[esp-r] Re: Doubts about ESP-r

[Jon Hand]

A question about ESP-r capabilities...

::ESP-r seems to be a good choice but I have some doubts.

::The first one is about the Windows version. It has the same capabilities of 
::the Linux version?

The windows version has the same simulation engine and simulates the
same physics for zone energy balances, electical power, CFD domains
and bulk mass flow.  The interface is a bit different.

::Then, what is your opinion about implement control strategies in ESP-r? It 
::is easy and powerful or it's better to use another program (like TRNSYS, 
::for example)? It is easy to create control routines in ESP-r (it has a 
::specific language?)?

Lots of people have added control methods to ESP-r e.g. someone even
implemented fuzzy logic controllers (but since that time no one
remembers how to use this feature). The coding language is
Fortran. 

How a user uses the existing control logic for zones or system
components or mass flow components is essentially describing a number of
control loops, each senses something and actuates something based on
the control law which is active at a particular time of the day. Whether 
the existing control logic for each domain is sufficient for your needs 
cannot be determined from the description you give. 

::The simulation of bioclimatic techniques like Trombe walls, buried pipes, 
::double facades, solar shadings, . will be a hard job to do with ESP-r? Then 
::I must simulate their control.

There are working example models of buried pipes, double facades, solar shading
and several people have created models with explicit Trombe-Michelle walls. Some
people find the descriptive process difficult, others seem to have little
trouble.  ESP-r assumes that you have strong opinions about buidling physics. 


-Jon Hand