By: RSParadis

RSParadis — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:20:40 +0000

Another cheap alternative one might want to look at is Synapsense's wireless CFD product[A href="http://www.synapsense.com/go/index.cfm"]. It was very easy to install myself and you can even load thier software onto an existing server verses buying one of thiers.

By: Paulbemis

Paulbemis — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:30:20 +0000

I think we should make a distinction between numerical accuracy and modeling detail. In terms of numerical accuracy, CoolSim uses the ANSYS Airpak and Fluent solver engines, which are the most accurate in the industry and have 20 years of validations to prove it. In fact, as compared to Future Facilities which uses a “stair-stepped” cartesean mesh, CoolSim relies on the ICEM CFD AutoHexa meshing technology which provides a hybrid (hex, tet, prism) mesh to deliver a very high degree of accuracy on odd shaped or round geometry. I believe what Pete is referring too is the amount of modeling detail exposed in the user interface. The CoolSim strategy is to only expose what is necessary to provide a sufficient level of useful information to users upon which design decisions can be made. It’s important to remember that increasing the amount of modeling detail also increases the number of GUI panels, dialog boxes, and input parameters. This makes the product more difficult to use, and more difficult to remember how to use. The CoolSim strategy is to be easy to use, and easy to remember. Unlike engineering analysts found in the auto and aero markets, data center modeling users tend to be “periodic users” based on project needs and therefore have to re-learn the cooling analysis tool each time they apply it. CoolSim was designed specifically to meet these users needs with an high degree of accuracy and a sufficient amount of modeling detail. Recent studies at a number of sites have found the resulting output of these two applications to be very close.

Comments on: Can you afford data center CFD?

By: RSParadis

By: Paulbemis