Back to main page

2000
Week 36
Week 37
Week 38
Week 39
Week 40
Week 41
Week 42
Week 43
Week 44
Week 45
Week 46
Week 47
Week 48
Week 49
Week 50
2001
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Week 12
Week 13
Weeks 14-20

Back to main page

We discussed how to properly measure power consumption with Berril at Eltek, who once again proved himself helpful. It was complicated, and required the right meter. We mentioned this for Jørn, and ordered some product catalogues. A few days later, Jørn had bought an expensive-looking instrument that apparently could do the job, including transmitting data to a computer for logging. Installing the meter took some time, and almost turned out fruitful.

We built another side panel and a back panel, so that we now had a full set of panels. Each took about 4 hours to built for 2 persons. We installed these in the field lab, and also added a foil under the table. As outdoor air temperature now was quite low, it was possible to do tests at temperatures that were within the range we wanted, i.e. approximately 18° C at the workstation. We tested comfort at various temperature levels, and also monitored the power consumption. This allowed us to determine the expectable power consumption at a given operative temperature.

Worked on the CDF model of the field lab, this time with the help of Lars Voigt. Made some improvements, but without achieving a satisfying model. Some key lessons were 1) the radiation can be switched ON/OFF in the model, so far it had been OFF; when the radiation is ON each surface has to be given radiation characteristics 2) the validity of the results are easily tested by the insertion of "monitoring points"; high residuals do not necessarily means unstable solutions for the area one is interested in 3) the grid looked was too fine; the ratios should be about 20 in order to yield stabile simulations 4) the "solver model" should use the turbulence "standard KE" model.

Went to a Danvak meeting titled "To what degree is the perception of the indoor climate dependent on psychological effects?" The main conclusion was that it is very difficult to draw conclusions from questionnaires; questions about the subjects’ self-perception will increase the accuracy of the questionnaire analysis.

Went to a IDA-seminar on the possibilities for newly graduated engineers. Not that relevant for our project, but it still seemed as a good idea. It was a pleasant day, but slightly disturbed by numerous bike-punctures. These continued to occur for the rest of the week, to the great distress of the entire group.

As Fanger planned to leave the country by Saturday, we wanted to have a meeting with him Friday. This failed, but we talked to Jørn. Again the main topic was our schedule. It now seemed advantageous to postpone the experiments until January. Not doing this had been decided in September, and giving up on this point did not feel good. But it wasn’t at all certain that we could postpone the experiments at all, as Arsen Melikov’s group of PV-People had made an oral reservation of the field lab after Christmas. Jørn would talk to Arsen about this. The alternative would be to split the experiments which to the group seemed to be the worst solution by far.

The test conditions were discussed again, this time also focusing on humidity, as the temperatures had now been somewhat agreed upon. The discussion was whether to aim for constant relative humidity, absolute humidity or enthalpy at all conditions. We did some work on this subject later in the week.