[BLDG-SIM] hornets nest?

[Michael Andelman]

The frustrating thing for any DOE2 user who's been using the program
since it was CalERDA is that some real progress has
developed over the last few years  with 2.1E, 2.2, and PowerDOE.  Now it
appears that the progress will be put on hold as
we patiently wait several years for EnergyPlus.

The timing is especially bad as more clients who are interested in
"green" design look towards building energy modeling.
Some of the newer, innovated HVAC systems, as well as some popular
systems are not supported in DOE2.x, resulting in
compromising the thoroughness of some modeling assignments.


Mike Andelman


Jeff Hirsch wrote:

> A couple comments on those of others ... fuel for the fire, or stir up
> the hornets Quote: "First let me state that from all available
> evidence, the whole DOE (and here DOE is the name of the program -
> what a strange choice for program name, BTW) effort is one of the most
> successful undertakings in a brief history of computer program
> development and represent well spent government dollars by any
> standard." Comment: First, all the contributors to DOE-2 thank you for
> your kind words.The name was chosen, against developers advice, by
> USDOE, shortly after thecreation of the Department, to replace the
> programs existing name;  previouslythe program was named CalERDA for
> the Calif. and ERDA (one org. movedinto the new DOE) who supplied the
> early funds.  DOE-1, DOE-2, DOE-2.0A,DOE-2.1A, DOE-2.1B and DOE-2.1C
> (1977-1986) were mostly paid for byDOE with small contributions from
> others.  DOE-2.1D (~1988) had smallishpercentage of private
> contribution.  DOE-2.1E (~1994) was about half privatecontribution
> (mostly my company) and DOE-2.2 (current) is mostly
> privatecontribution (mostly my company).  DOE-2 would not have come
> into existencewithout the State and Federal government very large
> investment; surprisingly largecompared to similar private projects of
> the time; comparing public vs. privatecontributions must be done using
> project output not $ input. DOE-X only "took off" after private firms
> adopted and invested heavily: firstjust PC ports like the defunct SI,
> Inc turned into Acrosoft, and ADM; then ourPC ports with many new
> HVAC/Economics/EndUseReporting 2.1E versions;then interfaces Comply24,
> VisualDOE, EZ-DOE, etc.  This ivestment only happensif firms can make
> $ from such efforts.  Such return on investment is not possibleunless
> licensing gives those investing the time and $ the ability to benefit
> from theirinvestment. So, we owe DOE and CA/CEC thanks for making it
> possible that DOE-x exists, butowe the thanks to the private sector
> companies that took the somewhat deflatedball, added much air (hot at
> times) and ran with it. Quote: "It seems to me that there is a quite a
> bit of confusion about PowerDOE, which is in my opinion, very good
> program.  PowerDOE is nothing more than good pre and post processor,
> which can have DOE 2.2 or EnergyPlus as underlying engine." Comment:
> Again, the PowerDOE development team thanks you for the kind
> words.PowerDOE interface code was developed by my company with $ only
> from EPRIand our own investment (85% vs. 15%). LBNL participated, with
> many otherorganizations, in design meetings for the PowerDOE user
> interface. The PowerDOEinterface is not just a "pre and post
> processor" for DOE-2; it is a full interactiveimplementation of
> DOE-2's BDL processor (which is somewhat of a table driventable
> generator whose internal design is only applicable to just DOE-X, but
> anyapplication that requires extensive input organized into object
> tables.)  EditingPowerDOE data screens is editing BDL memory in real
> time including the dynamicrecalculation of parameter defaults (like a
> very large spreadsheet with a formula inevery cell; thus the slow down
> - geometric- as problems get very large.) ThePowerDOE name was
> suggested by LBNL as they did not like our original winDOEname;
> PowerDOE name was okayed by DOE, then accepted and trademarked byEPRI
> (oops! - an poor choice of move motivated by political infighting
> amoungst theEPRI/DOE/LBNL/JJH team).  I have licensed the use of the
> name and EPRI ownedinterface code from EPRI for further development
> and commercial distribution. Quote: "EnergyPlus is an open source
> program, and alpha version is just being released.  For measly $100 (I
> think) anybody can get license agreement and build commercial strength
> pre and post-processor to it. "Comment: EnergyPlus is NOT open source;
> but it should be, in my opinion, using UC's(LBNL is managed by UC for
> DOE) own BSD (Unix) type license since it is developed(almost?)
> entirely using public funds.  Why a fee; why not freeware like our
> basic DOE-2versions? No published distribution licenses yet; and if
> these become available and have aper copy royalty, there can be no
> freeware products that are EnergyPlus based unless LBNLdoes them - in
> which case why would any private sector firm invest the time and $ to
> competeagainst the government funds.  We could adapt both the PowerDOE
> and eQUEST (freeware)interfaces to EnergyPlus in a straight forward
> manner fairly quickly; we cannot do this withoutopen source licensing
> and a working, supported (commercially viable) complete product -
> acouple years away at best. I'm sure Eley can do the same with the
> VisualDOE interface andEnergySoft with EnergyPro and so on;  DOE has
> no business funding work that so manyprivate firms are already doing
> and can do better; a similar argument can be made forDOE's getting out
> of the engine business where the result is in "product" form rather
> thanNMF model library or "component toolkit" form.  The private sector
> can take the correctnext commercial product steps, better, cheaper and
> faster (and also provide the requiredproduct marketing and
> support.)Quote: "Sorry for the rant, but I'm also getting tired the
> people who think they can
> purchase Power or Visual DOE and be a DOE2 expert in a week with no
> prior
> experience -- simulation, HVAC design or otherwise." Comment: we have
> many eQUEST users after quick, accurate, "first order" answersdoing
> just what you say is not possible.  But I agree that "specialists"
> will always be neededto perform accurate, indepth analysis.  eQUEST
> 2.0 will be released within a couple weeks(also freeware - and eQUEST
> 1.2 will be posted Friday); 2.0 will have a large fraction
> ofPowerDOE-like capabilities (2D/3D displays, HVAC diagrams, full
> DOE-2 details dialogsand data editing, table/graphic report pages) and
> retains improved versions of the buildingcreation and EEM wizards.  We
> want to see thousands doing analysis not hundreds. Quote: "PowerDoe
> hasn't been very useful for us.  Our buildings tend to be fairly
> large with alot of detail, so it is easy to bring PowerDoe to a crawl
> on
> both the P-pro 200 and PIII 300 machines we have." Comment:  As I
> mentioned above, PowerDOE is like a very large spreadsheet with
> thousandsof formula; changing some items in a large building model
> causes tens of thousand of parametersto be recalculated; PowerDOE 1
> was developed as a 16-bit application - the memory sharingbetween the
> 16-bit interface code and 32-bit interactive BDL suffers from very
> large windowsALIAS-style memory sharing between processes overhead and
> the slowness of 32-bit numericcalculation in a 16-bit interface
> environment.  eQUEST is fully a 32-bit implementation and thusis much
> faster; eQUEST 2.0 has full BDL details editing.  Thus, we hope to
> greatly reduce yourfrustrations in the near future. Quote: "One more
> comment and question - the DOE is spending our money to create new
> code and have arguably abandoned the multi-million dollar investment
> in previous DOE2.x developent. Is this the best use of taxpayer
> money?"
>
> Comment: There is an important role, in my view, for taxpayer $ in
> this field; it is a good wayto get the basic models, algorithms, and
> lab/field detailed data collection and model validationstarted (and
> sometimes the only source for this funding for some types of
> components.)  It isa terrible way to get "products" done; DOE-2 became
> most successful because privatecompanies (and utilities) decided to
> invest heavily in taking the basic code to the next levelso as to be
> useful and useable by a wide range of "consumers" of the technology
> (designers,researchers, code officials, etc.)  This required heavy
> investment in both the "raw" DOE-2engine (mostly work done by my
> company) as well as many interfaces (GabelDoddEnergySoft's EnergyPro,
> Eley Associates VisualDOE, Elite's EasyDOE, Item SystemsDOEPlus,
> EPRI/JJH's PowerDOE, JJH's eQUEST, DOE/PNL ComCheck-Plus, and
> manyothers under development or private offering in specialized
> markets.) Quote: "Perhaps my perceptions of success have been unduly
> tainted by the seemingly endless wait for PowerDOE and 2.2"Comment:
> Lots could be said here, but not worth the space.  In summary, others
> decided toannounce the software development and schedule before the
> basic components were designedand cost estimated or funds wre
> available to do the work.  My company advised against
> suchannouncements and never made any prior to 1997 first versions
> being available.  No matter,it is all now out there for you to use;
> more popwerful but probably new frustrations andeven longer "wish
> lists." ---
> Jeff Hirsch
> James J. Hirsch & Associates
> Building Performance Analysis Software & Consulting
> 12185 Presilla Road
> Camarillo, CA 93012-9243 USA
> phone: (805) 553-9000
> fax: (805) 532-2401
> email: Jeff.Hirsch at DOE2.com
> web: http://DOE2.com
>
> ======================================================
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20000128/47029bfd/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: andelman.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 566 bytes
Desc: Card for Michael Andelman
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20000128/47029bfd/attachment-0002.vcf>