I repeat; in a test, what is the point of equalling the time constant when that is part of the very thing you are trying to research? If I’m comparing an active vs a passive, what would the point be in sticking a giant and slow sensor in the active and a tiny one in the passive (to equal the time constant), to then find no differences, exactly because the time constant is identical? Because that’s generally what you’re going to find then, if you’re comparing high end shields with otherwise very little flaws to influence the outcome. I want to be able to see how much faster the active is, due to the low time constant.
I can see why you’d want to equal the time constant in certain tests, for example when you’re trying to judge a potential radiation error, but other times, it makes no sense at all.
then we'll assume that you've installed your shelters at a minimum of 2 m apart, because even without the shadows, this reduces the horizontal gradient of T, which is useful for comparisons, even if in class 1, the difference is no more than 0.2° between 1.5 m and 2 m, but here for my class 4 it's more like 0. 5° often for Tx, so there's no question of cast shadows and we all agree that the important thing when testing shelters is to be able to catch the sun on the shelter and on the ground under all the shelters at the same time, especially when there's 200 to 300W/m2 under clear skies in the morning and evening (especially without wind in the morning) for the passive ones, so the solar height needs to be checked against the obstacles and shadows on the ground under the shelters, so as not to miss this problem power zone:
to analyse the snapshots with the obstacles concerned for the shadows on the ground, do you filter your data 30 minutes after a pyrano 2 m away is touched by the sun in the morning and 30 minutes before the pyrano is no longer concerned in the evening, so as to be sure that the ground is sunny for all the shelters in the park (I say that because for my class 4, there's not even any point in talking about it here, lol).
the average OMM Tmoy/1mn of the 60s/1m/s probe + mechanical ventilation to obtain an effective constant of 20s at all times under 9 m/s, will not give the same result as a 20s/1 m/s probe placed in the same shelter under 9 m/s, despite also being average/1mn.
Smoothing out the value of an Apogee's 20s/1m/s sensor by 1 minute will not often enough make it comparable with the instantaneous T of a Stevenson or a Barani (smoothing out the values of these passive sensors by 1 minute aggravates the problem), especially as the ground is hot and dry and the solar radiation is strong (and the latitude is low), and there is a little wind, but enough to encourage very localised convection, but not too much so as not to stir up the air too much (when the wind is really almost nil, even on a sonic anemometer, it's easy to see that with dry natural soil, at 60-80°, like a mecha shelter, it's still cold compared to a passive at these times)... .
We're going to end this sterile debate
1. because it makes no sense at OUR level
2. especially as the more ‘I meet leaders, the more I realise that there isn't just one Pope, or that he's not the only infallible one’
