This Week in CFD

Call for Participation: The CFD Experiment

The CFD community has mostly been sitting on the fence when it comes to cloud computing, doing nothing except debating its potential.

Or so say Wolfgang Gentzsch and Burak Yenier, organizers of The CFD Experiment. Their goal for this 3-month project is to bring together HPC providers, experts, and users to work through the application of cloud computing to real CFD problems. There is no cost to the end users (except time) and the end result will be a chronicle of the experience, presumably to identify areas for improvement to make cloud computing practical for CFD problems.

You can register for the CFD Experiment at their website.

Applications

CFD simulation of a ship hull with operating propeller performed by ACMA. Image from Maritime Executive.

A Desk Only a Mesh Generator Would Love

South Korean designer Bomi Park‘s wireframe desk proves that mesh generation truly (and sadly) isn’t an end unto itself. The image above is from Gizmodo.

News in Brief

Awaglass = Hourglass Full of Bubbles

Take the sand out of an hourglass and fill it with a soapy liquid and you get the Awaglass. Probably a lot more suitable for us CFD types. Be sure to watch the video. This Japanese-made product was available on-line (“It does not measure time but enjoy the time…”) for a little over 5,000 yen but is now sold out.

This entry was posted in Applications, News and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to This Week in CFD

  1. The drag reduction of the forward cyclyist caught my attention. For CFD, 2%-2.5% is a small difference. And, I also thought CFD would be challenged calculating the absolute value of drag. Granted, CFD does better capturing differences but… Anyway, I did ask some questions on the ANSYS blog. LOL, maybe I’m one of the few skeptical people out there. Maybe it’s time to hang up the skepticism hat and go with the flow! It will be hard. It’s kind of boring when things are predictable.

  2. So here is one of the, of a few, things I don’t get. The author states “When the second cyclist is larger/wider/taller than the first one, the effect (reduction in air resistance for the first one) will be larger, and vice versa: A second cyclist who is smaller/shorter than the first will have an effect that is less than 2.5 percent.”

    Yet, if I remember right (and this is for different configurations and Re numbers…), when a rear body is bigger it spreads out the streamlines, the flow accelerates, lower pressure results between the bodies, and the drag on the forward body increases. This should be easy to show (or disprove) with 2D and/or axisymmetric tandem bodies. Thanks John, you provided me with another idea for something to show on my web site!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s