[Equest-users] eQUEST unconditioned spaces

[John Waller]

Nick,

You are absolutely right!  My (so-called) feathers get ruffled way too  
easily, which is why I make a conscieous effort not to comment in here  
unless I'm 'mostly' confident that my contributions could even  
potentially benefit someone encountering a problem similar to one I've  
encountered in the past. Such constraint on behalf of all contributors  
would do wonders for such an environment. The quality of query in  
which I witness here for the most part is astonishing. (i.e. 'how do  
spell equest'?). Rather than doing the research on their own, or at  
the very least, exploring the 'onebuilding' query history, this  
platform makes it all too easy to ask the infamous 'stupid question',  
though I realize there exists no such thing.

I am beginning to believe that Carol is right in suggesting a more  
professional and reliable authority to more acurately respond to user  
querries. And someone else who suggested an eQUEST-wiki might just be  
spot on. Thought I will admit, in an age where electronic response has  
become the norm, there is certainly something something quite a bit  
more 'personal' about receiving a reply from a beating heart.

As such, it is my feeling, that any 'responder', should not respond so  
specifically so as to ignore the larger question an inquiry might be  
addressing, particularly when a prior responder has already replied  
and explicitly requests additional input on his offered solution.

In the spirit of community (as you have suggested) I would challange  
anyone who posits a potential solution to address the formal issue at  
large, rather than simply offering his(her) two-cents in contrast  
simply for the purpose of seeming 'right'.

To do so, I am sure, would more likely benefit the group as a whole.

John Waller



Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 16, 2010, at 2:55 PM, "Nick Caton" <ncaton at smithboucher.com>  
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
>
> My perceptive powers are not the greatest, as my wife will assure  
> you, but I’m failing to see the reason to get any feathers need to b 
> e hackled here (I did miss your reply, perhaps it wasn’t copied to t 
> he list?)….
>
>
>
> The reality that DOE2 has a “no child-zone left behind act” of  
> sorts is just the nature of the beast, and nobody is arguing that’s  
> unintuitive – it’s simply something we have to learn as we become  
> familiar with the engine.  I don’t know that I’d expect this  
> issue to be resolved in the next major update as it’s something a us 
> er can work around (unlike some other more pertinent issues), as Dak 
> ota is plainly demonstrating with his (typically) thorough response.
>
>
>
> Everyone is here to help each other, rest assured (^_^)b, those who  
> aren’t don’t stick around long, and Dakota’s certainly been  
> around for awhile!  If you have a “more correct” or otherwise  
> better solution to handling unconditioned zones before or after the  
> wizards, I would personally like to know also – I do the same as Dak 
> ota.  I understand others simply ignore the zone grouping wizard scr 
> eens altogether (though I find them to be quite a time-saver), so hi 
> s inclusion of “simply do this” in detailed is very appropriate  
> to the group at large…
>
>
>
> Wishing everyone a safe and happy weekend,
>
>
>
> ~Nick
>
>
>
> <image001.jpg>
>
>
>
> NICK CATON, E.I.T.
>
> PROJECT ENGINEER
>
> 25501 west valley parkway
>
> olathe ks 66061
>
> direct 913 344.0036
>
> fax 913 345.0617
>
> Check out our new web-site @ www.smithboucher.com
>
>
>
> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest- 
> users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of John David Waller
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 3:16 PM
> To: Dakota Kelley
> Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] eQUEST unconditioned spaces
>
>
>
> Maybe I was too vague in my reply.
>
>
>
> I, too, was hoping for some insight into this particular issue.
>
>
>
> While I do believe this to be a software (developer) oversight, I  
> also believe that any offered solution(s) to such a 'problem' could  
> be handled with slightly more dignity; perhaps even some humility!
>
>
>
> It is more likely that 'this' is a software issue more than anything  
> else.  Hopefully this, and many other issues, will have been  
> addressed in '3.6.4'!
>
>
>
> It makes absolutely no sense to me to assign a system to  
> 'unconditioned space' that is being used to 'condition', condition  
> space. Since every 'space', or zone requires the assignment of a  
> specific mechanical system, then wouldn't it be likely [as in the  
> 'real world' vs. our 'virtual' one, be equipped with 'NO" system  
> since it is 'NOT' conditioned, versus an 'operable' system that  
> supplies conditioning to a space that requires such?
>
>
>
> While it agreed that all zone 'must belong to a system', I'm not  
> convinced that your [emphatic] solution employs the ideal method for  
> addressing such an issue.  It seems to me that you're placing her  
> back to the same point in which she came to discover such a unique  
> condition.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to a legitimate response!
>
>
>
> Sincerely--
>
> John
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Dakota Kelley  
> <dakotak at teliospc.com> wrote:
>
> Amber,
>
>
>
> If I’m following your description, you must be specifying the uncond 
> itioned zone in Shell Wizard/Screen 2/Zone Characteristics button.   
> Then you’re obviously specifying system-per-floor in the HVAC wizard 
> .  This sounds like it should work, but what is happening is Shell W 
> izard/Screen 14 settings are trumping Shell Wizard/Screen 2.  There  
> are two solutions:
>
>
>
> 1)      Simply change the zones to unconditioned in the detailed  
> interface.
>
> 2)      Create a new zone group in Shell Wizard/Screen 14.  Assign  
> the unconditioned zones to this group, and then make sure the “Condi 
> tioned” check box is not checked.  Assign the group to whatever syst 
> em makes sense and move on (making sure that at least one conditione 
> d zone group is also assigned to that system).  All zones have to be 
> long to a system, but if they’re unconditioned their parent system i 
> s irrelevant.  This method is only slightly longer than the one abov 
> e, but it lets you stay in the wizard.
>
>
>
> If you try to leave an unconditioned “on its own”, which I  
> interpret as being assigned to its own single-zone system, you’ll ge 
> t an error saying every system has to have at least one conditioned  
> zone.  Let me know if I have misunderstood you.
>
>
>
> Error! Filename not specified.
>
>
>
>
>
> DAKOTA KELLEY
>
> Project Designer | Energy Analyst
>
>
>
>                               Office: 214.744.6199
>
>                               Cell: 214.280.3825
>
>                               Fax: 214.744.0770
>
>
>
> http://www.teliospc.com          3535 Travis St. Suite 115
>
> dakotak at teliospc.com            Dallas, TX 75204
>
>
>
> | MEP ENGINEERING · ENERGY MODELING · LEED CONSULTATION ·  
> COMMISSIONING |
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is intended only for the use of  
> the individual or entity to which it is addressed,
>
> And may contain information that is privileged, confidential and  
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you
>
> are not the intended recipient, please email the sender immediately,  
> and delete this email from all computers.  Any
>
> distribution or other use is strictly prohibited.  Copyright © 2009  
> Telios Corporation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Amber Welsh [mailto:amber at timmonsdesigneng.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:23 PM
> To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Subject: [Equest-users] eQUEST unconditioned spaces
>
>
>
> What is the best way to handle unconditioned spaces in eQUEST?   
> Right now, I am zoning it separate and calling it unconditioned in  
> the WIZARD.  Then, when I assign systems, I am putting the  
> unconditioned zone in a system with a conditioned space and saying “ 
>  one system per floor”.  Is this the proper way to do it?
>
>
>
> I have tried just leaving the zone as unconditioned and on its own,  
> but then when I do the “permit submittal” calculation it still  
> asks for the fan flow and cooling capacity for that zone.
>
>
>
> Amber Welsh, P.E. | Associate
> LEED® Accredited Professional
>
>
> 397 5th Street NE,
>
> Atlanta, GA 30308
> (v) 404.810.9020
> (c) 678.488.1967
> timmonsdesigneng.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100716/a95d0031/attachment.htm>