The characterization of thought experiments and models as mingled representations needs to be examined in relation to real experimentation. This is necessary for two reasons: first, many scholars liken thought experiments to real experiments by relying on the notion of “experimental-ness” which is moreover proposed as a criterion that thought experiments should meet in order to count as such. If that is so, then we can discriminate between thought experiments and so my approach so far is mistaken. Second, a particular type of modeling, the so-called “computer simulations” is compatible with my characterization of models, but is also considered by many scholars as being part of real experimentation. By showing that thought and real experiments share very few commonalities and that there are important differences between these activities, the case against defining thought experiments and models is further enhanced while mingled representations remain dissimilar to real experiments.