[BLDG-SIM] hornets nest? Stay the course !!

[John Aulbach]

I used the Meriwether ESAS hourly analysis program from 1977 through 1984
and the DOE-2.1 A through E since 1984 to date. The problem with all the
DOE-2 interfaces is that the user STILL has to understand DOE-2, what it's
keywords are, and what is actually trying to be modeled. Real engineering
and energy dynamics insite must accompany any model effort, to truly
represent what the building is, and what it can become (ECMs).
 
I have been exposed to PowerDOE but don't yet have time to learn the
geometry games it requires up front. PowerDOE will be nice to show a client
the building geometry reproduce from the model input, but I am not in the
pictoral rendering game. Rather, I need to demonstrate to the client the
results of PS-E, how they change per ECM, and the correct dynamics of the
utitliy rates as each ECM changes. Pictures are nice, but pretty pictures of
airplanes doesn't get the airplanes built or off the ground.
 
Another mistake production DOE-2 using companies use is trying to use DOE-2
as a DESIGN program, rathher than an ENERGY ANALYSIS program.  A TRACE or
Carrier E-20 is still far better at assessing exact coil sizes and airflows.
There is not enought SYSTEMS information coming out to make me feel
comfortable in ever using it accurately for design.
 
It really took me 5 - 6 years to REALLY learn what DOE-2 does and doesn't do
(and I STILL forget). And now another program is to be placed upon us
(EnergyPlus) that we will have to learn the idiosyncrasies of.
 
And for the retrofit industry, I STILL gotta match the utitliy meters....

======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM