Lies, Damned Lies, and “CFD Comparison Charts” – Part II

In my last post I pointed out a very obvious mistake in Blue Ridge Numerics’ “CFD Comparison Chart” of March 19th this year, which incorrectly stated that FloEFD can only handle incompressible sub-sonic flows.

The reason I highlighted this as the most obvious mistake in the “CFD Comparison Chart” is that FloEFD can trace its history back to the Russian Aerospace Industry in the late 1980s originating from a code called Aeroshape-3D, having been developed by aerospace experts targeting transonic, supersonic and even hypersonic flows. Technical papers on Aeroshape-3D are still available on the internet to this day, as shown by this example published by NASA.

Referring to the “CFD Comparison Chart” shown in my earlier post, another error appears in the Heat Transfer Capabilities section, which states that FloEFD does not have a solar capability, yet there is an example available on our web site at

Solar Heating in FloEFD Concurrent CFD

Solar Heating in FloEFD Concurrent CFD

Yet another error appears in the Motion Capabilities section of the “CFD Comparison Chart” which states that FloEFD can not handle Rotating/Turbomachinery applications. Again, there are examples available on our web site at covering pump efficiency prediction and fan characterization:

Pump Efficiency Prediction with FloEFD Concurrent CFD

Pump Efficiency Prediction with FloEFD Concurrent CFD

Next time I’ll let you know what happened when we wrote to Ed Williams, the CEO of Blue Ridge Numerics, to point out some of these particular mistakes and ask that they remove the document from the public domain, but I’m going to round off this post by pointing out just some of the other mistakes.

Starting on the first page, under CAD-driven Process, the “CFD Comparison Chart” claims that FloEFD’s interface, mouse commands and workflow does not mimic CAD systems. This is frankly bizarre! FloEFD is embedded in a range of CAD systems so the user interface, mouse command and workflow ARE those of the CAD system! Indeed, CAD-embedding is what delivers the extraordinary world-leading productivity gains inside FloEFD that make it possible to incorporate analysis into fast-paced product design departments – which we call Concurrent CFD.

In the next sections of the “CFD Comparison Chart” there are a host of incorrect claims about FloEFD’s meshing capabilities and incorrect claims about it’s ability to perform multi-scenario design studies. FloEFD actually exploits the sophisticated design variant or family tree capabilities that are native to a given CAD system, easily rebutting this claim. There’s even a misleading statement about the lack of a PCB Characterizer, yet FloEFD imports 3D MCAD PCB designs through it’s industry-standard IDF import capability. I could go on, but hopefully you’ve got the sense of just how misleading the Blue Ridge Numerics’ “CFD Comparison Chart” is.

Dr. J, Hampton Court

Post Author

Posted August 12th, 2010, by

Post Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Post Comments

No Comments

About John Parry’s Blog

A mixed bag of things that interest me professionally -CFD technology and its use in education, cooling technologies and the place of thermal design in the overall design flow. John Parry’s Blog


Add Your Comment


May 2014
  • Ramping Up for THERMINIC! Abstract Deadline 28th May 2014
  • February 2014
  • FREE Exhibition at SEMI-THERM 30 Conference, San Jose March 9-13
  • August 2010
  • Lies, Damned Lies, and “CFD Comparison Charts” – Part IV
  • Lies, Damned Lies, and “CFD Comparison Charts” – Part III
  • Lies, Damned Lies, and “CFD Comparison Charts” – Part II
  • Lies, Damned Lies, and “CFD Comparison Charts” – Part I
  • July 2010
  • Mechanical Analysis Products Now in Mentor’s Higher Education Program
  • Sony Vaio laptop in mass ‘recall’
  • June 2010
  • Nearly Back to Business as Usual
  • April 2010
  • The Debate about Liquid Cooled Data Centers
  • MicReD Technology Wins Highest Technical Honor
  • March 2010
  • Sticking Plaster and Light beats Skin Cancer
  • IBM Work to take Moore’s Law to 2025
  • Concurrent CFD Explained (Part IV)
  • Roundup of SEMI-THERM, FloTHERM IC launch and JEDEC
  • February 2010
  • NEW ElectronicsCooling Magazine Website
  • Liquid Cooling – Are We There Yet?
  • Foresight and X-Ray Vision or Hindsight and Regret?
  • FREE Exhibition at SEMI-THERM, Santa Clara February 23-24
  • Force Prediction with Concurrent CFD
  • January 2010
  • Champcar Exhaust Analysis
  • Concurrent CFD Explained (Part III)
  • Stop Press: New Electronics Cooling Community
  • Interested in Indy Car?
  • Concurrent CFD Explained (Part II)
  • Concurrent CFD Explained (Part I)
  • December 2009
  • Cool Youtube Video
  • The Secret’s Out!
  • Wanna Know a Secret?
  • Thermal Design: Who’s Job Is It Anyway?
  • November 2009
  • More on Concurrent CFD in Product Design
  • Concurrent Design and Thoughts on ‘Flows’
  • Mind Your Head(room) Again
  • Solutions Expos – Going MAD in the UK
  • Mind Your Head(room)
  • October 2009
  • Solutions Expos – Just Back
  • Web slashes and missing polar ice
  • Going MAD at European Solutions Expos
  • What’s black and stuck on a PCB?
  • September 2009
  • Try the latest thing in CFD – Free!
  • How to survive a recession
  • ‘Simulating and Optimizing’ – A Series of Free Web Seminars
  • August 2009
  • Fluid Dynamics = Fun (Just back from holiday!)
  • Engineers Spend 60-80% of Work Time Changing Existing Designs
  • Hayfever: Stopped by a Red Light
  • Free Thermal Management Design Guide
  • July 2009
  • Where did CFD come from?
  • Formula 1 and KERS
  • A True Market Leader
  • Mind Your Thermal Management To Improve Reliability
  • Tennis – it’s a rough sport
  • Fluid Dynamics and BBQs
  • June 2009
  • Air – Is it Running Out of Gas?
  • The Deal with Electronics Cooling CFD – Meshing
  • The Deal with Electronics Cooling CFD: Geometry (Lots!)
  • May 2009
  • What’s the Deal with Electronics Cooling CFD?
  • The Start of A New Chapter