Author Topic: Barani: too good to be true...  (Read 116062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mauro63

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #475 on: September 30, 2024, 03:47:07 PM »
SmartCellino shield is underway and confirmed to be arriving this Wednesday. There’ll be some calm and clear nights later in the week so that’ll be a good first test for it, to see how it performs during quickly cooling temps. I suspect it will be slightly faster to react than the Barani, due to its smaller size. I’ll probably start a new thread for this new comparison.

Thanks Jasper and, on behalf of the Company, I apologize for the delays in the shipping phase, unfortunately the Vienna Fair has diverted part of the commercial and slowed down the times, I understand that it is not an acceptable excuse but I owed you anyway.

Let me know if and when you open the post, I am happy to follow it and bring my modest contribution and analyze your data together.

Thanks

M.

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #476 on: October 01, 2024, 03:07:08 AM »
@mauro63 - At what price can you be SmartCellino? Colleagues in Poland are asking because they are interested to compare with the Barani Meteoshield Pro III?
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

PT1000 4-wire - Termio 2 (3x)

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H, Apogee TS100

Offline mauro63

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #477 on: October 01, 2024, 03:56:31 AM »
@mauro63 - At what price can you be SmartCellino? Colleagues in Poland are asking because they are interested to compare with the Barani Meteoshield Pro III?

Hi, this post is specific to the Pro, so I would avoid
If there are interested users they can write to me privately or we wait for the specific post to be opened

I remind you that I have no commercial interests, I collaborate with Siap+Micros in the testing phases and in the choice of supplies, Siap+Micros does not sell to private individuals outside of the agreements made with me.

mauro.serenello@meteonetwork.it

M.

Offline Jasper3012

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #478 on: October 01, 2024, 11:42:09 AM »
SmartCellino shield is underway and confirmed to be arriving this Wednesday. There’ll be some calm and clear nights later in the week so that’ll be a good first test for it, to see how it performs during quickly cooling temps. I suspect it will be slightly faster to react than the Barani, due to its smaller size. I’ll probably start a new thread for this new comparison.

Thanks Jasper and, on behalf of the Company, I apologize for the delays in the shipping phase, unfortunately the Vienna Fair has diverted part of the commercial and slowed down the times, I understand that it is not an acceptable excuse but I owed you anyway.

Let me know if and when you open the post, I am happy to follow it and bring my modest contribution and analyze your data together.

Thanks

M.

No big deal!

Offline Jasper3012

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #479 on: October 03, 2024, 02:01:30 AM »
Apparently it’s been delayed by another 5 days… Hopefully the shield performs better than the company’s communication and delivery times!

Offline mauro63

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #480 on: October 03, 2024, 08:32:28 AM »
Apparently it’s been delayed by another 5 days… Hopefully the shield performs better than the company’s communication and delivery times!

Siap+Micros shipped regularly although late, for which I have already apologized.

The further delay is due to courier problems, which are independent of Siap+Micros, this for fairness.

M.

Offline Jasper3012

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #481 on: October 03, 2024, 08:37:09 AM »
Apparently it’s been delayed by another 5 days… Hopefully the shield performs better than the company’s communication and delivery times!

Siap+Micros shipped regularly although late, for which I have already apologized.

The further delay is due to courier problems, which are independent of Siap+Micros, this for fairness.

M.

Yes, this is correct, although maybe they could have  let me know the package wasn't going to arrive on time a little earlier, but it's no big deal. Looking forward to starting the testing next week!

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #482 on: October 09, 2024, 01:23:22 AM »
Davis FARS24H - 20.11℃.
Barani Meteoshield Pro - 20.17℃ on calibrated PT1000s
SHT35 similarly without filters  - Davis FARS24H - 20.1℃, while Barani Meteoshield Pro III - 20.2℃.

Note how much error in air temperature measurement generated Barani Meteoshield Pro III until around 1:00 pm local time, October 8, 2024 wind speed is expressed in km/h.
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

PT1000 4-wire - Termio 2 (3x)

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H, Apogee TS100

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #483 on: October 13, 2024, 03:31:50 AM »

The Apogee TS100 also arrived a few days ago, which I will set up for a long-term comparison with the Barani Meteoshield Pro III and Davis FARS24H at one altitude in a sunny location. I'll be using it with the Ecowitt WH31EP kit below, which I'll strip of the company's plastic filter and add a Termio 2 with a 2m cable length PT1000 calibrated probe.

I have already sourced a voltage regulator for the Apogee TS100 so that I can control the speed of rotation, but I am also waiting for a 12V power supply and a cable of several tens of metres for power and a bracket to mount it on the mast.


The measuring devices to be used on the Apogee TS100 will be analogous to the Davis FARS24H and Barani Meteoshield Pro III.

https://shop.ecowitt.com/collections/thermometer-probe-sensor/products/wh31_ep

https://termoprodukt.co.uk/Precise-temperature-data-logger-Termio-2

https://termoprodukt.co.uk/soft

Here are some more interesting graphs from the PT1000 4-wire and Sensirion SHT35, 10 October 2024.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2024, 03:35:19 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

PT1000 4-wire - Termio 2 (3x)

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H, Apogee TS100

Offline mauro63

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #484 on: October 13, 2024, 03:36:16 AM »
Very well, maybe, when you can, also attach an image of the installation

M.

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #485 on: October 13, 2024, 04:04:02 AM »
I have also noticed such a correlation that as the sun is now much lower than in August and September above the horizon, this results in a longer overestimation of the measured air temperature in the Barani Meteoshield Pro III vs Davis FARS24H, even though it is windy and not quiet. Can Barani overestimate the measured air temperature for most of the day, even up to 12-13 local time. I will still check this thread with the Apogee TS100 to see if it will overlap on different sensors with the Davis FARS24H, but it seems to me that this is the most serious flaw of the Barani and the Stevenson WMO Screnn does not suffer from this due to its design.
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

PT1000 4-wire - Termio 2 (3x)

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H, Apogee TS100

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #486 on: October 13, 2024, 09:02:10 AM »
I stripped the Sensirion SHT35 of its corporate filter. Its response time should be similar to the PT1000 4-wire for the Termio 2 logger. I am now waiting for the 12V power supply and the cable for the constant power supply to arrive to the Apogee TS100. I think I should be able to do the first comparisons of Barani Meteoshield Pro III vs Davis FARS24H next week.

Barani and Davis similarly have the filters removed on the Sensiron SHT35 and these are bare sensors with no filters. The analogy is now on the Apogee TS100 so that it is comparable in terms of the hardware layer. The PT1000 serves as a comparison, having better accuracy and response time than the SHT35/45.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2024, 09:10:27 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

PT1000 4-wire - Termio 2 (3x)

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H, Apogee TS100

Offline Jasper3012

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #487 on: October 13, 2024, 12:19:10 PM »
I don’t think testing with these Ecowitt sensors is optimal, to be honest. WMO recommends 1-10 min averaged temp as the norm, whereas these Ecowitt sensors report instantaneous values.

Offline tobyportugal

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #488 on: October 13, 2024, 03:36:47 PM »
I don’t think testing with these Ecowitt sensors is optimal, to be honest. WMO recommends 1-10 min averaged temp as the norm, whereas these Ecowitt sensors report instantaneous values.

If we're talking WMO standard you're disqualified like everyone else here.
I'm often critical of EPs, and this has led to some "hard" discussions with Italians.
That doesn't stop me from recommending it for my Belgian project.
But in the final analysis, it's not the measurement interval that's important but the way the measurements are used.
It's like in maths or accounting, the numbers aren't important, it's what you do with them that's important.
Do you think that MF, IRM, IPMA test equipment under WMO standards with their 10-minute readings?
No, and this was confirmed to me by a guy from IPMA following a discussion about my data.
Clearly, a well-mounted EP is much better than a pseudo-certified PT mounted at 30°!
Are you sure your sensor is consistent? Is your power supply sufficiently stabilised for all climatic situations?
Why do brands like Barani, Siapp, Metspec entrust equipment knowing 100% that the sensors are not "WMO"?

Offline Jasper3012

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #489 on: October 13, 2024, 04:45:30 PM »
Why would I be disqualified? I don't know enough about established standards to know but I do know the 1-10 min average "rule". Genuinely curious to know and to see whether I can do anything to improve my setup.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2024, 04:47:47 PM by Jasper3012 »

Offline mauro63

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #490 on: October 13, 2024, 05:05:20 PM »
Why would I be disqualified? I don't know enough about established standards to know but I do know the 1-10 min average "rule". Genuinely curious to know and to see whether I can do anything to improve my setup.

I think you don't have to worry, your approach is correct and there is nothing else you need to do.

Some recent positions by WMO, in this field, have generated perplexity on the part of the most advanced amateur community, to the point that many believe that there is a need to review many aspects, both from the technical side and from the purely operational one.

Some continue, insistently not to take into account important aspects that should put us on guard, at all levels, even if you had reference sensors, they are only a miserable part of the problem.

Certification, calibration carried out at an accredited metrological institute, compliance with the times in periodic checks etc. do not give any added value to your measurements, except the recognition of the data, given that we know perfectly well that it is valid even in the absence of such certifications.

The measurement uncertainties, introduced by the installation, and the disturbances that it can generate, have a frighteningly greater impact than a lack of certification of your sensors, proceed as you have done up to now.

This does not mean that, if you are driven by a great passion, you must never lack the will to improve yourself and your data, within the limits that each one must not reasonably exceed.

M.

Offline mauro63

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #491 on: October 13, 2024, 05:22:53 PM »
and for the rest I continue to insist that, in the absence of images showing the installations that perform comparison tests, the conditions in which the sensors operate, their heights inside the screens etc, their data, comments and opinions are totally useless and not worthy of note

M.

Offline Jasper3012

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #492 on: October 14, 2024, 01:38:24 AM »
Just asked @gvdb1111, the person that made the sensor, and he says I’d only be DQ’d because of the certificate, nothing else. The sensors have been calibrated and are of excellent quality according to him (an electromechanical engineer and degreed meteorologist).

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #493 on: October 14, 2024, 03:23:37 AM »
As for the Ecowitt WH31EP/WH32EP for me it's just a remote view to know if it's worth using the PT1000 for comparison. I can set up averaging of 1 minute and 10 minute data on resistance thermometers, but I generally take the maximum values from 1 minute as this better illustrates the ventilation problems in the Barani Meteoshield Pro III.

You'd be surprised how close the PT1000 is to the results from the Sensiron SHT35 without filters. The minimum values agree to 0.1 deg.C relative to the SHT35. The maxima do not deviate more than 0.1/0.2 deg.C, and often overlap.

The PT1000 from Thermoproduct, is not a toy, as each of their sensors is calibrated and the reference is PT100 grade A. And for validation and the differences are negligible even against the PT1000 class and PT100 class A. It is generally a much more accurate and sensitive device than the Sensirion SHT35/45 without filters:

https://termoprodukt.co.uk/Precise-temperature-data-logger-Termio-2

Questioning the accuracy of the PT1000 also shows that someone has not had any exposure to these sensors. Thermoproduct also send their thermometers to the PCA laboratory and they find that they are within the range indicated by the manufacturer at many measurement points.

More broadly how they calibrate their thermometers they:

https://termoprodukt.com.pl/laboratorium
« Last Edit: October 14, 2024, 03:29:01 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

PT1000 4-wire - Termio 2 (3x)

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H, Apogee TS100

Offline ypsinine

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • mockfjardvader.se
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #494 on: October 14, 2024, 04:00:38 AM »
You'd be surprised how close the PT1000 is to the results from the Sensiron SHT35 without filters. The minimum values agree to 0.1 deg.C relative to the SHT35. The maxima do not deviate more than 0.1/0.2 deg.C, and often overlap.
I have the WH32EP.

How hard is it to remove the plastic filter? And can the probe be damaged without a filter when inside the Barani? Do you have any pictures of the WH32EP/WH31EP without this plastic filter on?

Thanks.

Offline mauro63

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #495 on: October 14, 2024, 04:10:39 AM »
You'd be surprised how close the PT1000 is to the results from the Sensiron SHT35 without filters. The minimum values agree to 0.1 deg.C relative to the SHT35. The maxima do not deviate more than 0.1/0.2 deg.C, and often overlap.
I have the WH32EP.

How hard is it to remove the plastic filter? And can the probe be damaged without a filter when inside the Barani? Do you have any pictures of the WH32EP/WH31EP without this plastic filter on?

Thanks.

In this image you can see, from the right, the original ep, in the center the ep with the rotronic sintered steel capsule, on the left the ep with the original capsule but without any protective filter

 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

M.

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #496 on: October 14, 2024, 04:18:48 AM »
@ypsinine - It's better to remove the filters completely from the Ecowitt WH31EP/WH32EP. Colleagues in Poland have been using SHT35 without filters in Apogee, Davis FARS24H, Barani for almost 2 years and the sensors are still working fine in these covers. The response time without the filter is heaven and earth.

In your climate it is also worth thinking about a comparison shield to the Barani Meteoshield Pro III. I think it may generate more frequent radiation errors in yours, comparing to WMO Screnn Stevenson and Davis FARS24H. There will also be a faster response to FARS at night relative to the passive Barani shield.

We checked in the cold mid-year and in snowy weather the Barani Gen III shield generated significant radiation errors compared to the full-size Stevenson Screnn. The test with the WMO Screnn. coincided with the Apogee TS100 and Davis FARS24H. The Barani showed higher values by up to 1.5-2 degrees in sunny weather, snow and little wind (high-pressure weather relative to the WMO Screnn). The climate here is different from that of Italy and Portugal, hence such shortcomings of the Barani, which the manufacturer does not want to mention anywhere and hides them scrupulously, but good WMO Screnn and active shields expose them.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2024, 04:27:10 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

PT1000 4-wire - Termio 2 (3x)

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H, Apogee TS100

Offline ypsinine

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • mockfjardvader.se
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #497 on: October 14, 2024, 04:30:08 AM »
In this image you can see, from the right, the original ep, in the center the ep with the rotronic sintered steel capsule, on the left the ep with the original capsule but without any protective filter

M.
Aha, now I understand, thank you (and bianco)! So there is a capsule with a separate filter inside it.
I thought the whole plastic part (capsule) was the filter.

I assume the behavior of the sensor changes without a filter (for example, faster response time).

@ypsinine - It's better to remove the filters completely from the Ecowitt WH31EP/WH32EP. Colleagues in Poland have been using SHT35 without filters in Apogee, Davis FARS24H, Barani for almost 2 years and the sensors are still working fine in these covers. The response time without the filter is heaven and earth.
Great information, thank you!

In your climate it is also worth thinking about a comparison shield to the Barani Meteoshield Pro III. I think it may generate more frequent radiation errors in yours, comparing to WMO Screnn Stevenson and Davis FARS24H. There will also be a faster response to FARS at night relative to the passive Barani shield.

We checked in the cold mid-year and in snowy weather the Barani Gen III shield generated significant radiation errors compared to the full-size Stevenson Screnn. The test with the WMO Screnn. coincided with the Apogee TS100 and Davis FARS24H. The Barani showed higher values by up to 1.5-2 degrees in sunny weather, snow and little wind (higher weather relative to the WMO Screnn). The climate here is different from that of Italy and Portugal, hence such shortcomings of the Barani, which the manufacturer does not want to mention anywhere and hides them scrupulously, but good WMO Screnn and active shields expose them.
Yes I am now considering getting another radiation shield. I have been thinking about a proper Stevenson screen because as you say my location (low wind, cold climate, lot of low sun) it may be a better choice than a smaller radiation shield. But I have a hard time finding sellers here in Sweden. I could of course order from somewhere in EU but my knowledge of Stevenson screens are very limited.

Edit: Davis FARS is also a good choice perhaps.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2024, 04:43:05 AM by ypsinine »

Offline Meteorology fan

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #498 on: October 14, 2024, 04:42:19 AM »
@ypsinine - Stevenson's Screnn (e.g. Metspec) would not be so bad). However, I think a better and cheaper choice would be the Davis FARS24H in your climate. It is easy to get a constant power supply, allowing for constant air exchange and no interruptions to the windmill, even when the sun is scarce or missing and does not reach the PV panel.

I bought my Davis FARS24H from here, you just need to provide a mount or buy a kit with a mount, links below: https://www.wetterladen.de/bestrahlungsschutzschild-6831-mit-24-stunden-aktivbelueftung?c=1140

https://www.wetterladen.de/Davis-6832-Temperatur-Feuchtesensor-mit-24-Stunden-Aktivbelueftung

This shop ships to all European countries by courier within 1-2 working days.

The important thing is that with the Davis FARS24H there will be a faster capture of air temperature change than with the WMO passive Screnn and Barani Gen III shield, which suffers at low sun angles. The Davis 24H does not suffer from this because it sucks air in from below.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2024, 04:52:44 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

PT1000 4-wire - Termio 2 (3x)

Barani Meteoshield Pro II, III, Davis FARS 24H, Apogee TS100

Offline tobyportugal

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
Re: Barani: too good to be true...
« Reply #499 on: October 14, 2024, 07:42:13 AM »
I've been making sensors for some time now, even for VP2s.
If you want to modify EPs, you have to do it completely.
This opens the door to cleanly made dual sensors. To multi-purpose assemblies for 'all' shelters.
The disadvantage of an assembly without a filter is a faster risk of breakdown.
I've noticed that a SHT on a FARS has a shorter lifespan. It's a stupid idea to want to mount a SHT on a TS.
The SF2 solution is impractical if the PCB is not designed for it.
I think I'll soon be able to see the advantages of the 2 solutions.

https://www.meteopt.com/forum/anexos/1672291489977-png.3701/
https://filedn.com/lxtJY18lcdpH0L6MOjBnGBF/20230207_092222.jpg
https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZiHHc0ZC5v0SsfrWQp4deHHu0dthkotyHHk
https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZomHc0ZG5fEjYyEkHhDP8Mtd7J8FhFhgCPV
https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZITDeVZqmg1VmjRR4j96MX1HE2rVYCd7mYy

 

anything