[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[TRNSYS-users] problem with type 109 (user+standard format)

To: <trnsys-users@engr.wisc.edu>
Subject: [TRNSYS-users] problem with type 109 (user+standard format)
From: "Eleni Ampatzi" <ampatzie@Cardiff.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:32:40 +0100
List-archive: <https://www.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/trnsys-users>
List-help: <mailto:trnsys-users-request@engr.wisc.edu?subject=help>
List-id: "TRNSYS users mailing list at the Solar Energy Lab, UW-Madison" <trnsys-users.engr.wisc.edu>
List-post: <mailto:trnsys-users@engr.wisc.edu>
List-subscribe: <https://www.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/trnsys-users>, <mailto:trnsys-users-request@engr.wisc.edu?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/trnsys-users>, <mailto:trnsys-users-request@engr.wisc.edu?subject=unsubscribe>

Dear All,

I have noticed that there is a problem with type 109. Please find attached an example. If you try to
read the Ibeam of the surface 7 you will get wrong results. If you reset the number of surfaces that
the component calculates to e.g. 4 and then you reload the rest 4 and re-connect them with the other
components, then the output of Ibeam is correct. I do not understand the reason behind this. I have
24 models and I have the same problem with most of them. Any ideas? Thank you in advance,

Best Regards

Eleni

Attachment: test.TPF
Description: Binary data

Prev by Date: [TRNSYS-users] Type 557 : what is the borehole configuration?
Next by Date: [TRNSYS-users] (no subject)
Previous by thread: [TRNSYS-users] Type 701 Parameter requirements
Next by thread: Re: [TRNSYS-users] problem with type 109 (user+standard format)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread