do.
2. PV SWH Systemsize, can also do that, but there would be no second type of self shading for the chosen minimalSpacingPeriod_ criteria.
PV SWH System Size will not account for the context shading (underlaying roof trees, buildings...)
There will be no second type of self-shading (the shading from the PV rows in front) only for the chosen solar window. Sorry if I haven't explained this clearly in Amaraa's topic. You control this by minimalSpacingPeriod_ input.You can also let the PV SWH System Size component pick the PV minimalSpacingPeriod_ input automatically (if you do not input anything to it).Out of that solar window, the second type of self shading will appear. But this is mostly insignificant time of the year (like earlier than 9am or later than 3pm on winter solstice).The larger the solar window the more annual AC energy you will produce. So for example: you can set the solar window to be from the sun rise to to sunset on winter solstice. This will result in maximal possible AC energy generated. And it may generate a 1% or 2% more AC energy than if you set your solar window from 9am to 3pm on winter solstice. But in the first case, the minimalSpacing (distance) between the rows would be tens of times longer than in the second case. Such large distances are uneconomical. So by producing more AC energy, does not necessarily mean that your PV system is optimal.I hope I did not explain this in some confusing way. If I did, please let me know, I will try to make it more clear.
PV SWH Systemsize can only deal with the angled or flat surface, not the curved?
Yes, you are correct. The baseSurface_ input is based on a planar surface (horizontal or vertical or angled).
So my question is, if I choose to make a curved roof to form a best pv array with best ACenergy, whether should I only choose the first above...
Hm, yes, it looks like you would have to go with the upper mentioned 2)a) option.
What's the relationship between TOF and PV SWH Systemsize?
TOF component can find the optimal tilt and optimal azimuth angles for PV SWH System Size component (its arrayTiltAngle_ and arrayAzimuthAngle_ angles).If you do not use TOF component, then you need to use Photovoltaics Surface component along with Galapagos to find the optimal tilt and azimuth angles.
Also, I'll do my best to make a parametric model as soon as possible and upload it to you, so we can make the discussion more detailed.
For start it would be enough, if you would attach the roof on which the Photovoltaic modules will be laid. And just point where would you like the PV modules to be.Regards,djordje…
roof model with pv, to make a optimal choice of pv arrangement by the best renewable energy production optimization. How to make the shading and array tilt, density and orientation of the pv panels into consideration? As photovoltaics surface component can make the output of tilt angle , azimuth angle and AC energy per year, how to visualize the performance difference on the form?
…
思った感じになりません。
balls の代わりにplanarカーブを直接入れてみましたがエラーが出ます。
ファンクションにしてみたところ、forループので作った数値が反映されていません。
ファンクションのインスタンス?を出力していないと思い上記のようにしましたがエラーが出てしまいます。
以上の事から自分の認識が正しいのかよくわからなくなりました・・・
python自体の深いところをわかっているわけではないので余計こんがらがりました。
そこで、for b in ballsはどのような条件または使い方であれば使えるのでしょうか?
そして、上記のように別のオブジェクトに対しての使い方はどのようにすればできるのでしょうか?
2:同じファンクション内のdist = rs.Distance(self.pos,b.pos)についてですが
この文章も for b in balls によってbはBallのインスタンスであると定義?されたためb.posがbの位置であると分かるのでしょうか?
pythonは定義しなくても動いてしまうのでどのような時に使えるのか文章見ただけではよくわかりません・・・
大変細かいことかもしれませんが、よりpythonをしっかりと理解するためにも、どなたかわかる方ご教授いただけると幸いです。…
e inner face temperatures (from 4 to 6; at 4 is similar)
I checked this early on to cross-reference it with the comf map outputs, and that's what led me to suspect something weird may be going on with them.
When you once again omit the schedule, air change and system setting assignment part of our script, you get the below comf map results:
Comf map output of CMAP script with ideal air / OS system, schedule and ac/h script section bypassed
When you set the programme in the CMAP script to Office:OpenOffice, you get an similar output:
Comf map output of CMAP script with ideal air / OS system, schedule and ac/h script section included, with Office:OpenOffice programme set
Once I switch to the MidriseAppartment:Appartment programme, even with the ideal air / OS system parameters bypassed in the script, I get the following:
Comf map output of CMAP script with ideal air / OS system, schedule and ac/h script section included, with Appartment schedule set (same output whether ideal air part settings excluded or not).
Having stared at this "the men who stare at goats" style for quite some time now, I think I see the pattern now; the difference between the apartment and office programme is in the loads, etc. which mods the surf temps, which changes the distribution (and that one result you had that looked totally different did not reappear).
As for the 'wash' of temperatures- yes.. granted, the U value of the glazing is pretty good; the spread of temperatures we are looking at is only about 0.3 degrees, on average.
Maybe that simply *is* the distribution, and the E+ radiance temp output snapshot leads me down a false cognitive avenue, priming me to expect a different distribution than actually present?
Best,
Max
…
especially for non air conditioned, naturally ventilated space.
Our own thermal comfort survey in tropical context also indicate that:
1) people felling thermally neutral (thermal sensation vote = 0) tend to be predicted as feeling slightly warm as indicated by PMV value calculated, and
2) the adaptive model (ASHRAE 2013 ) seems to provide a close predication on percentage of people feeling thermally neutral than that indicated according to the PMV values calculated, comparing to the percentage based on people's actual thermal sensation vote in the context of non-AC, hybrid or naturally ventilated spaces.
Nevertheless, I think only through continuous empirical study can we further validate which model is more appropriate under certain climatic context.
Thank you, too, for revising the PMV component!
Cheers!…
h Shading--DC to AC derate Factor--Photovoltaics Module, can calculate the ACenergy of different pv arrays by Galapagos. The process can evaluate the self shading from the input analysisGeometry and surrounding shading from the input context.
2. PV SWH Systemsize, can also do that, but there would be no second type of self shading for the chosen minimalSpacingPeriod_ criteria.
3. TOF outputs optimal angle and azimuth.
So my question is, if I choose to make a curved roof to form a best pv array with best ACenergy, whether should I only choose the first above, the second PV SWH Systemsize can only deal with the angled or flat surface, not the curved? What's the relationship between TOF and PV SWH Systemsize?
Also, I'll do my best to make a parametric model as soon as possible and upload it to you, so we can make the discussion more detailed.
Best regards.…
face, the larger the number of modules and system size, there for the higher annual energy generation.baseSurface_ - this input exists only for "PV SWH system size" component. It's purpose is to represent a mounting plane on which the PV modules will be put onto. The dark blue colored roof in the photo below is that mounting surface in this case:
So the size of area of the baseSurface_ is not important but its plane.
2) It is important. It basically sets the initial losses of the system.
If that is the soiling value you have, then yes, you need to add it to the DC to AC derate factor component, and then plug its output to "DCtoACderateFactor_" input. I did that in the attached definition below.
3) The north vector/numeric value is not propagated due to possible independent usage of components.I plugged the 0 value to all three component's which have "north_" input. You can change it to what ever value you need.
Please let me know if I didn't answer completely to your questions, or if you have more of them.…
Introduction to Grasshopper Videos by David Rutten.
Wondering how to get started with Grasshopper? Look no further. Spend an some time with the creator of Grasshopper, David Rutten, to learn the