Ported pvwatts results

Discussion in 'Photovoltaics' started by Curbie, May 24, 2009.

  1. Curbie

    Curbie Guest

    I'm porting NREL's pvwatts.c (version 1) to Visual Basic for
    Applications (VBA) so I can use Typical Meteorological Year version 3
    (TMY3) data for 1020 reporting stations. Summaries of TMY3 data along
    with the ported pvwatts code are intended for use in an Excel
    spread-sheet, hence the VBA port.

    I choose pvwatts so I verify my code against a known standard before
    using the ported functions for my spread-sheet's needs. The ported
    code's monthly results seems to match NREL's results given compiler
    float point differences, but the ported code's daily results are off?

    My questions are:
    1) Has anyone done this port before, is this the best results I
    can expect given compiler float point differences?
    2) Does this look like a porting bug or just float point
    differences?

    Any help would be appreciated.

    Thanks,

    Curbie

    My Results <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    Station Identification
    WBRS#: 26451
    City: Anchorage
    State: Alaska
    Latitude(deg): 61.16667
    Longitude(deg): -150.0167
    Elevation(m): 35

    PV System Specifications
    AC Rating(kW): 4
    Array Type: Fixed Tilt
    Array Tilt(deg): 61.16667
    Array Azimuth(deg): 180
    Energy Cost(cents/kWh): 0.124

    Energy Production

    Month Rad. AC kWh
    (kwh) (kwh) cost
    1 0.83 095 11.78
    2 2.16 245 30.38
    3 3.74 469 58.16
    4 4.31 506 62.74
    5 4.82 569 70.56
    6 4.68 511 63.36
    7 4.45 496 61.50
    8 3.75 418 51.83
    9 3.25 362 44.89
    10 1.88 218 27.03
    11 1.39 163 20.21
    12 0.61 066 08.18
    ----------------------------
    Yearly 2.99 4111 509.76

    1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
    7 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
    8 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
    9 0 1 8 3 8 9 5 2 1 1 1 0
    10 1 5 23 15 22 23 16 13 10 4 4 1
    11 6 22 40 31 36 35 28 22 21 14 19 2
    12 11 34 47 47 49 45 41 35 35 22 27 12
    13 20 42 60 56 61 50 49 46 42 28 31 16
    14 19 42 57 62 62 56 53 47 46 32 26 15
    15 16 38 60 60 65 52 54 47 48 29 22 9
    16 7 28 48 54 55 50 50 46 41 27 10 2
    17 1 12 28 48 47 47 43 37 34 17 1 0
    18 0 1 11 33 35 33 35 29 21 7 0 0
    19 0 0 1 16 20 21 23 15 10 1 0 0
    20 0 0 0 3 5 8 8 3 1 0 0 0
    21 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0
    22 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
    23 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
    24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


    NREL Results <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    Station Identification
    WBAN#: 26451
    City: ANCHORAGE
    State: AK
    Latitude(deg): N 61.17
    Longitude(deg): W150.02
    Elevation(m): 35

    PV System Specifications
    AC Rating(kW): 4.0
    Array Type: Fixed Tilt
    Array Tilt(deg): 61.1
    Array Azimuth(deg): 180.0

    Energy Cost(cents/kWh): 12.4

    Energy Production
    1 0.83 95 11.78
    2 2.16 244 30.26
    3 3.77 469 58.16
    4 4.35 506 62.74
    5 4.88 569 70.56
    6 4.74 511 63.36
    7 4.51 495 61.38
    8 3.78 417 51.71
    9 3.28 361 44.76
    10 1.88 216 26.78
    11 1.39 163 20.21
    12 0.61 66 8.18
    Year 3.02 4112 509.89


    1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
    9 0 0 7 2 7 8 4 1 0 0 0 0
    10 0 4 23 15 22 22 16 12 9 3 4 0
    11 6 21 40 31 35 34 28 22 21 14 19 2
    12 11 33 46 47 48 45 40 35 34 21 26 11
    13 19 41 60 56 60 49 49 46 41 27 31 15
    14 19 42 57 61 62 56 52 46 45 31 25 15
    15 15 37 59 59 64 51 53 46 47 29 21 9
    16 6 27 48 54 55 50 50 45 40 26 9 1
    17 1 11 27 47 47 47 42 37 33 17 0 0
    18 0 1 10 33 35 33 34 29 20 6 0 0
    19 0 0 0 15 19 20 22 14 9 0 0 0
    20 0 0 0 2 5 8 8 3 0 0 0 0
    21 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
    22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
     
    Curbie, May 24, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Could be either, usually FP errors are small and can be largely ignored
    for the application.
    A Double is a IEEE 64 bit number, are you porting from a 32bit float?
    Run some calculations by hand, You may be more accurate in your port
    than the original pvwatts.

    Cheers


    "Curbie" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm porting NREL's pvwatts.c (version 1) to Visual Basic for
    > Applications (VBA) so I can use Typical Meteorological Year version 3
    > (TMY3) data for 1020 reporting stations. Summaries of TMY3 data along
    > with the ported pvwatts code are intended for use in an Excel
    > spread-sheet, hence the VBA port.
    >
    > I choose pvwatts so I verify my code against a known standard before
    > using the ported functions for my spread-sheet's needs. The ported
    > code's monthly results seems to match NREL's results given compiler
    > float point differences, but the ported code's daily results are off?
    >
    > My questions are:
    > 1) Has anyone done this port before, is this the best results I
    > can expect given compiler float point differences?
    > 2) Does this look like a porting bug or just float point
    > differences?
    >
    > Any help would be appreciated.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Curbie
    >
    > My Results <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    > Station Identification
    > WBRS#: 26451
    > City: Anchorage
    > State: Alaska
    > Latitude(deg): 61.16667
    > Longitude(deg): -150.0167
    > Elevation(m): 35
    >
    > PV System Specifications
    > AC Rating(kW): 4
    > Array Type: Fixed Tilt
    > Array Tilt(deg): 61.16667
    > Array Azimuth(deg): 180
    > Energy Cost(cents/kWh): 0.124
    >
    > Energy Production
    >
    > Month Rad. AC kWh
    > (kwh) (kwh) cost
    > 1 0.83 095 11.78
    > 2 2.16 245 30.38
    > 3 3.74 469 58.16
    > 4 4.31 506 62.74
    > 5 4.82 569 70.56
    > 6 4.68 511 63.36
    > 7 4.45 496 61.50
    > 8 3.75 418 51.83
    > 9 3.25 362 44.89
    > 10 1.88 218 27.03
    > 11 1.39 163 20.21
    > 12 0.61 066 08.18
    > ----------------------------
    > Yearly 2.99 4111 509.76
    >
    > 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    > 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    > 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    > 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    > 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    > 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
    > 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
    > 8 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
    > 9 0 1 8 3 8 9 5 2 1 1 1 0
    > 10 1 5 23 15 22 23 16 13 10 4 4 1
    > 11 6 22 40 31 36 35 28 22 21 14 19 2
    > 12 11 34 47 47 49 45 41 35 35 22 27 12
    > 13 20 42 60 56 61 50 49 46 42 28 31 16
    > 14 19 42 57 62 62 56 53 47 46 32 26 15
    > 15 16 38 60 60 65 52 54 47 48 29 22 9
    > 16 7 28 48 54 55 50 50 46 41 27 10 2
    > 17 1 12 28 48 47 47 43 37 34 17 1 0
    > 18 0 1 11 33 35 33 35 29 21 7 0 0
    > 19 0 0 1 16 20 21 23 15 10 1 0 0
    > 20 0 0 0 3 5 8 8 3 1 0 0 0
    > 21 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0
    > 22 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
    > 23 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
    > 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    >
    >
    > NREL Results <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    > Station Identification
    > WBAN#: 26451
    > City: ANCHORAGE
    > State: AK
    > Latitude(deg): N 61.17
    > Longitude(deg): W150.02
    > Elevation(m): 35
    >
    > PV System Specifications
    > AC Rating(kW): 4.0
    > Array Type: Fixed Tilt
    > Array Tilt(deg): 61.1
    > Array Azimuth(deg): 180.0
    >
    > Energy Cost(cents/kWh): 12.4
    >
    > Energy Production
    > 1 0.83 95 11.78
    > 2 2.16 244 30.26
    > 3 3.77 469 58.16
    > 4 4.35 506 62.74
    > 5 4.88 569 70.56
    > 6 4.74 511 63.36
    > 7 4.51 495 61.38
    > 8 3.78 417 51.71
    > 9 3.28 361 44.76
    > 10 1.88 216 26.78
    > 11 1.39 163 20.21
    > 12 0.61 66 8.18
    > Year 3.02 4112 509.89
    >
    >
    > 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    > 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    > 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    > 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    > 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    > 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    > 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    > 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
    > 9 0 0 7 2 7 8 4 1 0 0 0 0
    > 10 0 4 23 15 22 22 16 12 9 3 4 0
    > 11 6 21 40 31 35 34 28 22 21 14 19 2
    > 12 11 33 46 47 48 45 40 35 34 21 26 11
    > 13 19 41 60 56 60 49 49 46 41 27 31 15
    > 14 19 42 57 61 62 56 52 46 45 31 25 15
    > 15 15 37 59 59 64 51 53 46 47 29 21 9
    > 16 6 27 48 54 55 50 50 45 40 26 9 1
    > 17 1 11 27 47 47 47 42 37 33 17 0 0
    > 18 0 1 10 33 35 33 34 29 20 6 0 0
    > 19 0 0 0 15 19 20 22 14 9 0 0 0
    > 20 0 0 0 2 5 8 8 3 0 0 0 0
    > 21 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
    > 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    > 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    > 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    >
    >
     
    Martin Riddle, May 25, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Curbie

    Curbie Guest

    On Sun, 24 May 2009 19:10:33 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
    <> wrote:

    >Could be either

    That's my trouble, I'm scratching my head.

    >usually FP errors are small and can be largely ignored
    >for the application.

    Ok, good.

    >A Double is a IEEE 64 bit number

    Correct?

    >are you porting from a 32bit float?

    Yes, just a few cases of doubles, mostly floats, but a pile of them.
    c float = VBA Single
    c double = VBA Double

    >Run some calculations by hand

    I've run both c and VBA debuggers side-by-side and single-stepped
    through 24 hours of data over the last week and found both porting
    bugs (me) and compiler differences which I corrected with functions,
    still not getting exactly matching results, real close, but not exact.

    >You may be more accurate in your port than the original pvwatts.

    All I want is to be AS accurate to verify the port, they know what
    there're doing with solar energy, I know some programming but solar
    energy math, not so much.

    Martin, thanks for your time and help, but I'm still in the mud on
    this, maybe others can help clear this up a little?

    Curbie
     
    Curbie, May 25, 2009
    #3
  4. Curbie

    Curbie Guest

    >What if you avoid the Single and just use Double for the float.
    The results are the same (see below).

    >Another thing to try is to compile pvwatts in c and run that exe. It
    >will tell you if there is a compiler FP issue.

    The pvwatts results are from a local compiled pvwatts.exe, I’m not
    sure what compiler issue you’re referring to? The compiler
    differences I was referring to has to due with how different compile
    internally seeds, rounds, and utilizes FP co-processor results.

    >You do know that the hardware FP is 80 bits wide.

    No I didn’t, is been a long time since I played with hardware.

    >There are some differences between MS and other compilers.

    That’s the focus of question, it seems to me that I either have a
    porting bug, which I can fix (if I can find it) or the variations are
    due to compiler differences, which I can’t fix. Which one is the
    question?

    >Good Luck

    Thanks for your time and help.

    >Cheers

    Back at cha.

    Curbie

    Singles<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    Station Identification
    WBRS#: 26451
    City: Anchorage
    State: Alaska
    Latitude(deg): 61.16667
    Longitude(deg): -150.0167
    Elevation(m): 35

    PV System Specifications
    AC Rating(kW): 4
    Array Type: Fixed Tilt
    Array Tilt(deg): 61.16667
    Array Azimuth(deg): 180
    Energy Cost(cents/kWh): 0.124

    Energy Production

    Month Rad. AC kWh
    (kwh) (kwh) cost
    1 0.83 095 11.78
    2 2.16 245 30.38
    3 3.74 469 58.16
    4 4.31 506 62.74
    5 4.82 569 70.56
    6 4.68 511 63.36
    7 4.45 496 61.50
    8 3.75 418 51.83
    9 3.25 362 44.89
    10 1.88 218 27.03
    11 1.39 163 20.21
    12 0.61 066 08.18
    ----------------------------
    Yearly 2.99 4111 509.76

    1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
    7 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
    8 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
    9 0 1 8 3 8 9 5 2 1 1 1 0
    10 1 5 23 15 22 23 16 13 10 4 4 1
    11 6 22 40 31 36 35 28 22 21 14 19 2
    12 11 34 47 47 49 45 41 35 35 22 27 12
    13 20 42 60 56 61 50 49 46 42 28 31 16
    14 19 42 57 62 62 56 53 47 46 32 26 15
    15 16 38 60 60 65 52 54 47 48 29 22 9
    16 7 28 48 54 55 50 50 46 41 27 10 2
    17 1 12 28 48 47 47 43 37 34 17 1 0
    18 0 1 11 33 35 33 35 29 21 7 0 0
    19 0 0 1 16 20 21 23 15 10 1 0 0
    20 0 0 0 3 5 8 8 3 1 0 0 0
    21 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0
    22 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
    23 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
    24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Doubles<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    Station Identification
    WBRS#: 26451
    City: Anchorage
    State: Alaska
    Latitude(deg): 61.1666679382324
    Longitude(deg): -150.016662597656
    Elevation(m): 35

    PV System Specifications
    AC Rating(kW): 4
    Array Type: Fixed Tilt
    Array Tilt(deg): 61.16667
    Array Azimuth(deg): 180
    Energy Cost(cents/kWh): 0.124

    Energy Production

    Month Rad. AC kWh
    (kwh) (kwh) cost
    1 0.83 095 11.78
    2 2.16 245 30.38
    3 3.74 469 58.16
    4 4.31 506 62.74
    5 4.82 569 70.56
    6 4.68 511 63.36
    7 4.45 496 61.50
    8 3.75 418 51.83
    9 3.25 362 44.89
    10 1.88 218 27.03
    11 1.39 163 20.21
    12 0.61 066 08.18
    ----------------------------
    Yearly 2.99 4111 509.76

    1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
    7 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
    8 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
    9 0 1 8 3 8 9 5 2 1 1 1 0
    10 1 5 23 15 22 23 16 13 10 4 4 1
    11 6 22 40 31 36 35 28 22 21 14 19 2
    12 11 34 47 47 49 45 41 35 35 22 27 12
    13 20 42 60 56 61 50 49 46 42 28 31 16
    14 19 42 57 62 62 56 53 47 46 32 26 15
    15 16 38 60 60 65 52 54 47 48 29 22 9
    16 7 28 48 54 55 50 50 46 41 27 10 2
    17 1 12 28 48 47 47 43 37 34 17 1 0
    18 0 1 11 33 35 33 35 29 21 7 0 0
    19 0 0 1 16 20 21 23 15 10 1 0 0
    20 0 0 0 3 5 8 8 3 1 0 0 0
    21 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0
    22 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
    23 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
    24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
     
    Curbie, May 25, 2009
    #4
  5. Curbie

    Curbie Guest

    Martin,

    Finally after two more days of debugging, I’m pretty clear on my
    questions.

    This is the best results I can expect and the differences remaining
    are due to compiler float point implementations.

    I’m a little troubled that the differences in available radiation
    (Rad. kWh) between my port and the NREL standard seem to grow the more
    available radiation there is, but I’m pretty certain now that this is
    due to compiler float point implementations and there is nothing I can
    do about it.

    After all this test was on Anchorage Alaska I’ll may end up revisiting
    the debugging depending on the differences for sunny places like
    Miami, but for now I’m going to optimize the port for VBA and test
    changes against this. As soon as I’m through optimizing and cleaning,
    I’ll test other locations.

    I’m more comfortable that my available radiation results are slightly
    less than instead of slightly more than NREL’s, I’d rather be on safe
    side.

    Thanks again for your time and help, sometimes a little encouragement
    goes a long way.

    Have fun.

    Curbie

    (Me)***********************************************************
    Station Identification
    WBRS#: 26451
    City: Anchorage
    State: Alaska
    Latitude(deg): 61.16667
    Longitude(deg): -150.0167
    Elevation(m): 35

    PV System Specifications
    AC Rating(kW): 4
    Array Type: Fixed Tilt
    Array Tilt(deg): 61.16667
    Array Azimuth(deg): 180
    Energy Cost(cents/kWh): 0.124

    Energy Production

    Month Rad. AC kWh
    (kwh) (kwh) cost
    1 0.83 095 11.78
    2 2.16 245 30.38
    3 3.74 469 58.16
    4 4.31 506 62.74
    5 4.82 569 70.56
    6 4.68 511 63.36
    7 4.45 496 61.50
    8 3.74 417 51.71
    9 3.25 362 44.89
    10 1.87 217 26.91
    11 1.39 163 20.21
    12 0.61 066 08.18
    ----------------------------
    Yearly 2.99 4110 509.64

    1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
    9 0 0 7 2 7 8 4 1 0 0 0 0
    10 0 4 23 15 21 22 16 12 9 3 4 0
    11 6 21 40 31 35 34 28 22 21 14 19 2
    12 11 33 46 47 48 45 40 35 34 21 26 11
    13 19 41 60 56 60 49 49 46 41 27 31 15
    14 19 42 57 61 61 56 52 46 45 31 25 15
    15 15 37 59 59 64 51 53 46 47 29 21 9
    16 6 27 48 54 55 50 50 45 40 26 9 1
    17 1 11 28 47 47 47 42 37 33 17 0 0
    18 0 1 10 33 35 33 34 29 20 6 0 0
    19 0 0 0 15 19 20 22 14 9 0 0 0
    20 0 0 0 2 5 8 8 3 0 0 0 0
    21 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
    22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    (NREL)*********************************************************
    Station Identification
    WBAN#: 26451
    City: ANCHORAGE
    State: AK
    Latitude(deg): N 61.17
    Longitude(deg): W150.02
    Elevation(m): 35

    PV System Specifications
    AC Rating(kW): 4.0
    Array Type: Fixed Tilt
    Array Tilt(deg): 61.2
    Array Azimuth(deg): 180.0

    Energy Cost(cents/kWh): 12.4

    Energy Production
    1 0.83 95 11.78
    2 2.16 244 30.26
    3 3.77 469 58.16
    4 4.35 506 62.74
    5 4.88 568 70.43
    6 4.74 510 63.24
    7 4.50 495 61.38
    8 3.77 417 51.71
    9 3.28 361 44.76
    10 1.88 216 26.78
    11 1.39 163 20.21
    12 0.61 66 8.18
    Year 3.02 4110 509.64


    1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
    9 0 0 7 2 7 8 4 1 0 0 0 0
    10 0 4 23 15 22 22 16 12 9 3 4 0
    11 6 21 40 31 35 34 28 22 21 14 19 2
    12 11 33 46 47 48 45 40 35 34 21 26 11
    13 19 41 60 56 60 49 49 46 41 27 31 15
    14 19 42 57 61 62 56 52 46 45 31 25 15
    15 15 37 59 59 64 51 53 46 47 29 21 9
    16 6 27 48 54 55 50 50 45 40 26 9 1
    17 1 11 27 47 47 47 42 37 33 17 0 0
    18 0 1 10 33 35 33 34 29 20 6 0 0
    19 0 0 0 15 19 20 22 14 9 0 0 0
    20 0 0 0 2 5 8 8 3 0 0 0 0
    21 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
    22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
     
    Curbie, May 26, 2009
    #5
  6. Curbie

    Curbie Guest

    Bob,

    Bio-fuel in the morning, PV in the evening, you get around.

    >Things to look for: Go thru the source and look for any parenthesized
    >expression that doesnt have a decimal point in it.... this expression
    >would get evaluated as an int, even if the result was promoted to
    >double later.

    I ran into that twice during single-step debugging, but couldn't
    categorize the issue well enough to make changes by just reading the
    code. After two days (my 3rd. go round) of debugging, I'm pretty sure
    the remaining small differences are just compiler FP implementation
    differences iterated of bunch of times.

    I ran C and VBA debuggers side-by-side and single-stepped through
    thousands of steps, I'm not saying it's perfect as is sits, but for
    now it's time to clean-up and optimize against the results I have.
    After that, I'll run tests on different latitude/longitude extremes
    (four counters and center of the country along with Hawaii),
    daylight-saving-time areas, looking for some larger differences which
    should be easier follow and debug.

    Did you know that you can use either sodium hydroxide or potassium
    hydroxide for the transesterification, potassium hydroxide can be
    home-made from wood ash?

    Have fun.

    Curbie
     
    Curbie, May 27, 2009
    #6
  7. Curbie

    Curbie Guest

    Bob,

    Better yet...

    Pvwatts version 1 directory index is here"
    http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/codes_algs/PVWATTS/version1/US/code/versions/
    pvwatts.c

    Be sure to grab these guys too, you'll need them:
    electric.dat
    pvsystem.dat
    pvweb.dat
    station.num


    Typical Meteorological Year (TMY2) data, download from the National
    Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) web-site here:
    http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/tmy2/

    If you want to play with TMY3, not directly compatible with pvwatts,
    but 1020 stations instead of 239 makes it worth the effort (IMO).
    Typical Meteorological Year (TMY3) data, download from the National
    Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) web-site here:
    http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1991-2005/tmy3/

    There is also a pvwatts 2 out there somewhere.

    Have fun.

    Curbie
     
    Curbie, May 27, 2009
    #7
  8. Curbie

    Curbie Guest

    >Thanks for the link.
    No problem, all that stuff is supposed to be for the benefit of every
    one, after all U.S. taxpayers paid for it.

    >I looked at the pvwatts.c file for a while. One
    >thing that seemed sloppy was they defined DTOR (degrees to radians)
    >in 3 or 4 different functions, and I think one place it was float and
    >another it was double. Same with pi. The place where its declared as a
    >float its initialized with 7 or 8 digits which is plenty for a float,
    >but once again, they have it defined as a double in another function,
    >BUT ITS STILL INITALIZED the same way!. I'd also make 273.15 a const
    >and give it a name and a few other picky little OCD style preferences.

    I agree with your queasiness about some of the programming, one thing
    I've learned from all the ports I've done over the years is to port
    exactly bug and all, once I get matching results and ONLY when (and
    if) I've learned enough about the program do I implement fixes.

    I get the impression that whoever wrote pvwatts was more of a
    scientist capable of and more worried the complex math, than a
    programmer worried about clean coding. But I just don't know why
    pvwatts was written the way it was, and the math is complex enough
    where it going to take a lot reading before attempt to implement a
    fix.

    Solpos.c was well written, commented, and documented (packet with
    references) and was a dream to port, pvwatts was a nightmare to port.

    Are you a lunix guy?
    If so what distribution do you recommend for home users (GUI)?

    I'm thinking about setting up lunix on one of my machines for the
    Internet, and dropping my Windows machines back to Win 2000 pro which
    I have on CD.

    Thanks for the light.

    Curbie
     
    Curbie, May 27, 2009
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter

    Strange Mosfet Results

    Peter, Aug 2, 2004, in forum: Electronic Basics
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    965
    colin
    Aug 10, 2004
  2. Chris W

    The Results of everyones help.

    Chris W, Mar 15, 2005, in forum: Electronic Basics
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    505
    John Fields
    Mar 17, 2005
  3. Richard Rasker

    Gamma irradiation of components - results

    Richard Rasker, Apr 22, 2004, in forum: Electronic Design
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    844
  4. Paul Burridge

    Most Outstanding Contributor Award 2004 - Results

    Paul Burridge, Aug 8, 2004, in forum: Electronic Design
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    242
    John Popelish
    Aug 12, 2004
  5. Mike Engelhardt
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,275
    Mike Engelhardt
    Aug 5, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page