Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Anomalies within DEAP

  • 10-02-2009 05:15PM
    #1
    legs akimbo.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 ✭


    Has anyone else noticed a particular anomoly within the DEAP software, namely in water heating, primary circuit loss type.
    The most common boiler will be a boiler WITH insulated primary pipework and No cylinder thermostat... a particular dwelling as an example has a C2 / 195.05 rating with the above, however if this were changed to primary pipework with UNINSULATED pipework and no cylinder thermostat the rating rises to 198.96. Again if I then input boiler WITH insulated primary pipe work WITH cylinder thermostat it nudges me into a C3 at 200.59.
    I may be missing something here but isnt insulated primary pipework and a fitted cylinder thermostat an improvement ?
    Not according to DEAP !


Comments

  • #2
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,980 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    doesnt happen in my one...

    just did a quick check... on an A3...

    uninsulated and no stat = 69
    insulated and stat = 66.39

    insulated and no stat = 67.14
    uninsulated and stat = 67.14 (interesting...)


  • #3
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    ins prim pipe........... cyl stat
    no..........................no 81.78
    yes........................no 79.66
    no........................yes 79.66
    yes........................yes 78.79


  • #4
    Mellor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,390 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    OP, I'd say you made a mistake somewhere.

    I noticed that both Syd and SB got matching results for each of their no/yes & yes/no combos. I imagine that its just a case of the adjustment factor being the same on each option.


  • #5
    legs akimbo.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 ✭legs akimbo.


    Will run through it again and do an idiot check:rolleyes:
    I did the same with another assessment and it was fine.


  • #6
    legs akimbo.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 ✭legs akimbo.


    Very odd, can not see anything apparently wrong, noticed that the loose jacket on water store is presently 100mm, if increased to 150mm again the rating goes up insteade of down from 198 to 200 :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Mellor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,390 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    File appears to be corrupt so.


  • #8
    dahayeser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 156 ✭✭dahayeser


    legs akimbo. wrote: »
    Very odd, can not see anything apparently wrong, noticed that the loose jacket on water store is presently 100mm, if increased to 150mm again the rating goes up insteade of down from 198 to 200 :confused:

    I noticed this too on a G rated property, increasing a 35mm loose jacket on the cylinder to a 70mm loose jacket actually disimproved the rating slightly. I assumed the software might have work out that there would be less space heat gained from the cylinder because of the extra insulation and that in these circumstances (this particular G rated house) that was considered more important than maintaining the cylinder temp. Still a strange one though.


Advertisement