Could you explain how using the raw solar reading is better then the percentage? I'm not understanding how it is better as I am almost always above 1000W/m2 in the summer months and the idea behind the icons is more of a percentage of sunlight (like UV) that your site is experiencing. I'm missing what improves with the raw reading as opposed to the percentage.
Scott
I'll jump in here, Scott. The scale is arbitrary when you use the raw solar reading, that's a given. If you want to move the icon points around, that's fairly easy to do (e.g. 0 to <120, 120 to < 240, 240 to < 360...to end with 10>=1200). Why use raw solar? Well, I think that better reflects the nature of an index. Do you want it to mirror the percentage of potential sunlight your site is experiencing, or do you want it to mirror the solar energy your site is receiving? IMHO I think solar energy is a better use for a 'Solar Index', but that's just me. Using percentage my 'Index' hovered around 6-7 all day, and then fell slowly at dusk--it still would have read 5 just now at dusk. An index above zero when there's no energy coming from sunlight is counter-intuitive to me.
In fact, when I look at my max solar for last month it was indeed 1432 W/m
2, which means my shot in the dark indexing was off target. I do see the value of a 'Solar Ratio' as the percentage along with 'Solar Index' as the absolute value. Could we think about using both values? Or just change the name of your original algorithm to 'Solar Ratio'? Sorry...my OCD is on display again, isn't it?
The first set of changes I posted today should provide an accurate Solar Index ratio as based on percentage, and the second set of changes will provide an absolute solar index, although it scales up too rapidly as written. I'm going to rescale it now just to see how it works tomorrow.
I apologize for any confusion I might have created while trying to get my head around this.