I have been attempting to successfully use eQuest for the past year or
so and am finding it to be an excruciatingly frustrating experience. It
is definitely a "quirky" program.

My latest confusion has to do with the difference between the LS-A, SS-A
and SS-D reports. The documentation indicates that you need to go to
SS-A to results that account for time varying air temperatures. SS-A
reports are not described in the Detailed Simulation Reports Summary,
nor anywhere else that I can find.

LS-A Space Peak Loads reports:

Cooling peak = 35.070 KBTU/hr; Heating Peak = -20.826 KBTU/hr.

SS-A System Loads Summary reports: (not included in Detailed Simulation
Reports Summary documentation)

Cooling maximum = 2.684 KBTU/hr; Heating Maximum = -4.275 KBTU/hr

SS-D Building HVAC Load Summary reports: (not included in Detailed
Simulation Reports Summary documentation)

Cooling maximum = 24.81 KBTU/hr; Heating maximum = -28.14 KBTU/hr

I am wondering what these results could possibly mean. The order of
magnitude difference between the LS-A and SS-A reports baffles me. I
MIGHT be able to understand it for cooling if the SS-A results were ten
times as high, but I don't understand how the heating could be double.
These values don't seem to make sense, but since there is no description
of the reports there is no way to tell.

The SS-D report seems to make some sort of sense in relation to the LS-A
report if the LS-A report is giving "instantaneous" results as if the
building were at a steady state condition and the SS-D report includes
the impacts of thermal mass and things like that. However, since there
is no documentation on this I am must guessing.

I am of course being interested in sizing a heating and cooling system
for the building. Given these different and unexplained differences in
the reports I am finding that to be difficult to do.

Can anyone explain what these reports are telling me and how I might
best use them as part of the design process? Right now I just have to
pick one that "feels" good - but that isn't a very satisfying approach.

Thanks