Show simple item record

contributor authorMichalsky, Joseph
contributor authorDutton, Ellsworth G.
contributor authorNelson, Donald
contributor authorWendell, James
contributor authorWilcox, Stephen
contributor authorAndreas, Afshin
contributor authorGotseff, Peter
contributor authorMyers, Daryl
contributor authorReda, Ibrahim
contributor authorStoffel, Thomas
contributor authorBehrens, Klaus
contributor authorCarlund, Thomas
contributor authorFinsterle, Wolfgang
contributor authorHalliwell, David
date accessioned2017-06-09T16:37:27Z
date available2017-06-09T16:37:27Z
date copyright2011/06/01
date issued2011
identifier issn0739-0572
identifier otherams-71141.pdf
identifier urihttp://onlinelibrary.yabesh.ir/handle/yetl/4213000
description abstractn the most comprehensive pyrheliometer comparison known to date, 33 instruments were deployed to measure direct normal solar radiation over a 10-month period in Golden, Colorado. The goal was to determine their performance relative to four electrical-substitution cavity radiometers that were calibrated against the World Radiometric Reference (WRR) that is maintained at the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland. Because of intermittent cabling problems with one of the cavity radiometers, the average of three windowed, electrical-substitution cavity radiometers served as the reference irradiance for 29 test instruments during the 10-month study. To keep the size of this work manageable, comparisons are limited to stable sunny conditions, passing clouds, calm and windy conditions, and hot and cold temperatures. Other variables could have been analyzed, or the conditions analyzed could have employed higher resolution. A more complete study should be possible now that the instruments are identified; note that this analysis was performed without any knowledge on the part of the analyst of the instruments? manufacturers or models. Apart from the windowed cavities that provided the best measurements, two categories of performance emerged during the comparison. All instruments exceeded expectations in that they measured with lower uncertainties than the manufacturers? own specifications. Operational 95% uncertainties for the three classes of instruments, which include the uncertainties of the open cavities used for calibration, were about 0.5%, 0.8%, and 1.4%. The open cavities that were used for calibration of all pyrheliometers have an estimated 95% uncertainty of 0.4%?0.45%, which includes the conservative estimate of 0.3% uncertainty for the WRR.
publisherAmerican Meteorological Society
titleAn Extensive Comparison of Commercial Pyrheliometers under a Wide Range of Routine Observing Conditions
typeJournal Paper
journal volume28
journal issue6
journal titleJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
identifier doi10.1175/2010JTECHA1518.1
journal fristpage752
journal lastpage766
treeJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology:;2011:;volume( 028 ):;issue: 006
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record