<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1491" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Joe,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I left phone messages and sent email to people in
the Windows group</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>in 2004 on this issue; nobody ever return my
messages.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I then contacted Sue Reilly and Charlie Curcija
(see message below);</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>they confirmed my suspicions that the film coeff's
in the report were wrong.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>We never claimed the bug was in calculation, but
that there was a bug in</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the Windows 5 reports; you can see that in the
email from me that <SPAN class=046041814-28092004><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Mahabir</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=046041814-28092004>posted to
bldg-sim. Mike's email also only says it is a bug in the
report.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Charlie contacted the W&D group, as
well, about the problem and they said it</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>didn't matter for DOE-2 (see below) ... I
corrected that notion as you can see from</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the message below. Again, W&D seems to
have ignored my explanation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>There are huge numbers of people using DOE-2.2 and
eQUEST and some</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>still using DOE-2.1E</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>
... but I was told (indirectly, as they - W5 support - did</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>not bother to reply </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>to me at all) that they only focused on EnergyPlus needs</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>as that was what </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>people used.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So, now the user community </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>considers it a DOE-2/EnergyPlus issue; </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>that the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>problem was ignored due to it being only a DOE-2
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>issue. That seems to be a</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>reasonable conclusion based on the actual record,
even though it may not</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>be a correct conclusion.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The claim that the W5 group did not know
of the specific DOE-2 issue and that</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>it was just in the last few months it was raised is
incorrect </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>as you can see</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>from my email below. Many people have raised
this issue with</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the group, and it was ignored. Why
it became perceived as political</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>is obvious to the outside world</FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>; the only thing that seemed to get it attended</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>to now was a </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>user
pointing out that it seemed to be political. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So, making it "political" seemed to be the only
thing that got action; maybe that is</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>a lesson that users will take to
heart.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>---<BR>Jeff Hirsch<BR>James J. Hirsch & Associates<BR>Building
Performance Analysis Software & Consulting<BR>12185 Presilla
Road<BR>Camarillo, CA 93012-9243 USA<BR>phone: (805)
553-9000<BR>fax: (805) 532-2401<BR>email: <A
href="mailto:Jeff.Hirsch@DOE2.com">Jeff.Hirsch@DOE2.com</A><BR>web: <A
href="http://DOE2.com">http://DOE2.com</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=Jeff.Hirsch@DOE2.com href="mailto:Jeff.Hirsch@DOE2.com">Jeff Hirsch</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=curcija@fenestration.com
href="mailto:curcija@fenestration.com">D. Charlie Curcija</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, September 30, 2004 6:14 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: surface heat transfer coeff in W5</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In addition to the hin being wrong, the center of
glass u seems to be the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>overall u instead. The combination of the hin
and center of glass u value</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>being incorrect create a VERY bad situation for
DOE-2.1E users and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>mildly bad situation for 2.2 users.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The info you were given on use of Hin and u-center
by DOE-2.1E is</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>incorrect; 2.1E </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>reads the second line of the table at the bottom of the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Window 5 DOE-2 report </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>and collects the inside and outside h's and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>u-center (not u-overall);</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>these are then used to calculate the "bare glass"
u-value (no h's)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>which is used by the custom weighting factor
calculation. If the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>wrong h's or u are used then the custom
weighting factors for the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>spaces using that glass will be wrong. Since custom
weighting</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>factors are the default (and very important to the
hourly</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>load calculation) the hourly calculation for
those spaces can</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>be way off.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>These values are NOT used for the hourly window
conductance</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>calculation; that is done using a set of therm
program routines</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>contained within the DOE-2 LOADS program, but the
LOADS</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>verification reports also use the U-bare values to
report the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>overall window U-value as well as the overall wall,
facade, and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>building u-values. These incorrect values confuse
many users</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>of DOE-2 versions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I have gotten MANY runs from people using W5
library entires</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(which is very common) </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>with badly incorrect space loads due to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>this bug. There is no user fix for this problem in
2.1E if the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>W5 tables are not corrected so both hin and
u-center are</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>corrected.</FONT><BR>---<BR>Jeff Hirsch<BR>James J.
Hirsch & Associates<BR>Building Performance Analysis Software &
Consulting<BR>12185 Presilla Road<BR>Camarillo, CA 93012-9243
USA<BR>phone: (805) 553-9000<BR>fax: (805) 532-2401<BR>email: <A
href="mailto:Jeff.Hirsch@DOE2.com">Jeff.Hirsch@DOE2.com</A><BR>web: <A
href="http://DOE2.com">http://DOE2.com</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=curcija@fenestration.com href="mailto:curcija@fenestration.com">D.
Charlie Curcija</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=Jeff.Hirsch@DOE2.com
href="mailto:Jeff.Hirsch@DOE2.com">Jeff Hirsch</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=bhandari@fenestration.com
href="mailto:bhandari@fenestration.com">Mahabir S Bhandari</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:10
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> surface heat transfer coeff in
W5</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=385575811-30092004>Hi
Jeff,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=385575811-30092004></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=385575811-30092004>
Attached is a document that details how are surface heat transfer coefficients
calculated in W5. In terms of DOE2 report from W5, I believe that
convective portion only for indoor coeff. is reported from W5, which is a bug,
but apparently (according to my LBL colleagues), it does not affect DOE 2.1E
somehow. I haven't gotten definitive answer yet, but preliminary it
looks that way. Let me know if I can be of further
help.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=385575811-30092004></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=385575811-30092004>Charlie</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000a0 size=2>Carli, Inc.<BR>18
Tanglewood Rd.<BR>Amherst, MA 01002<BR>TEL: (413) 256-4647<BR>FAX: (413)
256-4823<BR>email: curcija@fenestration.com<BR>web:
www.fenestration.com<BR><BR>STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY<BR>The information
contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are
intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain
confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify Carli Inc. immediately at either 413-256-4647 or at
home@fenestration.com, and destroy all copies of this message and any
attachments.<BR> </FONT></P>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>
===========================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM
</PRE></BODY></HTML>