ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Last week, I worked through the tutorial for iSBEM version 1.0.0 to familiarise myself with the requirements. My observations are:

• It seems cumbersome to enter data.
• It seems difficult to edit inputs when you did get something wrong. It's easier to delete the input and start again.
• The description of the application of systems appears confusing - ie page 55 indicates that you select the DHW generator for each zone which has a "function" (shop/cafe/office etc) and the programme has a mechanism for calculating the DHW load as a function of floor area presumably. However, on page 61, fig 45 shows the assigned sub tab Zones to which DHW has been assigned and it only shows z0/01 and z1/03, which are coffee shop and toilets respectively. Surely it should include z0/03 (supermarket) and z1/01 (offices) and not z1/03 (toilets) because the toilets are purely a function of the other activities?
• I can't get any data summary reports. When I try, Microsoft Access throws up a message "The OpenReport action was cancelled".
• When I reached the end of the programme and did the Part L2 compliance check, my notional CO2 emission came out at 138, as opposed to the 179 shown in the worked example. However, because my target energy rating is then 99 and my building energy rating is 103, my building fails - but I haven't changed any parameters from those in the worked example! As the calculation was scrolling through, it seemed to be indicating that I had no heat recovery and yet I hadn't changed the original setting of "heat exchange plates or pipes" in the ventilation input.

After experiencing this and being very frustrated with my total lack of confidence that I had a clue about what I was doing, I revisited your article in the February 2006 BSJ about the industry guinea pigs. I am now suicidal!

With regards to your article, I am a little confused. 5, to me, would seem to be a poor mark, 1 a good mark, from your scoring table. But Chris Bitton gives "are results easy to interpret?" a rating of 5 (poor), yet states very straightforward; Chris rates his confidence in results ‘2' (relatively good), but states confidence will come with application - and other ratings are similarly confusing.

Did any of these gentlemen have the benefit of training sessions or did they go into it cold as I have? If they did go in cold and achieve half-decent results, they are certainly "better men than I am, Gunga Din".

The ncm.bre website has a section for training but there are no providers listed when I checked it.

I realise I am putting myself up for possible ridicule by advising you of my pathetic efforts to date, but I do feel strongly about this. I am no Luddite, having been using Autocad for 20 years and Hevacomp/Cymap programmes successfully during this period.

Steve Orchard BSc CEng MCIBSE