Author Topic: Barani: too good to be true...  (Read 15769 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #250 on: June 17, 2024, 08:13:00 AM »
There are people for whom Ms Pro III did not live up to expectations and sold them to other people without experience in meteo in Poland, who are unlikely to see these defects because they have no knowledge. At my place Ms Pro III also lost the main measurement, it is as a spare next to Davis FARS24H.
Ecowitt WS90 1.3.8, WS80 1.2.5, Ecowitt WS68, Ecowitt WH31EP/WH32EP, WH40, WH57, WN34L, WH51, WN34D, HP2560_C, HP2550_C, GW1100, GW2000. Davis Vantage Pro 2, Davis Vue, Davis 6313, Hongyuv WDS2E

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H

Offline mauro63

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #251 on: June 17, 2024, 08:19:08 AM »
There are people for whom Ms Pro III did not live up to expectations and sold them to other people without experience in meteo in Poland, who are unlikely to see these defects because they have no knowledge. At my place Ms Pro III also lost the main measurement, it is as a spare next to Davis FARS24H.

You see? we basically agree, you have solved the problem and your prestigious colleagues will do the same, we, in our ignorance, will continue to consider the Pro not the best air temperature detection system but, to date, a solid partner and reliable, our aim is to raise an average level in the professional sector which is unfortunately low, decidedly too lower, for perfection we wait to know the measurand ;)

M.

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #252 on: June 17, 2024, 12:10:45 PM »
mauro063 - Perhaps of the radiation shields Ms Pro III is the best, but certainly inferior to the iconic Stevenson Screnn. In my opinion, the WMO plastic cage from Metspec is certainly better than the Barani Ms Pro III and does not suffer from side radiation like the Meteoshield Pro III. Measuring temperature is difficult and complicated, hence the creation of active shields to provide a good comparison in low wind and solar operation.  At nighttime, too, the advantages of active shields can be seen, because in windless weather they will better illustrate changes that a passive shield like Barani will not catch. Maybe in the Italian climate you don't see this, but in the Polish one you have more than once convinced yourself of the superiority of the Apogee TS100 at nighttime over the passive Barani.
Ecowitt WS90 1.3.8, WS80 1.2.5, Ecowitt WS68, Ecowitt WH31EP/WH32EP, WH40, WH57, WN34L, WH51, WN34D, HP2560_C, HP2550_C, GW1100, GW2000. Davis Vantage Pro 2, Davis Vue, Davis 6313, Hongyuv WDS2E

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H

Offline Jasper3012

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #253 on: June 17, 2024, 12:11:41 PM »
I don't like companies that, under the guise of marketing, mislead people just to wring out sales volumes and play unfair with customers. A lot of people who bought Barani Gen III from Poland felt let down by J. Barani's wording on his product page when confronted with reality and the defects he hid. I have had numerous complaints about what the CEO guaranteed us and what came out during more than a year of use. Barani has sold dozens of Barani Gen III shields to the country and people have tested it in various conditions and with PT100 and PT1000 and SHT35 sensors.

I find this to be very exaggerated. May I remind you of the fact that this entire effect you describe only occurs during a (very) limited time interval in the morning and evening and under the condition that there is sunshine and low wind. In other words, in most climates, this is almost never going to impact the min, avg and max temp. I also donít understand why you praise the Davis FARS so much when it in fact overheats by multiple tenths as soon as thereís a bit of sunshine and more importantly, during the afternoon, when the max is usually achieved and therefore impacted by the error. Iíd much rather have a shield that can perhaps overheat for short time intervals but without an impact on the min/max than a shield that may not have any strong overheating but a consistent low overheating during the time of the max temp. If I just look at the stats of my comparison so far, the Barani MS Pro quite clearly comes on top. These are facts and that doesnít even take into account the fact thereís no messing about with a fan or anything like that. I just donít believe the theory that the higher maxes on the FARS can be explained by a better response time and Iíve explained why multiple times, the stats simply donít support this train of thought.

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #254 on: June 17, 2024, 12:19:07 PM »
@ Jasper3012 - You will also often have a higher temperature on Apogee near heat emitting sources than on a passive shield. This is natural, because it is due to the reaction time in such a situation and we have tested this.  The passive shield averages this out.

Colleagues what have Apogee TS100 check Davis FARS24H in direct confrontation. As for the side overshoot, side overshoot will occur most days of the year in continental climates.

Today you can see that Apogee has a higher maximum temperature than Davis FARS24H. I would not suspect Apogee of overheating under these conditions. Note the WS90 (small passive shield) and you can see perfectly how it overheated. These are readings from the SHT35 without filters, but there are parallel measurements on loggers with PT1000 4-wire and calibrated.

Here's one of the Apogee vs Davis side-by-side comparisons on the SHT35 without filters.

https://www.ecowitt.net/home/index?id=122831

Each cover has advantages and disadvantages. Hence, he recommends measuring passive shielding (good grade and WMO compliant) and active shielding such as Apogee TS100 and Davis FARS24H.
Ecowitt WS90 1.3.8, WS80 1.2.5, Ecowitt WS68, Ecowitt WH31EP/WH32EP, WH40, WH57, WN34L, WH51, WN34D, HP2560_C, HP2550_C, GW1100, GW2000. Davis Vantage Pro 2, Davis Vue, Davis 6313, Hongyuv WDS2E

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H

Offline Jasper3012

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #255 on: June 17, 2024, 12:24:13 PM »
I acknowledge that this effect will occur much more frequently in continental climates with more sunshine and weaker wind, but even here, once the sun rises higher in the sky and the maximum temperature is achieved, you wonít see this effect. Itís only really in very specific climates and locations where this effect will have a significant effect on the min/max and this over a longer period of time.

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #256 on: June 17, 2024, 12:32:26 PM »
Yes, that's why we see it more often in Poland. Especially in autumn and winter. This disqualifies this cover for climate and long-term studies. It can stay comparatively.

In winter and autumn, with a long period of lingering solar highs, such overestimation can take place for many weeks, projecting daily, weekly and monthly averages. This is a serious problem. This is exacerbated further as snow lies and we have a considerable albedo. Hence, a better choice for studying climate is the Stevenson cage. It may have a different time constant, but it is not sensitive to what Barani is. During frontal transitions, it responds a few minutes faster than the Stevenson, but still the Apogee TS100 is faster than it, even at moderate rotation speed.

I myself have seen Barani in winter and autumn during high and sunny weather show a higher temperature by 2 degrees compared to Apogee TS100 and Davis FARS24H. It can be shocking that during the coldest season the Barani dial at low sun angle can generate such a large error and it happens more often than in summer.

Then I spoke with friends from the state meteorological service and showed charts from colleagues and they decided that such an error is unacceptable when measuring temperature.

I also noticed that the Barani responds slightly faster during the passage of storm fronts relative to the Davis FARS24H. By about 0.2/0.3 deg.C at the passage of storm fronts. Apogee after testing colleagues is faster than Ms Pro III and Davis FARS24H among others in such conditions. Stevenson's cage will respond much later.
Ecowitt WS90 1.3.8, WS80 1.2.5, Ecowitt WS68, Ecowitt WH31EP/WH32EP, WH40, WH57, WN34L, WH51, WN34D, HP2560_C, HP2550_C, GW1100, GW2000. Davis Vantage Pro 2, Davis Vue, Davis 6313, Hongyuv WDS2E

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H

Offline Jasper3012

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #257 on: June 17, 2024, 01:33:27 PM »
Happy to be proven wrong, but Iím pretty sure even in Poland there wonít be a significant overestimation for weeks on end. Maybe somewhere in Siberia, but not Poland.

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #258 on: June 17, 2024, 02:29:32 PM »
It all depends on the atmospheric circulation and the number of days with anticyclone. Last autumn and winter in some regions of my country Barani showed too high for about 10-20 days in the maxima. It was especially bad with the influx of continental and Arctic air masses and sunny weather with weak winds. And when it snowed on top of that, all the plastic shields knelt down and showed a strongly incorrect temperature in relation to the WMO cages and active shields. High albedo in snowy weather doesn't serve passive shields either, and when this is compounded by weak winds, we have a massacre. Barani then fared little better than competing passive radiation shields.
Ecowitt WS90 1.3.8, WS80 1.2.5, Ecowitt WS68, Ecowitt WH31EP/WH32EP, WH40, WH57, WN34L, WH51, WN34D, HP2560_C, HP2550_C, GW1100, GW2000. Davis Vantage Pro 2, Davis Vue, Davis 6313, Hongyuv WDS2E

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #259 on: June 21, 2024, 03:37:24 PM »
A hot summer afternoon and the wind speed drops to about 1 m/s in gusts. The Barani Gen III overheated at this point by 0.8 degrees to the Davis FARS24H on SHT35. This is what it looks like on SHT35. I will confirm this further on the calibrated PT1000s in two shields.

A PT1000 is operating simultaneously with the SHT35 in each of the shields. The Barani Gen III overheated by 0.7 degrees C in the afternoon in light winds on sensors PT1000.

PT1000 Davis FARS24H, June 21, 2024: 16:45:00 - 27.77 deg C

Barani on PT1000: 21 Jun 2024 16:45:00 - 28.44 deg.C
« Last Edit: June 21, 2024, 04:02:13 PM by Meteorology fan »
Ecowitt WS90 1.3.8, WS80 1.2.5, Ecowitt WS68, Ecowitt WH31EP/WH32EP, WH40, WH57, WN34L, WH51, WN34D, HP2560_C, HP2550_C, GW1100, GW2000. Davis Vantage Pro 2, Davis Vue, Davis 6313, Hongyuv WDS2E

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H

Offline Jasper3012

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #260 on: June 21, 2024, 06:05:52 PM »
That's pretty significant but at the same time very insignificant if it's actually cooler than the Davis with the max 95% of the time... One day of overheating won't do much to the measured long term averages.

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #261 on: June 22, 2024, 01:50:41 AM »
Jasper3012 - this is not quite true. Two days earlier the Barani Gen III overheated again during the summer weather. SHT35 snapshot below, I confirmed it on PT1000 4-wire. Remember that in the case of Barani, the lower temperature is not always true. I think there will be more such periods with significant overheating this summer, and it will depend on wind speed and sunshine strength. At the time of yesterday's overheating, there were gusts of about 1 m/s, but what if there had been total calm, Gen III would have overheated by up to 1.5-2.0 degrees. Note that the situation yesterday and two days ago projects not only the instantaneous measurements, but also the maximum measured values. It happens in the afternoon, when it knocks out the daily peaks around 3 - 4 pm in my climate. The sun goes lower and lower and warms the largest area of the cover, which correlates with the weak wind.

The results from a few days ago, when the Barani fell again. In addition, the side radiation and weak wind did not serve him in the evening. It overheated steadily by about 0.5, sometimes 0.7 degrees during this time.

This shield needs a strong flow, otherwise it gets a stagnation of warm air and no helix will help here, when the wind oscillates around 0.5 m/s - 2 m/s and we have strong sunshine and unfavorable sun angle. Then it becomes a toy at Apogee TS100 and Davis FARS24H.
Ecowitt WS90 1.3.8, WS80 1.2.5, Ecowitt WS68, Ecowitt WH31EP/WH32EP, WH40, WH57, WN34L, WH51, WN34D, HP2560_C, HP2550_C, GW1100, GW2000. Davis Vantage Pro 2, Davis Vue, Davis 6313, Hongyuv WDS2E

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H

Offline Jasper3012

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #262 on: June 22, 2024, 02:16:21 AM »
The lower temperature in the Barani is, beside maybe 0.1-0.2C, true and Iíve explained why about a thousand times nowÖ And Iím not sure whatís not true about my statement? If you look at 1 month for example, if you have 28 days where the Barani is 0.2C cooler and then 2 days where itís 0.5C warmer, the Barani will still have a lower mean max if you simply do the mathsÖ I havenít updated my sheet in a while but if I suddenly added 2 days where the Barani is 0.5C warmer, it wonít undo the 30+ days where the Barani averaged 0.28C cooler. For the effect you describe to have an actual impact on climate stats, this would need to occur over multiple days to even weeks and this is simply not going to happen in our climate, maybe slightly more where you live but still not significantly so.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2024, 02:21:04 AM by Jasper3012 »

Offline hmderek

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
    • Meteodrenthe
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #263 on: June 22, 2024, 03:00:20 AM »
I constantly see comparisons between active and passive shields. Surely important, but shouldnít the more interesting comparison be between passive shields? All passive shields overheat. My Baranis consistently do so below 0.5 m/s in high sun, but this is no surprise. The question is how it then compares with other passives, and the Barani does very well in that battle. At least in my location.
Davis VP2
Davis WeatherLink
Sensirion SHT35
PT100
NTC Thermistors
DS18B20
Apogee Instruments TS-100
Barani Meteoshield Pro
Davis 7714
MetSpec RAD14
Davis AirLink
Wemos D1 Mini micro controllers
https://blog.meteodrenthe.nl
https://meteodrenthe.nl
https://twitter.com/meteodrenthe

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #264 on: June 22, 2024, 03:06:14 AM »
This is important, because on the active we will find out when the covers overheat without active ventilation. For me, it's a comparison and I know when what's happening. I will not give up the passive and leave the active alone because of the risk of failure of the fan, for example.

Apogee TS100 also in windy conditions can show a higher temperature than even Davis FARS24H. This may even be due to the response time. In windless conditions, the Apogee TS100 can be cooler than the Davis FARS by 0.1/0.2 degrees relative to the TS100, as colleagues have already verified. Then the passives are overheated by 1-1.5 degrees.

I am interested in the actual or close air temperature. And not the shield temperature, but the air temperature in equilibrium with the outside temperature. In my valley often flow problems and Barani extremely often overheats. In the Belgian and Dutch climates, there may be fewer such days, due to higher wind speeds.

The worst thing about the Barani Meteoshield Pro III is that it shines from the side and overestimates by up to 1-1.5 degrees when the wind blows weakly around 1 m/s. This is a serious flaw in this shield that J. Barani does not talk about. We checked and the WMO Screnn does not suffer from it. Apogee TS100 doesn't either, and the same for Davis FARS24H.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2024, 03:09:01 AM by Meteorology fan »
Ecowitt WS90 1.3.8, WS80 1.2.5, Ecowitt WS68, Ecowitt WH31EP/WH32EP, WH40, WH57, WN34L, WH51, WN34D, HP2560_C, HP2550_C, GW1100, GW2000. Davis Vantage Pro 2, Davis Vue, Davis 6313, Hongyuv WDS2E

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H

Offline hmderek

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
    • Meteodrenthe
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #265 on: June 22, 2024, 03:24:37 AM »
Have you considered scenarios where the actives may be overcooling? Nice to have more than 1 active by the way. Still considering getting an RM young.

Sure want want the theoretical ďrealĒ air  temperature, but all shields are going to give you a wrong picture at some point or other. So the question should be how good or bad the shield is, not if it overheats under certain circumstances. The Barani can overheat, but as far as passive shields go none of mine have performed better than the Barani.

Having more issues recently with my TS100 than the passives by the way. All the rain and humidity is really hurting it (that is the PT100s inside) combined with strong evaporation when the June sun comes out.
Davis VP2
Davis WeatherLink
Sensirion SHT35
PT100
NTC Thermistors
DS18B20
Apogee Instruments TS-100
Barani Meteoshield Pro
Davis 7714
MetSpec RAD14
Davis AirLink
Wemos D1 Mini micro controllers
https://blog.meteodrenthe.nl
https://meteodrenthe.nl
https://twitter.com/meteodrenthe

Offline Jasper3012

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #266 on: June 22, 2024, 03:25:37 AM »
Iím honestly just going to stop replying to you @Meteorology fan, you repeat the same points over and over and over again and you just straight up ignore any input from others. Like Iíve explained a thousand times why response time isnít the only explanation for the FARS overheating like 0.3-0.5C compared to the Barani and yet you repeat that same narrative over and over again, itís like talking to a brick wallÖ You have made all your arguments very clear and I accept them, we just disagree on how significant they are. I just look at the stats and I see that the periodic error on the Barani has zero effect on the long term averages where I live, so for me, itís not a dealbreaker by any means. For you, it is and thatís fine.

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #267 on: June 22, 2024, 03:42:28 AM »
For me, Barani is no indicator of accuracy in all conditions. What J. Barani is pushing as the successor to the Stevenson cage is not true, that it is the most accurate in all conditions, because it is not. I have it as a comparison and most of the time it coincides with the ventilated one.

The Apogee TS100 is more susceptible to humidity than the Davis FARS24H. This we know from tests in the country.
Ecowitt WS90 1.3.8, WS80 1.2.5, Ecowitt WS68, Ecowitt WH31EP/WH32EP, WH40, WH57, WN34L, WH51, WN34D, HP2560_C, HP2550_C, GW1100, GW2000. Davis Vantage Pro 2, Davis Vue, Davis 6313, Hongyuv WDS2E

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H

Offline mauro63

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #268 on: June 23, 2024, 04:20:02 AM »
They are extremely rare, this is a very difficult field, personally I have been passionate about it for decades, but I have not yet managed, perhaps due to inability, to understand which of my instruments is giving me the real temperature of the air passing through it, so I am not one of those select few, who I said are extremely rare, who know the truth.

Unfortunately I limit myself to silly assessments on the radiative error, concentrating in the time slot from 12pm to 6pm when, on summer days, the maximum temperature has already been reached and remains more or less stable in the following hours, the solar radiation has presumably already reached its maximum level and I try to understand something about it, they are not the ideal adiabatic conditions but they are the least turbulent ones.

 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

Outside that range, the differences in time constants, in the timing of the detection systems, in the different behaviors with respect to the variation of heat exchanges, make it impossible for me to be part of the selects.

M.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2024, 04:22:43 AM by mauro63 »

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #269 on: June 23, 2024, 05:56:48 AM »
Yesterday I had stormy and dynamic weather. The Barani Gen III showed 0.3 deg.C more against the Davis FARS24H. I checked the wind and at the moment of overheating at about 10m there were 5.4 km/h gusts, while the average wind speed was around 1 km/h. At the very ground, where I have covers, the wind could have been even weaker.

I checked two independent sensors. The Sensirion SHT35 overlapped with the calibrated PT1000 4-wire, and I know that an overheating of 0.3 deg.C relative to the active one occurred.

The phenomenon of overheating of the passive shields is not uncommon, including during summer, humid and stormy weather, when there will be more sun in the first half of the day.
Ecowitt WS90 1.3.8, WS80 1.2.5, Ecowitt WS68, Ecowitt WH31EP/WH32EP, WH40, WH57, WN34L, WH51, WN34D, HP2560_C, HP2550_C, GW1100, GW2000. Davis Vantage Pro 2, Davis Vue, Davis 6313, Hongyuv WDS2E

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H

Offline Jasper3012

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #270 on: June 23, 2024, 10:29:31 AM »
The Davis overheats by 0.3C pretty much every single day here, in fact today itís 0.6C warmer with the max than the Barani! The average difference during the time interval that the 0.6C occurred was only 0.3C, so probably 0.3C of the 0.6C was an error and the other 0.3C due to a better response time.

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #271 on: June 23, 2024, 11:29:00 AM »
How can you be sure it's definitely overheating? On windy days, Apogee and Davis FARS24H can show higher than passive shielding and this we have tested with colleagues in Poland for many months, also having high-end PT100 and PT1000 resistive sensors. Today I have a windy day and it is blowing from the northwest. Davis FARS shows a higher max of 0.4/0.5 deg.C, while Barani is cooler. Remember that the lower temperature is not always true.

It's hard for me to explain why this happens. At my place, usually Barani Gen III has lower than active, when there is a moderate/strong wind, what's more, the wind is from the side not heated by the sun, which can walk on solar days cover. This is hard to explain. When the wind is not there, the Barani stands out strongly from the Davis FARS24H on a sunny day.
Ecowitt WS90 1.3.8, WS80 1.2.5, Ecowitt WS68, Ecowitt WH31EP/WH32EP, WH40, WH57, WN34L, WH51, WN34D, HP2560_C, HP2550_C, GW1100, GW2000. Davis Vantage Pro 2, Davis Vue, Davis 6313, Hongyuv WDS2E

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H

Offline Jasper3012

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #272 on: June 23, 2024, 02:20:13 PM »
If there was no overheating vs the Barani and the only reason for the higher max on FARS would be a better response time, then you would in fact see a higher max but the average temp would be identical to the Barani, since the min would be cooler due to the quicker response time and that would cancel out the higher max. What Iím actually seeing during sunny afternoon weather is a higher min, max and avg temp than on the Barani, which is indicative of overheating. It also doesnít make sense to me that you are claiming that the Barani is 0.4-0.5C too cool during windy weather. Shouldnít strong wind cause the error on passive shields to decrease to near zero and the response time to match that of an actively ventilated shield? The error on the Barani is near zero with strong wind and high angle sunshine so if the FARS is running 0.5C warmer in such conditions, then Iíd be quite confident in saying the 0.5C represents an error on the FARS, instead of the opposite. A potential reason for errors on shields with active ventilation during strong wind is that the wind disrupts the airflow generated by the fan and therefore harming/nullifying the typical benefit of active ventilation.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2024, 02:22:50 PM by Jasper3012 »

Offline mauro63

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #273 on: June 23, 2024, 04:01:59 PM »
 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]  [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

Davis Pro is 24h fars version  ;)

M.

Offline Jasper3012

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #274 on: June 23, 2024, 04:18:04 PM »
That's showing the difference between MS Pro and Davis FARS 24/7? In the meantime, a very calm and clear evening here with a sharp temperature drop and the FARS responded much more quickly, as much as 0.8C colder at some point. This didn't last long but still, further confirmation that the response time on the FARS is much quicker during light wind and with the sun down. This is actually the third time I've observed this much sharper temp drop in the FARS compared to the Barani, whilst I've only observed that low angle solar radiation error on the Barani just once. This is probably because the wind speed is generally much weaker once the sun is down/at night and so that's when the active ventilation plays a bigger role. By day, it is generally quite windy here and the benefit is non-existent, the opposite even.

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

 

anything