<html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space;-khtml-line-break: after-white-space'> <div class=Section1> Jon,   don’t put words in my mouth! The then faulty QA report was – of course – from a “non hacked” model (the term “hacked the files” is a bit overboard, isn’t it? There are quite a few occasions where nothing else works … as an example the too long whatever line if you have more than whatever number of zones …).   When we stumble across it again, we will be sure to mention it.   Anyway, the more annoying part is the option to enter an emissivity at places in the data bases where it has no effect! That is what caused our problems back then.   Achim     <div>   Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Best regards   Achim Geissler </div> <div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: Jon Hand (clcv10) [mailto:jon@esru.strath.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:03 AM To: Geissler Achim Cc: Ery Djunaedy; esp-r@lists.strath.ac.uk; 안빈낙도 Subject: Re: QA reporting of thermophysical properties </div>   <blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'> What I do certainly remember (and what we hopefully wrote to you at some point and what has been fixed in the mean time?) is that the QA report *did not* correctly report the emissivity values actually used. We hat quite a mixup due to this at the time. </blockquote>   <div> The QA report reports what is in the databases for entities that </div> <div> matche a surface construction attribute e.g. </div> <div>    *the optical property </div> <div>    *the thicknesses of each layer </div> <div>    *the thermophysical properties from the materials db entry  </div> <div>      for each layer. </div> <div>   </div> <div> If someone has manually edited the raw data in the zone constructions </div> <div> file or the optical properties in a zone tmc file that is not reported in the </div> <div> multi-layer constructions used section of the QA report  (it is  </div> <div> assumed that you knew you hacked the files). </div> <div>   </div> <div> The section in the QA report begins with the phrase 'Multi-layer constructions used' </div> <div> and perhaps this is not clear enough. Anyone have a suggestion for an alternative </div> <div> phrase? </div> <div>   </div> <div> In terms of bugs - we have had reports that sometimes the QA report </div> <div> does not contain an entry for the first construction. Other than that </div> <div> if someone can supply us with models/reports where incorrect data </div> <div> was reported that would help us track down glitches. </div> <div>   </div> <div> -ESRU </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>