Topic: Barani MS Pro vs SmartCellino radiation shield comparison

[mauro63]

Report of yesterday. even for me heavy rainy day and always cloudy

Deviations inside instrument tolerance

 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

M

[mauro63]

Please try to keep the post clean and consistent with the title.
We don't care about anything related to Apogee or other tools or personal battle

Thanks
M.

[Meteorology fan]

This was a short reply to @Jasper3012 to let him know that I plan to check the differences of Apogee vs Davis FARS24H.

[mauro63]

This morning it finally stopped raining, but the sky remains partially cloudy and with a fair amount of ventilation, the systems are, for now, quite aligned

 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

M.

[Meteorology fan]

mauro63 - These tests of passive shelters don't show us much, because passive shields can't be a reference. It would be best to compare all these shelters side by side with aspirational counterparts like Met One 076B, Apogee TS100, using analogous high-end sensors long-term as in passive. Project it all on a graph.
Conditions will come that any of these passive ones will show false measured values. And then it's worth comparing it with aspiration under solar load what errors we're talking about relative to reference shields from reputable companies like Apogee and Met One.

The comparison between passive shelters doesn't even tell us what physical magnitude errors occur at any given time when the wind is weakening.

[mauro63]

mauro63 - These tests of passive shelters don't show us much, because passive shields can't be a reference. It would be best to compare all these shelters side by side with aspirational counterparts like Met One 076B, Apogee TS100, using analogous high-end sensors long-term as in passive. Project it all on a graph.
Conditions will come that any of these passive ones will show false measured values. And then it's worth comparing it with aspiration under solar load what errors we're talking about relative to reference shields from reputable companies like Apogee and Met One.

The comparison between passive shelters doesn't even tell us what physical magnitude errors occur at any given time when the wind is weakening.

Maybe you didn't correctly understand the purpose of these tests
We are NOT looking for a reference, we are not looking for accuracy with respect to the real air temperature, we are comparing passive shields of similar quality level and evaluating their different behaviors
the passive shields react differently because each passive shield has its own time constant, even with the same sensor, the time constant of a complex system is given by the sum of the two time constants.

These are not the right days, and for a long time they will probably not be suitable again, for example, for the evaluation of the radiative error, something that was possible until a few weeks ago at least in our latitudes.

Why do we need to have an active reference in the comparison? can you reasonably say that the Apogee, in any instantaneous data, returns the real air temperature with mathematical certainty?
I don't think you can dare to do that

I hope it is clear

M.

[Meteorology fan]

mauro63 - we, as in Poland, did comparisons of various cages and shields, came to the conclusion that next to it must be aspirational like Apogee TS100, Davis FARS24H, to catch in the long term significant differences, right next to it stood Stevenson WMO and passive plastic shields of different classes. We are interested in the air temperature outside the shelter or strongly close to the actual temperature. I am not interested in how much a particular shelter overheated by. These were comparisons with sensors of the same class PRT PT1000 with the same time constant, Sensiron SHT35 without filters.

I'm not keen on measuring in passive shelters alone, knowing their important drawbacks, where in the Polish climate they are more accentuated than in the Italian and Benelux climates.

[tobyportugal]

mauro63 - we, as in Poland, did comparisons of various cages and shields, came to the conclusion that next to it must be aspirational like Apogee TS100, Davis FARS24H, to catch in the long term significant differences, right next to it stood Stevenson WMO and passive plastic shields of different classes. We are interested in the air temperature outside the shelter or strongly close to the actual temperature. I am not interested in how much a particular shelter overheated by. These were comparisons with sensors of the same class PRT PT1000 with the same time constant, Sensiron SH35 without filters.

I'm not keen on measuring in passive shelters alone, knowing their important drawbacks, where in the Polish climate they are more accentuated than in the Italian and Benelux climates.

My boy, you really don't understand anything.
The objective is clear!
TO DETERMINE WHETHER SIAP CAN BE USED IN THE MAJORITY OF SITUATIONS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH AND FROM EAST TO WEST FOR 99% OF ENTHUSIASTS. AND FOR THE REMAINING 1%, HOW TO OPTIMISE.

PS: I don't have a Siap, but I'm curious!

[Meteorology fan]

Siap also interests me as a replacement for the Barani Meteoshield Pro III and to support my own aspiration shields. However, comparisons with Ms Pro III may not always make sense, because we know that there are some serious flaws in this shield, hidden from less informed users who will not detect them, will not see them. We have a fair amount of uncertainty in such situations.

However, what interests me in the context of Siap is the behavior at low angles of sunlight, which the Barani Meteoshield Pro does not embrace, and even the generation III does not solve this. However, I would like to see a long-term comparison of Siap, Barani, Apogee TS100, optionally o duplicated o Met One076B under the same conditions and the same sensors.

[Jasper3012]

Why can’t passives be a reference? The traditional Stevenson screen is a passive… And if we can show that shields like the SC match the performance of the Stevenson screen, then why would they not be able to serve as a reference? Tons of meteorological agencies across the globe use passives as their reference shelters.

[Meteorology fan]

Because we know that under certain conditions a screnn without a fan does not show the correct air temperature due to the decrease in ventilation in a wooden screnn. This is a construct from the 19th century.  Of course, it would be nice to compare WMO Stevenson Screen and these passive plus aspiration sheilds like Met One and Apogee in the long term. Using the same and high-end sensors with the same time constant and calibration. Two of my colleagues have Stevenson Screnny built according to the scheme of the Polish meteo service and have checked their behavior to Apogee, Barani, Davis FARS24H.

Comparing Barani Meteoshield III vs Siap gives us little relevant information. I would see here an expansion of the test long-term at different latitudes and conditions with WMO Stevenson, Apogee TS100, Davis FARS24H, optionally Met One 076B in close proximity, with the same sensors and at the same altitude.

I wonder how many amateurs might go into such a full-fledged test, but I think not many because of, for example, cost and funds. I, perhaps, will expand the set with Siap in the future and find the advantages and disadvantages of the new dial in a completely independent way.

[Jasper3012]

Because we know that under certain conditions a screnn without a fan does not show the correct air temperature due to the decrease in ventilation in a wooden screnn. This is a construct from the 19th century.  Of course, it would be nice to compare WMO Stevenson Screen and these passive plus aspiration sheilds like Met One and Apogee in the long term. Using the same and high-end sensors with the same time constant and calibration. Two of my colleagues have Stevenson Screnny built according to the scheme of the Polish meteo service and have checked their behavior to Apogee, Barani, Davis FARS24H.

Comparing Barani Meteoshield III vs Siap gives us little relevant information. I would see here an expansion of the test long-term at different latitudes and conditions with WMO Stevenson, Apogee TS100, Davis FARS24H, optionally Met One 076B in close proximity, with the same sensors and at the same altitude.

I wonder how many amateurs might go into such a full-fledged test, but I think not many because of, for example, cost and funds. I, perhaps, will expand the set with Siap in the future and find the advantages and disadvantages of the new dial in a completely independent way.

Those “certain conditions” literally only represent the low sun angle and low wind combination and if the SC does not suffer from this phenomenon, then there are literally no conditions where the SC suffers from a significant error.

[Meteorology fan]

@Jasper3012 - It would be a good idea to test it even with Apogee TS100 and Davis FARS24H, placing it next to Smart Cellino. The WMO Stevenson Screnn could be a control at 2m, but the Apogee TS100 and Davis FARS24H do not suffer from this at low solar angles, and we have this confirmed in Poland.

Already there have been several comparisons when the Smart Cellino showed lower daytime values than the Barani Gen III in the morning, and I was strongly intrigued by this.

[Jasper3012]

Good representation of the “useless” testing conditions plaguing me at the moment…

 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

[Kallo78]

if I manage in the next months to side a Apogee Ts100 to the Barani and the Siap. initially think with sensor equal to the passive, then we will see.

[Meteorology fan]

bianconero57 - give about this whole article what little snippet you gave, because this is what I was discussing with ChatGPT.

Interesting lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnO4REew-1Q

[Meteorology fan]

This continues to be a small section, I would like a whole article.

[TheBushPilot]

This continues to be a small section, I would like a whole article.

Air Temperature - J. Mark Blonquist Jr. and Bruce Bugbee


Cheers

[Jasper3012]

Updated table:

 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

[mauro63]

mine

 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

M.

[Kallo78]

My report yesterday.
100% of deviations within the instrument tolerance

[mauro63]

Even for me, differences within tolerances

 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

M.

[mauro63]

mine

 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

M.

 
considering the readings, this explains the low deviations with the saturated green ground and all this by not treating your cast shadows according to the schedule of values, so we can imagine even for your class 4 to 5 site, especially when we can see that you offset one group of shelters far from another, which generates significant horizontal deviations >0.5° unrelated to the shelters and having no overall views of the site, so we can imagine that it's worse in other directions.
be careful, this is constructive criticism (even if I can guess your answer).
 
have a nice day !

I have always stated that my station is, I would estimate, a class 4 and therefore has a rather high measurement uncertainty.
There are only some situations and certain time slots in which I consider it reliable when I go to try to measure a measurand so small as the difference between different shields.

I am posting my data anyway, even if unreliable in this sense because I think they can still be of some use given that I believe very few of us can boast of having a site in class 1 or 2.

M.

[Kallo78]

This is my location
The structures that you see on the left are no longer the land is free and there are no huts, gazzebi or other
One pole for anemometer h4m
A pole for wh40 h1m
3 poles three meters apart for screens in test

[hmderek]

This is my location
The structures that you see on the left are no longer the land is free and there are no huts, gazzebi or other

Great spot

Too many trees nearby at my location.