Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com - View Single Post

Jim Bullis · 09-12-2010, 02:09 PM

Robert Smalls,

Thanks for the info on Ansys Fluent. And I would rather work with the dxf files than the strange stereo files that Cham Phoenics required. My low budget CAD is actually very capable in this regard, and I was able to communicate with the Cham Phoenics, but getting into things at a level where fine details could be sorted out was not possible, at least not in a reasonable time. I am trying to avoid getting too bogged down with analysis, so I have not been able to work this through adequately. And the expectation of useful CFD results is not encouraging anyway.

I have never been particularly impressed with anything I have seen by CFD since nobody has shown results for very fundamental objects and compared them with wind tunnel measurements. Even relatively large Cd forms do not seem to get validated in a way that I would consider appropriate, so getting really good results in the Cd = .05 range seems unlikely. I would be glad to be proven wrong on this, such that I could get past seat of the pants extrapolation based on Morelli and based on the Akron data.

09-12-2010, 02:09 PM	#86 (permalink)
Jim Bullis EcoModding Lurker Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: California Posts: 80 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Robert Smalls, Thanks for the info on Ansys Fluent. And I would rather work with the dxf files than the strange stereo files that Cham Phoenics required. My low budget CAD is actually very capable in this regard, and I was able to communicate with the Cham Phoenics, but getting into things at a level where fine details could be sorted out was not possible, at least not in a reasonable time. I am trying to avoid getting too bogged down with analysis, so I have not been able to work this through adequately. And the expectation of useful CFD results is not encouraging anyway. I have never been particularly impressed with anything I have seen by CFD since nobody has shown results for very fundamental objects and compared them with wind tunnel measurements. Even relatively large Cd forms do not seem to get validated in a way that I would consider appropriate, so getting really good results in the Cd = .05 range seems unlikely. I would be glad to be proven wrong on this, such that I could get past seat of the pants extrapolation based on Morelli and based on the Akron data.