ICME has been successfully employed in the design of metals. Inthe Ford Virtual Aluminum Casting project , a Computer-aided Engineering(CAE) tool is developed for the P-S-P-P prediction. The thermal history ofcasting process is used to predict the resultant microstructure features(microporosity, eulectic phases, and precipitate phase); the microstructureinformation is used in the prediction of mechanical property (yield strength,fatigue, etc.); the material properties are finally input into the analysisof the cast aluminum cylinder heads ami blocks to predict the residualstresses and durability. In the General Motors Virtual Casting ComponentDevelopment project , the aluminum casting process of an engine block isanalyzed and optimized using the ICME methodology. The microstructure anddefects (porosity, crack, etc.) of the casted aluminum component arepredicted based on the casting process simulation to support productperformance analysis, such as durability and reliability. Advancedcomputational methods are also developed for the prediction of the P-S-Prelations of aluminum, such as the solute strengthening and warm formability[7, 8]. Similar developments have also been done on magnesium to provide thecomputational modules for the ICME development, such as the P-P(process-property) modeling of magnesium to understand the solid-solutionstrengthening behavior . However, an automatic process integration andoptimization workflow for P-S-P-P has not been developed in the existing ICMEprojects due to the limitations in high performance computing capability,simulation tools and optimization tools when those projects were done.
There's the germ of an idea in this proposal, and there's certainly a problem which needs fixing, but we need to find a way to fix it which we can all live with and which will not evolve into something that can cause us problems. Whatever we produce must not be bureaucratic, must not amount to censorship and must not institute a cabal. They're bloody tough nuts to crack. For me, I think semi-protection is the first step. The possibility of full protection may need to be considered as well. We are the encyclopedia which anyone can edit. That does not mean it is the encyclopedia anyone can write. Editors often make suggestions, proposals and provide sources and facts. We have talk pages to facilitate such moves. We can fully protect articles and allow them to be rewritten. We can allow anyone to edit. Sort of. Damn. If only we weren't so principled. I guess in this instance we have to work out which principle to betray. I'd suggest the one we don't is WP:NPOV. If the sources we have don't allow us to write from a NPOV, then we don;t write at all. Is that a fair reading of the principle? That's the one I'd suggest we defend. 2b1af7f3a8