<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<STYLE type=text/css>DIV {
MARGIN: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16890" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=511510920-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Jason,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=511510920-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=511510920-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Thanks for your insightful response. To a large
degree I concur. You encounter various situations out there as a design
consultant, and you need to understand the plans and needs of your client.
But surely you recognize that there are some cases where over sizing is not
required, and the client may actually prefer to pay less up front and get a
better operating system than always be able to maintain set point under the most
extreme combination of conditions. When maintaining perfect environmental
control is critical, then you must oversize accordingly, but when it isn't, you
may assign more priority to proper sizing, or, in rare cases, under
sizing.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=511510920-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=511510920-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I personally would prefer a slightly undersized AC system
in my home to an oversized one if I had to choose between the two. I
understand the advantages, and prefer to risk having to tolerate a little
discomfort for a few hours a year than to pay for and operate an
excessively oversized system for the next 15 to
20 years.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=511510920-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=511510920-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>But to offer this to a client may be risky business unless
you get him to sign a waiver, and then it is still risky. On the other
hand, if you can determine the maximum probable system load and add a reasonable
10-25% to that, you will have satisfied the client's needs with
a reasonable margin of safety. The only angry clients I have ever
encountered were angry because their system was failing to deliver a significant
amount of the time when circumstances were only normal, in which cases the
engineer had made a serious error and specified a system that was grossly
undersized. I don't recommend over sizing to make certain this doesn't
happen. Instead I recommend checking and double checking your sizing
calculations so you don't make such a mistake.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=511510920-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=511510920-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>This is a hot issue because nearly every HVAC
engineer is going to sooner or later make that proverbial mistake, lose
self-confidence, and from then on join those that oversize their systems
more than necessary just to cover potential mistakes. Most
clients are none the wiser anyhow, and, after it has all been paid for, some
actually enjoy the feeling of knowing they have a "honker of an air conditioner"
that is capable of cooling the place down in 60 seconds or less. So what
do we have to lose? I think it might be some of our own
professional and personal integrity! Not much else comes to
mind.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=511510920-21052010></SPAN><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>N<SPAN class=511510920-21052010>ow I have said too
much, so I will bow out of this, knowing that last paragraph may
ruffle some feathers.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=511510920-21052010></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=511510920-21052010>Glenn</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Jason Humbert [mailto:jhumbert@sesnet.com]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 21, 2010 3:57 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Haynes,
Glenn<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE: Voodoo
Engineering<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=515432319-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Glenn,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=515432319-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=515432319-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>For load sizing, over sizing equipment can be bad with them
short cycling and energy hogs. But on the other hand under sizing a system
can be just as bad. When you size equipment you normally can't select
equipment that will meet your building load exact so most engineers normally go
to the next size up in equipment. Very rare do I see or hear any one pick
the size down in equipment. Its the nature of the
beast. Everyone has the fear of being sued from an owner it is
easier to oversize the equipment that way you have the extra capacity if
you need it, than having to deal with an angry owner. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=515432319-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=515432319-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>My view on energy simulation is like trying to kill a fly
with a bullet. Everyone is trying to predict exactly what a building will
do and how it will perform, and you just can't. There are so may variables
in an energy simulation, some variables you can predict and even control and
other variables you just can't predict or possibly even know. That is
why I believe it is important to relay the bases of your energy simulation to
whomever you are presenting it to. That the simulation is based on
these parameters and based on these parameters this is how the building
should perform. And then when the building is build and its
performance is better or worse than what you predicted then you can compare the
variables and see which ones are off and how bad. And the most
common variables that is normally off is infiltration and weather.
But no one goes back to a building after it has been build to adjust there model
to see what was off. And that is also the nature of the beast as
well.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT
color=#000000><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Jason <SPAN
class=SpellE>Humbert</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT
color=#000000><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN
class=SpellE><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><IMG
height=36 src="cid:511510920@21052010-25E6" width=216
v:shapes="_x0000_i1025"></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">4000 W.
Eleven Mile Rd.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV align=left><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt">Berkley, <st1:State w:st="on">MI</st1:State>
<st1:PostalCode w:st="on">48072</st1:PostalCode></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV align=left><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt"><st1:PostalCode w:st="on"><SPAN class=GramE><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">p</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">: 248.399.1900 ex.
215 </SPAN></st1:PostalCode></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV align=left><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt"><st1:PostalCode w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN class=GramE><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">f</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">:
248.399.1901</SPAN></SPAN></st1:PostalCode></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV align=left><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt"><st1:PostalCode w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><A
title=http://www.sesnet.com/
href="mailto:jhumbert@sesnet.com">jhumbert@sesnet.com</A></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></st1:PostalCode></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV align=left> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><SPAN
style="COLOR: #0a9020"><STRONG><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Haynes, Glenn
[mailto:Glenn.Haynes@kema.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 21, 2010 11:49
AM<BR><B>To:</B> John Aulbach; Chris; backer@uidaho.edu; paul@zed-uk.com;
thomasv@iit.edu<BR><B>Cc:</B> bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org<BR><B>Subject:</B>
Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE: Voodoo Engineering<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=321194715-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>John,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=321194715-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=321194715-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Looks like I might have awakened a sleeping giant...been
around awhile, huh? Are you going to tell us how it worked
out?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=321194715-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=321194715-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Glenn</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> John Aulbach [mailto:jra_sac@yahoo.com]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 21, 2010 11:34 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Haynes, Glenn;
Chris; backer@uidaho.edu; paul@zed-uk.com; thomasv@iit.edu<BR><B>Cc:</B>
bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE:
Voodoo Engineering<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">
<DIV>I did all that 30 years ago using the Meriwether ESAS program for Hilton
Hotels. Before DOE-2. Before DOE-1 !!<BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> "Haynes, Glenn"
<Glenn.Haynes@kema.com><BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Chris <chris@zed-uk.com>;
backer@uidaho.edu; paul@zed-uk.com; thomasv@iit.edu<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B>
bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Fri, May 21, 2010 8:22:53
AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd:
Re: RE: Voodoo Engineering<BR></FONT><BR>Chris,<BR><BR>You make a good point,
and it also can apply to centrifugal chillers,<BR>which are sometimes most
efficient at 60-80% loaded. But you still have<BR>to remember that the
client has to pay for the larger equipment, which<BR>costs more, plus larger
system components (which cost more) and more<BR>space (which costs
more).<BR><BR>You also maake a good point about the system loads 90% of the
time,<BR>which raises an interesting question regarding sizing for
optimum<BR>operating efficiency. What if we sized certain types of
equipment to<BR>meet the most predominant loads within their most efficient
capacity<BR>ranges? That is not difficult when using hourly simulation
software.<BR>Of course, you have to keep an eye on peak loads and
capacities. I<BR>haven't thought this through yet, but I'll bet someone
else has.<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR>Glenn<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
"Chris" [mailto:<A href="mailto:chris@zed-uk.com"
ymailto="mailto:chris@zed-uk.com">chris@zed-uk.com</A>] <BR>Sent: Thursday, May
20, 2010 7:13 PM<BR>To: Haynes, Glenn; <A href="mailto:backer@uidaho.edu"
ymailto="mailto:backer@uidaho.edu">backer@uidaho.edu</A>; <A
href="mailto:paul@zed-uk.com"
ymailto="mailto:paul@zed-uk.com">paul@zed-uk.com</A>; <A
href="mailto:thomasv@iit.edu"
ymailto="mailto:thomasv@iit.edu">thomasv@iit.edu</A><BR>Cc: <A
href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>Subject:
Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE: Voodoo Engineering<BR><BR>Glenn,<BR><BR>Oversize
isn't always bad! A condensing boiler is generally at its most<BR>efficient at
< 20% of its capacity.<BR><BR>All the same, the mid-season is largely ignored
when it comes to sizing.<BR>Ridiculous really, when you think this is where the
plant will be 90% of<BR>the time.<BR><BR>Perhaps this is more of an issue when
you are shifting large amounts of<BR>chilled water to various pieces of zone
equipment but has anybody<BR>considered Valve Authority? Unfortunately my
experience is limited when<BR>it comes to the nitty gritty of piping networks.
But, I do know one<BR>thing: valve response is not linear, especially if there
is a<BR>substantial head in the system. My hunch is mid season control could
get<BR>really messed up if plant has spare capacity but designers haven't
been<BR>quite as generous with pipe sizes.<BR><BR>Such questions should be in
the domain of simulation in the next few<BR>years.<BR><BR>Chris<BR><BR>on
20/5/10 8:15 PM, "Haynes, Glenn" <<A href="mailto:Glenn.Haynes@kema.com"
ymailto="mailto:Glenn.Haynes@kema.com">Glenn.Haynes@kema.com</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR>> Brad,<BR>><BR>> I did HVAC design consulting for 14
years, and I used to oversize <BR>> systems just like everyone else.
Now I am an energy conservation <BR>> programs evaluator, and have discovered
the extent and negative <BR>> impacts of over sizing. Not speaking for
all designers who oversize, <BR>> I did it mainly out of willful
ignorance. It was easier for me to <BR>> loosely calculate the peak
loads and then beef those estimates up <BR>> enough to safely cover and
mistakes or false assumptions than it was <BR>> to calculate the loads with
enough confidence to properly size the <BR>> systems. I believed in the
old adage that too much is just right from<BR><BR>> my perspective, because
it minimized risk.<BR>><BR>> But now I have to measure the effects of
excessive over sizing and see<BR><BR>> the results, some of which are poor
humidity control, short cycling, <BR>> reduced system operating efficiency
and higher first cost to the<BR>owner.<BR>> My DOE2 models usually indicate
peak (I mean absolute hourly peak <BR>> loads) at about 20% less than Manual
J loads, on average, for <BR>> residential applications. But even
Manual J allows up to 20% above <BR>> their calculated loads, which have
already been calculated using <BR>> conservative estimates for most inputs
that are not explicitly <BR>> defined. The observed<BR>> (measured)
field results have proven the average residential AC system<BR><BR>> to be
about 70% to 75% oversized, with some as high as 200% (that's 3 <BR>> times
the peak load). 20% to 25% over ASHRAE's 2.5% design standard <BR>> is
acceptable to me now, but anything above 25% without some <BR>> overriding
owner requirement (plans to add on to the current building,<BR><BR>> etc.)
begins to waste the owner's resources (from first cost to energy<BR><BR>> and
maintenance costs) and reduce the lifetime of the equipment while <BR>> at
the same time decreasing his overall level of comfort through <BR>> limited
latent performance.<BR>><BR>> There! You obviously rubbed a sore
spot in my emotional make-up, but <BR>> I appreciate the opportunity to make
a point. And the point is this: <BR>> no matter how good your modeling
software is, the outcome is still in <BR>> the hands of the
user.<BR>><BR>> Glenn<BR>><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>>
From: <A href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>>
[mailto:<A href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Acker, <BR>> Brad<BR>> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:45
PM<BR>> To: Paul Carey; Chris Yates; Varkie C Thomas<BR>> Cc: <A
href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE: Voodoo Engineering<BR>><BR>> I do not
do modeling on a daily basis so I'm not as experience as many<BR><BR>> other
here. I do agree modeling just for LEED is silly. I have seen <BR>> modeling
inform designs, reduce loads, and SIZE SYSTEMS. This last <BR>> part is what
most bugs me. Why do people put so much effort into <BR>> models and then not
use them to size the systems? Preventing over <BR>> sizing is a great benefit
of modeling. What is your experience with <BR>> using models to size systems?
Why do engineers fall back on the vendor<BR><BR>> based programs and 9 out of
10 times end up over sizing systems?<BR>><BR>> Brad Acker,
P.E.<BR>><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>>
[mailto:<A href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Paul <BR>> Carey<BR>> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:42
AM<BR>> To: 'Chris Yates'; 'Varkie C Thomas'<BR>> Cc: <A
href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE: Voodoo Engineering<BR>><BR>> Just to
add a couple of points to this interesting debate.<BR>><BR>> I see the
problem being that, as we increasingly set more defined <BR>> limits
regarding energy modelling and its role in building regulation,<BR><BR>> we
are seeing buildings that are being built and designed to purely <BR>> meet
compliance. This is in some part is useful as it brings all <BR>>
buildings up to a minimum standard, the flip side of that problem is <BR>>
that it also means, that to many developers this means there is no <BR>>
incentive to strive for alternatives or innovative solutions. It can
<BR>> also allow therefore lead to the use of simpler tools that meet those
<BR>> prescribed limits, but really don't push the boundaries of
engineering<BR><BR>> design enhancement of buildings.<BR>><BR>> The
correct implementation and use of energy modelling need not be a <BR>>
hindrance to projects nor be seen as a necessary "extra" or evil if <BR>> you
consider the design process as a whole. If you use the tools at <BR>>
the concept or schematic design phases, this can quantitatively <BR>> confirm
an engineer's instinct or gained experience in way that will <BR>> enable
them to show compliance later on. It will then allow the team <BR>> to come
to a decision on the most energy efficient but also compliant <BR>> route of
design earlier on in the design stage and should stop the <BR>> repeat
iteration of designs as the building design progresses and <BR>> therefore
reduce design costs and with luck increase productivity and<BR>profit
accordingly.<BR>> Fanciful dream perhaps, but it does work.<BR>><BR>> I
visited an architect a while back and he said to me "Why do I need <BR>> to
do modelling, I know the principles of good low energy design, I <BR>> can
read books<BR>> and learn more if I need to". To which I replied, "Well
every time<BR>you<BR>> send me a job to check for building regulation
compliance 3 weeks <BR>> before it goes before a planning team, I normally
have to tell you <BR>> what you need to do in terms of meeting compliance as
your buildings <BR>> are consistently failing and you then have to rush to
make those <BR>> changes. I am effectively designing your buildings for
you, so if you<BR><BR>> want to continue without using energy modelling then
please carry on, <BR>> and I'll continue to design your buildings."<BR>>
As you can imagine this was one of those Eureka moments for this <BR>>
Architect, as I waved my red rag in front of his face.<BR>><BR>> My
tuppence worth.<BR>><BR>> Paul<BR>><BR>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>>
[mailto:<A href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Chris <BR>> Yates<BR>> Sent: 20 May 2010 07:55<BR>> To:
Varkie C Thomas<BR>> Cc: <A href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE: Voodoo Engineering<BR>><BR>>
Varkie<BR>><BR>> Vast subject. Kudos for condensing it whilst conveying
all the <BR>> necessary meaning.<BR>><BR>> We are now at a point where
Energy Modellers are at the very least <BR>> specialist engineers. In fact,
you could say the best are indeed <BR>> "wizards"!<BR>><BR>>
Chris<BR>><BR>> Sent from my iPhone<BR>><BR>> On 19 May 2010, at
21:35, Varkie C Thomas <<A href="mailto:thomasv@iit.edu"
ymailto="mailto:thomasv@iit.edu">thomasv@iit.edu</A>>
wrote:<BR>><BR>>> Since my response has ended up on Bldg-Sim, I might
as well include <BR>>> the attachment with the response which gave my
views <BR>>> <Building-Energy-Programs-VCT.doc><BR>>> I am
including the attachment that I included with my earlier <BR>>>
response<BR>><BR>>> to John Eurek. Using energy programs is like voodoo
engineering if <BR>>> you<BR>><BR>>> don't understand its
engineering basis. It analyzes the various <BR>>> options
quantitatively. It cannot be used as a magic black box.<BR>>>
Experience and judgement have to applied to the results.<BR>>><BR>>>
----- Original Message -----<BR>>> From: Eric O'Neill <<A
href="mailto:elo@MichaelsEngineering.com"
ymailto="mailto:elo@MichaelsEngineering.com">elo@MichaelsEngineering.com</A>><BR>>>
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:03 pm<BR>>> Subject: RE: Voodoo
Engineering<BR>>><BR>>>> John,<BR>>>><BR>>>>
The purpose of energy modeling is to identify differences between
<BR>>>> two<BR>><BR>>>> energy related setups. The idea is
to tell you how much you could <BR>>>> conceivably save by switching
from one design to another. This is <BR>>>> usefulfor a payback
analysis or life cycle cost analysis.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Hope this
helps, (I'm really not trying to be inflammatory :)
)<BR>>>><BR>>>> Eric<BR>>>><BR>>>>
-----Original Message-----<BR>>>> From: Eurek, John S NWO [mailto:<A
href="mailto:John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil"
ymailto="mailto:John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil">John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil</A>]<BR>>>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:19 AM<BR>>>> To: Varkie C
Thomas<BR>>>> Cc: Eric O'Neill; <A href="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com">cmg750@gmail.com</A><BR>>>> Subject:
RE: Voodoo Engineering<BR>>>><BR>>>> Varkie, I read your
attached paper.<BR>>>><BR>>>> "Energy programs are external to
the design process. The results are<BR><BR>>>> not used to generate
construction drawings." This may be my #1 beef<BR><BR>>>> with
energymodeling. What is the purpose?<BR>>>><BR>>>> If
you say, to save energy... It does
not.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> John Eurek<BR>>>>
LEEP AP<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>>>> From: Varkie C Thomas [mailto:<A
href="mailto:thomasv@iit.edu"
ymailto="mailto:thomasv@iit.edu">thomasv@iit.edu</A>]<BR>>>> Sent:
Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:08 AM<BR>>>> To: Eurek, John S
NWO<BR>>>> Subject: Voodoo Engineering<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Academia institutions and research centers tend to attach <BR>>>>
disproportionate amount of importance to energy modeling. Most
them<BR><BR>>>> have not dealt withreal buildings. Attached are
my views on energy <BR>>>> modeling.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
----- Original Message -----<BR>>>> From: "Eurek, John S NWO" <<A
href="mailto:John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil"
ymailto="mailto:John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil">John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil</A>><BR>>>>
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 8:14 am<BR>>>> Subject: Re:
[Equest-users] Compliance rule set for
Oregon<BR>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>> I would prefer
Lynn work to ban/destroy/do-away-with energy<BR>>>>
modeling.><BR>>>>> Any chance this voo-doo engineering will go
away any time soon?<BR>>>>> It is only<BR>>>>>
statistical analysis with no meaningful/useful results for
anyone.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> As a community I think we are
going in the wrong direction for<BR>>>> the<BR>>>>>
rightgoals.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>>>>> From: <A
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>>>>>
[mailto:<A href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</A>]
On Behalf Of<BR>>>> Carol<BR>>>>>
Gardner<BR>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:30
AM<BR>>>>> To: Scott Criswell<BR>>>>> Cc: <A
href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</A>;
<A href="mailto:curt.strobehn@eesinet.com"
ymailto="mailto:curt.strobehn@eesinet.com">curt.strobehn@eesinet.com</A><BR>>>>>
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Compliance rule set for
Oregon<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
All,<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Lynn Bellenger will soon be the
first female president of ASHRAE..<BR>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>> Bldg-sim mailing
list<BR>>> <A
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org"
target=_blank>http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</A><BR>>>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to<BR>> <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"
ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</A><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> Bldg-sim mailing
list<BR>> <A
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org"
target=_blank>http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</A><BR>>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <BR>> <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"
ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</A><BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> Bldg-sim mailing
list<BR>> <A
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org"
target=_blank>http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</A><BR>>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <BR>> <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"
ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</A><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> Bldg-sim mailing
list<BR>> <A
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org"
target=_blank>http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</A><BR>>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <BR>> <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"
ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</A><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Bldg-sim
mailing list<BR><A
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org"
target=_blank>http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</A><BR>To
unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"
ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</A><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>