seriously . <| sep |> 1010 . A . This dog is an undercover rockstar . <| sep |> This is dependent on what your changing . Sounds like you can only test a cross section that is not identical to your FEA beam . If you are only changing the ratio between dimensions a small amount the FEA study will still be valid Your example of a C to elliptical rectangle would still be valid if they have relatively the same ratio for width to length . The justification for this can be debated but the point of FEA is to approximate a shape using elements , so if the two geometries are very close they will behave very closely . If they say any change would invalidate your FEA , then by that reason FEA of the original shape would also be invalid because it is not exact ie , curves approximated by flat sided elements . Obviously this is not true and a correct FEA can be validated by physical testing . Boundary conditions and solver conditions definitely matter , this strongly dependent on your material properties being linear and not behaving viscoplasticaly . As you said in your other post , if your deflection matches your measured results then the stress will be valid because the solver itself solves only for deflection and stress is calculated afterwards if its needed .