Fri, 06 Mar 2026 20:56:12 +0000 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17651&Focus=299017#Comment_299017 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17651&Focus=299017#Comment_299017 Sat, 26 Nov 2022 08:23:30 +0000 fostertom
But I see some alternatives to Therm. In particular, free Energy2D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2kSU06829g . Has anyone tried it as alternative to Therm? Geometry creation and parameters input seems radically easier than v tricky old fashioned Therm and as the video shows, gives graphic illustration of moving heat distributions. Incorporates input such as solar.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17651&Focus=299036#Comment_299036 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17651&Focus=299036#Comment_299036 Mon, 28 Nov 2022 16:28:51 +0000 Doubting_Thomas
There's a caveat on their website which might put off those wanting to use it professionally:

"Energy2D has been designed mostly for students to rapidly conduct computational experiments and learn science and engineering ideas and skills. We strive to improve the fidelity of the software, because we strongly believe that we can do better than just giving students toys...Over the years, some scientists and engineers have also found it useful in scientific research and engineering design. We cannot, however, guarantee its validity."

Personally, I've been looking for something like this to just test ideas out (e.g. varying insulation thicknesses) and this looks like a good choice for the initial phases of iteration.

Will take a proper look when I get a moment.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17651&Focus=299037#Comment_299037 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17651&Focus=299037#Comment_299037 Mon, 28 Nov 2022 17:11:46 +0000 fostertom
Front page of https://energy.concord.org/energy2d addresses this:

"How well does it model reality?

The conduction part of Energy2D is highly accurate, but the convection and radiation parts are not 100% accurate. Hence, in cases that involve convection and radiation, Energy2D results should be considered as qualitative. The pictures to the right show a comparison of the results of Energy2D simulations with images from infrared thermography for a simple model house. The thermal patterns predicted by Energy2D roughly match those from a thermal camera."

Looking at the pics I'd say *very* roughly - prob not good enough, and I'd a thought thermography pics wd be about conduction? which is claimed to be 'highly accurate'. I'd think we could live without relying on the convection and radiation facilities?]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17651&Focus=299048#Comment_299048 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17651&Focus=299048#Comment_299048 Tue, 29 Nov 2022 13:22:20 +0000 Doubting_Thomas
1) Whether it can import DWG/DXF (this would massively speed up drawing junctions)
2) Whether it can factor in adiabatic boundaries - for something like a parapet junction, or even more so for a ground junction, you really want to be able to assign 'no heat flow' to certain areas.

Neither are reasons not to use, but it's a shame as they seem to be something that even THERM can handle, albeit clunkily.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17651&Focus=299050#Comment_299050 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=17651&Focus=299050#Comment_299050 Tue, 29 Nov 2022 15:34:21 +0000 fostertom