<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Please note that the link for my paper should be
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.whiteboxtechnologies.com/downloads/SimBuild2006_EPlusDOE2_translatorF.pdf">http://www.whiteboxtechnologies.com/downloads/SimBuild2006_EPlusDOE2_translatorF.pdf</a>,<br>
not what was written below. Sorry for the mistake.<br>
<br>
Joe<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="90">Joe Huang
White Box Technologies, Inc.
346 Rheem Blvd., Suite 108D
Moraga CA 94556
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:yjhuang@whiteboxtechnologies.com">yjhuang@whiteboxtechnologies.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.whiteboxtechnologies.com">www.whiteboxtechnologies.com</a>
(o) (925)388-0265
(c) (510)928-2683
"building energy simulations at your fingertips"
</pre>
<br>
<br>
Joe Huang wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4DBA1088.7070100@whiteboxtechnologies.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
I did not think my previous reply to Deepika would engender so much
traffic on this topic, but after reading through the various posts<br>
I feel compelled to add further comments because I think there's been
some misunderstanding or misperceptions abou comparing results between
two programs, in this case, specifically EnergyPlus and eQUEST or DOE-2:<br>
<br>
1) Several people (some even in private e-mail) have mentioned looking
at the BESTTEST or SP-140 test runs that are repeated everytime there's
a new EnergyPlus release. Those simulations are extremely simplified
test cases, mostly of one-zone models designed to test fundamental heat
transfer algorithms - the impact of solar gain, wall heat loss, thermal
mass - across various programs. These test cases<br>
do not begin to address the dynamic conditions found in any real
building, particularly not a large commercial building. Unfortunately,
it's <br>
these interactions between the transient loads and the HVAC system
response that will color or dominate the resultant energy numbers.<br>
In my opinion, a far more revealing test suite would be either the CEC
Title 24 certification test suite or even the ten DOE-2 sample runs, <br>
where the models are of realistic buildings with typical systems and
operating controls (for more details on the Title-24 certification test
suite, please see my SimBuild 2006 paper, available for download at
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.wbt/downloads/SimBuild2006_EPlusDOE2_translatorF.pdf">http://www.wbt/downloads/SimBuild2006_EPlusDOE2_translatorF.pdf</a>
). My
point is that the BESTTEST/SP140 results may show that the basic heat
transfer algorithms in the programs are (reasonably) consistent, but
that doesn't mean the programs will show similar results when used to
model actual buildings, particularly not commercial buildings with
intermittent operations and complex HVAC systems and controls. <br>
<br>
2) Several people sounded incredulous that the differences could be as
much as 50%. I can only say that if you try it, i.e., model the same
building (preferably not a shoebox with a window on one side :-)) with
two programs, you will quickly appreciate the difficulty. Actually,
from my vantage point, 50% does not sound exaggerated at all. I just
got back from a simulation workshop in China, where differences of
several hundred percent were reported comparing programs such as
DOE-2.1E, TRNSYS, and DeST, a Chinese program, even though they were
looking only at residential apartment buildings. The dirty secret in
our field is that even if you asked two reasonably competent modelers
to model the same building with the same program, they're apt to come
up with quite different results. Doing it with two different programs
just makes that match exponentially more difficult. <br>
<br>
3) Several people (including me) have alluded to the difficulty in
making the inputs consistent. I cannot emphasize this enough. All
programs have hundreds of hidden defaults or assumptions that aren't
necessarily transferable. My paper highlights nine of the most
prominent ones found in the CEC project, e.g., DOE-2 models drapes as a
SHADING-FRACTION, EnergyPlus models them as internal shading surface
requiring 10 inputs; DOE-2 allows a distribution loss in the water
loop, EnergyPlus didn't; DOE-2 degrades the wind speed in its
infiltration calculation, EnergyPlus didn't; DOE-2 allows a thermostat
throttling range; EnergyPlus didn't; etc., etc. (some of these
limitations in EnergyPlus may have been corrected since 2007). Since
I had access to both the DOE-2 and EnergyPlus source code at the time,
I believe I did the most thorough job possible in matching inputs, but
even so I had to "punt" in numerous places (no drapes, infiltration at
raw wind speed, etc.) for the sake of an "apples-to-apples"
comparison. Yet, even under these ground rules, I was still seeing up
to 40% differences in heating loads in some cases. <br>
<br>
4) So which are the correct, or better, results? I really can't say.
When you look into the codes, there is room for questioning the
solution techniques in both programs. Just by dint of having seen many
more DOE-2 results, I tended to regard them as the "conventional
wisdom", but then conventional wisdom could always be wrong. Maybe we
have been overestimating the heating energies in California all these
years. After reading through this litany of problems, some may want to
throw up their hands and say either, "it's hopeless" or even, "who
cares?". That to me is a wrong and dangerous response, because it
ultimately damages the credibility of simulations. Going back to China,
many experts there have become disenchanted and distrustful of
simulations, and are calling for it NOT to be used for compliance
calculations. The same can happen here, as well. So, I think we need to
spend more effort to have a better sense of the relative performance of
different programs, and what is the "ground truth". Doing a parallel
set of calibrated simulations against good monitored data would be a
good start. <br>
<br>
Joe<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="90">Joe Huang
White Box Technologies, Inc.
346 Rheem Blvd., Suite 108D
Moraga CA 94556
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:yjhuang@whiteboxtechnologies.com">yjhuang@whiteboxtechnologies.com</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.whiteboxtechnologies.com">www.whiteboxtechnologies.com</a>
(o) (925)388-0265
(c) (510)928-2683
"building energy simulations at your fingertips"
</pre>
<br>
<br>
Paul Diglio wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:731789.5026.qm@web83307.mail.sp1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; ">
<div>Mizra:<br>
<br>
Thank you for the time it took you to send the results of your study to
the forum. Some of the top simulation firms in my area use Energy Plus
and I was confused when other people claimed a higher discrepancy rate
than you modeled.<br>
<br>
Paul Diglio<br>
<div><br>
<div> <b><span>From:</span></b> Mirza Sajjal
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Mirza.Sajjal@BuroHappold.com"><Mirza.Sajjal@BuroHappold.com></a><br>
<b><span>To:</span></b> Pasha Korber-Gonzalez
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com"><pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com></a>;
deepika khowal
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:deepika.khowal@gmail.com"><deepika.khowal@gmail.com></a><br>
<b><span>Cc:</span></b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a>;
energyplus_support <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:EnergyPlus_Support@yahoogroups.com"><EnergyPlus_Support@yahoogroups.com></a><br>
<b><span>Sent:</span></b> Thu, April 28, 2011 5:55:09 PM<br>
<b><span>Subject:</span></b> Re: [Equest-users] equest and energy
plus outputs<br>
<br>
<div>
<p><span>This was a little study I did out of curiosity last year,
and
the results between eQUEST (v3.63) and EnergyPlus (v4.0) matched quite
well (~1.4%
difference). All the schedules, zone areas, surface areas were exactly
the same
(I checked), but I also chose a simple system; PTAC units for the
comparison. I
believe when I was doing this I had checked the performance curves that
were
being used in EnergyPlus and they matched the eQUEST curves. </span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>I assume the results will begin to differ when the systems
become more complicated, but even then I believe if both models are
calibrated
to match as much as possible the results shouldn’t vary significantly
(assuming all systems are native to the programs and we’re not creating
work-arounds
i.e. DOAS in eQUEST using dummy zones or the like).</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>(FYI, the geometry was ported over to EnergyPlus through a
tool
I wrote using Excel and VBA, but it’s a messy process)</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Following are some of the results and graphical outputs:</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span><img
src="cid:part1.05010400.05090604@whiteboxtechnologies.com"></span><span></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span><img
src="cid:part2.00030201.02080507@whiteboxtechnologies.com"></span><span></span></p>
<p><span><img
src="cid:part3.04040504.02060209@whiteboxtechnologies.com"></span><span></span></p>
<p><span><img
src="cid:part4.01040509.05010801@whiteboxtechnologies.com"></span><span></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span><img
src="cid:part5.03090809.04050407@whiteboxtechnologies.com"></span><span></span></p>
<p><span><img
src="cid:part6.07080503.05090004@whiteboxtechnologies.com"></span><span></span></p>
<p><span><img
src="cid:part7.04040406.05020707@whiteboxtechnologies.com"></span><span></span></p>
<p><span><img
src="cid:part8.09050200.03010503@whiteboxtechnologies.com"></span><span></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span><img
src="cid:part9.09070100.09010503@whiteboxtechnologies.com"></span><span></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><b><span lang="EN-GB">____________________</span></b><b><span
lang="EN-GB"></span></b></p>
<p><b><span lang="EN-GB">Mirza Sajjal</span></b><span lang="EN-GB"><br>
Engineer</span><span></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-GB">Buro Happold<br>
100 Broadway<br>
New York, NY 10005</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-GB">Tel: +1 212 334 2025</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-GB">Direct: +1 212 616 0380</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span> </span></p>
<div>
<p><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Pasha
Korber-Gonzalez<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 28, 2011 4:46 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> deepika khowal<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a>;
energyplus_support<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] equest and energy plus outputs</span></p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p>As I understand it--Energy+ is free-ware in it's raw
form. I guess I was wrong to make an assumption that Deepika
is using it without an interface. If this is not the case it
might explain such a variance in results. When I model
in DOE-2 raw form---it is so much harder for me to manage my data and
inputs in
my head and such----I was not born to be a programmer, and it gives me
nightmares from struggling to pass FORTRAN so many years ago...ugh.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Therefore, I haven't looked at E+ myself for a very long
time and purchasing or putting out the cost for the user-interface
programs is
not as desireable as using the eQuest free-ware. or the future
CANQuest
free-ware (future SI version).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>BUT-- I know that E+ is supposed to have some great
capabilities in which we are limited with DOE-2 (to an
extent.) Has anyone else had the time and desire to compare
these program engines more closely recently? Also--why is it so
difficult to "match" systems in eQuest and E+....forgive my
blase'-ness, but isn't a pkgd system a pkgd system...a pkgd system???
:)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Pasha </p>
</div>
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:39 AM, deepika khowal <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:deepika.khowal@gmail.com">deepika.khowal@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
<p>So based on my analysis, there is a difference of about 10%
in results of equest and E+. I would believe that because there are
certain
parameters which are very difficult to match. </p>
<div>
<p>this seems reasonable to me. </p>
<div>
<div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p>On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:09 AM, John Aulbach <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jra_sac@yahoo.com">jra_sac@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p>I am sure EnergyPlus is a fine and well thought out program
(consider the sources and fine people involved). However, since I am
in
production mode (and don't have time to create a model in two different
programs-who pays for THAT), I chose to migrate to eQuest after DOE-2.1
A, B,
C, D, and E. There are plenty of resources to ask questions of, the
program
started out in Windows (didn't need "add ons"), and gives me a 3-D
rendering on the building immediately.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>I dealt with 20 years of "raw" DOE-2, where I
didn't know what my building really looked like (until Joe Huang came
along
with BDL Draw..). So I would need at age (you guess..) to not relearn
an
entirely new program and stick with what I had learned over the past
25+ years.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="12f9d3273db3644d_12f9cdf9b04dbece__MailA"><span>John R. Aulbach,
PE,
CEM</span></a></p>
<p><span>Senior
Energy Engineer</span></p>
<div>
<div><span> </span></div>
</div>
<p><b><span>Partner</span></b><b><span> </span></b><b><span>Energy</span></b></p>
<p><span>1990
E. Grand Avenue, El Segundo, CA 90245<br>
W: <a moz-do-not-send="true">888-826-1216</a>, X254| D: <a
moz-do-not-send="true">310-765-7295</a> | F: <a moz-do-not-send="true">310-817-2745</a></span></p>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.ptrenergy.com/"><span>www.ptrenergy.com</span></a><span>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:%7C%20jaulbach@ptrenergy.com"><span>|
jaulbach@ptrenergy.com</span></a></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<p><b><span>From:</span></b><span> deepika khowal <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:deepika.khowal@gmail.com">deepika.khowal@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>To:</b> Paul Diglio <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.diglio@sbcglobal.net">paul.diglio@sbcglobal.net</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a>;
energyplus_support <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:EnergyPlus_Support@yahoogroups.com">EnergyPlus_Support@yahoogroups.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thu, April 28, 2011 8:56:34 AM </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p><span><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] equest and energy plus outputs</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p><br>
As Joe and others mentioned, its really difficult to create all
parameters same
in both softwares. </p>
<div>
<p>I am still working on it .</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>For ex, which system should I use in equest as equivalent to
unitary system in E+?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>I understand its difficult to match every input and hence,
getting same results is very tricky.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Thanks all for their inputs</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p>On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Paul Diglio <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:paul.diglio@sbcglobal.net">paul.diglio@sbcglobal.net</a>>
wrote:</p>
<div>
<div>
<p><span>I thought E+ is a free
program? I would be interested to hear from anyone who has used Google
SketchUp and the Open Studio Plug-in to generate a 3D view in E+.<br>
<br>
I would like to hear more about the discrepancies between eQuest and E+
from
those who use both programs.<br>
<br>
Paul Diglio</span></p>
<div>
<p><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<p><b><span>From:</span></b><span> Pasha
Korber-Gonzalez <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com">pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>To:</b> deepika khowal <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:deepika.khowal@gmail.com">deepika.khowal@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> energyplus_support <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:EnergyPlus_Support@yahoogroups.com">EnergyPlus_Support@yahoogroups.com</a>>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thu, April 28, 2011 1:27:44 AM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] equest and energy plus outputs</span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p>Hmmm- an energy plus model showed 50% less energy use (EUI)
than eQuest? Did you use the same weather files? (i.e.
convert the EPW you used in E+ to .bin and use the same weather file in
eQuest?)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>If this is truly the case, this is unsettling as a
simulator. Wouldn't it be safer for our clients to error on the
conservative side and give the eQuest results instead of the E+ results?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Also--if this is the case, then what is the market advantage
to spending thousands of dollars on E+ software rather than use the
FREE-ware
eQuest program??</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>I'd appreciate any commentary to help me "see the
light" of this topic. And if Deepika is willing to share a visual of
his energy results output, I'm super curious to see what it is
showing...</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Good question/good info...thanks,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Pasha</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Korber Energy Consultants</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:11 PM, deepika khowal <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:deepika.khowal@gmail.com">deepika.khowal@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
<p>Thanks Joe </p>
<div>
<p>Even I realized the same thing. the total energy
use in Energy plus was almost 50% less than equest.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>If this is the case, who would you know that you model is
working fine? </p>
<div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p>On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Joe Huang <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:yjhuang@whiteboxtechnologies.com">yjhuang@whiteboxtechnologies.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
<p>I was involved in a two year project 2005-2007 to convert
the Calif. Energy Commission's Title-24 certification suite of building
tests
from DOE-2.1E to EnergyPlus. There are some areas where it's difficult
to
get comparable inputs due to differences or limitations in the models.
The
differences between the two programs varied a lot depending on the
building,
weather, and HVAC system. For the CEC certification suite of 160 runs,
cooling
results were more consistent, within 10% in most cases, with EnergyPlus
almost
always on the high side; for heating, the differences were much
greater,
sometimes with EnergyPlus being 40-60% lower than DOE-2.1E. I have a
120-page report on this comparison, but haven't bothered to put it on
the Web.<br>
<br>
Joe<br>
<br>
Joe Huang<br>
White Box Technologies, Inc.<br>
346 Rheem Blvd., Suite 108D<br>
Moraga CA 94556<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:yjhuang@whiteboxtechnologies.com">yjhuang@whiteboxtechnologies.com</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.whiteboxtechnologies.com/">www.whiteboxtechnologies.com</a><br>
(o) (925)388-0265<br>
(c) (510)928-2683<br>
"building energy simulations at your fingertips"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
deepika khowal wrote:</p>
<div>
<div>
<p>HI All<br>
I am trying to create same model in equest and energy plus to see
whether i see
same results and just to validate my simulation files.<br>
has anyone done this before?<br>
I would like to know what is the % difference in both software outputs?<br>
Thanks<br>
Deepika</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>------------------------------------------------------------------------
</p>
<div>
<p><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Equest-users mailing list<br>
<span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org</a></span><br>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Equest-users mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a></p>
</div>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Equest-users mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a></p>
</div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<p>This message has been scanned by MailController - <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://portal1.mailcontroller.co.uk">portal1.mailcontroller.co.uk</a>
| </p>
<p>This message has been scanned by <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://portal1.mailcontroller.co.uk/">MailController</a>.</p>
<p> <span lang="EN-GB"></span></p>
</div>
This message has been scanned by MailController -
portal1.mailcontroller.co.uk |
<p>This message has been scanned by <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://portal1.mailcontroller.co.uk/">MailController</a>.</p>
<p><span lang="EN-GB"></span><span lang="EN-GB"></span> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<pre wrap=""><hr size="4" width="90%">
_______________________________________________
Equest-users mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org</a>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>