Radiometers And Evaluation Of A Model To Predict Net Radiation
Comparison of Two New NetRadiometers and Evaluation of aModel to Predict Net RadiationMark BlonquistBert TannerBruce Bugbee
Energy Balance:Rn lE H GRadiation Balance:Rn (SWi – SWo) (LWi – LWo)
ManufacturerModelCost [ ]ReplicatesOutputKipp & ZonenCNR 161952SWi, SWo, LWi, LWoHuksefluxNR0142003SWi, SWo, LWi, LWoKipp & ZonenCNR 226003SWn, LWnKipp & ZonenNR-Lite16303RnREBSQ*7.112503Rn
Radiometers were cleaned and leveled following each irrigation (approximately every two days).Data during and following irrigation events (previous to cleaning and re-leveling) was filteredout.
K & Z CM11calibrated atNREL June2007.
K & Z CM11calibrated atNREL June2007.
Blue K & Z CNR 1Black HF NR01Red HF NR01Green HF NR01Sent back to Huksefluxfor calibration check.Sent back to Huksefluxfor calibration check.
No standard for Rnmeasurement; referencefor comparison isaverage of CSI CNR 1, 3NR01s, and 3 CNR 2s.Offsetting error atnight; indicates lessersensitivity to longwave.
ModelMeanSlopeSt. Dev.SlopeNR010.9950.047CNR 21.0120.021NR-Lite0.9510.012Q*7.10.9330.019
Kipp & Zonen CNR 2 Net Radiometer Four-way radiometer (four detectors), two net outputs (twothermopiles). NR-Lite and Q*7.1 are two-way radiometers (two detectors)with one net output (one thermopile).
Inversion Test ResultsNet Radiation ComponentModelCNR 1NR01CNR 6-0.180724530.54Q99145-2.23Q06132-1.77Q07002-2.51
Inversion Test ResultsNet Radiation ComponentModelCNR 1NR01CNR 6-0.180724530.54Q99145-2.23Q06132-1.77Q07002-2.51
Inversion Test ResultsNet Radiation ComponentModelCNR 1NR01CNR 6-0.180724530.54Q99145-2.23Q06132-1.77Q07002-2.51
Inversion Test ResultsNet Radiation ComponentModelCNR 1NR01CNR 6-0.180724530.54Q99145-2.23Q06132-1.77Q07002-2.51
Inversion Test ResultsNet Radiation ComponentModelCNR 1NR01CNR 6-0.180724530.54Q99145-2.23Q06132-1.77Q07002-2.51
CNR 2 Net Radiometer compared to CNR 1 Net Radiometer in growthchamber (HPS and MH lamps) at Crop Physiology Lab.
CNR 1CNR 2High LightDT 2-5 oC(500 W m-2)Low LightDT 2-5 oC(250 W m-2)UpsideDown(250 W m-2)Dark 1DT 2-5 oC(0 W m-2)Dark 2DT 0 oC(0 W m-2)Net ShortWave427.0225.0-222.01.1-0.5Net 213.1-8.7-1.6Net ShortWave422.0218.0-188.0-5.90.8Net 176.8-19.01.9
Zone 1IrrigationBlue CNR 1, Black NR01, Red CNR 2,Green NR-Lite, Yellow Q*7.1Zone 2Irrigation
Net Radiation Model From ASCEStandardized Reference ET EquationRn SWn LWnSWi measurementSWo SWi ; 0.23SWn SWi SWi LWn fcd 0.34 0.14 ea Taea measurementTa measurementfcd SWi 0.35 1.35 SW i clearsky 4
Net Radiation Model Compared to Average of Net RadiometersHigh during day.Errors due toassumptions at night.Higher on cloudy dayscompared to sunny days.
Appears to be a time offset.Assume fcd fromearlier in the day ornext morning.
ConclusionsRadiometers CNR 1 was the most accurate relative to the reference; waiting on recalibration.NR01 was accurate relative to the reference, but outliers (SWo on 1006 and LWi on 1007)caused high variability among reps.CNR 2 was accurate relative to the reference, but SW detectors are not matched as closely asLW detectors.NR-Lite had offsetting errors for day and night, resulting in reasonable, but low, values for dailytotal. It is less sensitive to LW compared to SW. Water on the detector surface makes themeasurement unusable until complete evaporation.Q*7.1 had larger offsetting errors than the NR-Lite, also resulting in low daily totals. It is lesssensitive to LW compared to SW.Model Generally high during the day.Errors in both directions at night due to assumption of SWi / SWi-clearsky ratio.Under all conditions, model was less accurate than sensors.Even with accurate measurements of solar radiation, vapor pressure, and air temperature,sources of error in model are: assumption of constant albedo, use of surrogate variable (SWi / SWi-clearsky) for cloud cover characterization, offset between logger clock and actual time of day.
average of CSI CNR 1, 3 NR01s, and 3 CNR 2s. Model Mean Slope St. Dev. Slope NR01 0.995 0.047 CNR 2 1.012 0.021 NR-Lite 0.951 0.012 Q*7.1 0.933 0.019. Kipp & Zonen CNR 2 Net Radiometer Four-way radiometer (four detectors), two net outputs (two thermopiles).
Preprint typeset in JINST style - HYPER VERSION Modeling the frequency response of microwave radiometers with QUCS Andrea Zoncaa, Bastien Roucariesb, Brian Williamsa, Ishai Rubina, Ocleto D’Arcangeloc, Peter Meinholda, Philip Lubina, Cristian Franceschetd,Stefan Jahne, Aniello Mennellad, Marco Bersanellid aDepartment of Physics, University of California,
Collectively make tawbah to Allāh S so that you may acquire falāḥ [of this world and the Hereafter]. (24:31) The one who repents also becomes the beloved of Allāh S, Âَْ Èِﺑاﻮَّﺘﻟاَّﺐُّ ßُِ çﻪَّٰﻠﻟانَّاِ Verily, Allāh S loves those who are most repenting. (2:22
akuntansi musyarakah (sak no 106) Ayat tentang Musyarakah (Q.S. 39; 29) لًََّز ãَ åِاَ óِ îَخظَْ ó Þَْ ë Þٍجُزَِ ß ا äًَّ àَط لًَّجُرَ íَ åَ îظُِ Ûاَش
Section 2 Evaluation Essentials covers the nuts and bolts of 'how to do' evaluation including evaluation stages, evaluation questions, and a range of evaluation methods. Section 3 Evaluation Frameworks and Logic Models introduces logic models and how these form an integral part of the approach to planning and evaluation. It also
POINT METHOD OF JOB EVALUATION -- 2 6 3 Bergmann, T. J., and Scarpello, V. G. (2001). Point schedule to method of job evaluation. In Compensation decision '. This is one making. New York, NY: Harcourt. f dollar . ' POINT METHOD OF JOB EVALUATION In the point method (also called point factor) of job evaluation, the organizationFile Size: 575KBPage Count: 12Explore further4 Different Types of Job Evaluation Methods - Workologyworkology.comPoint Method Job Evaluation Example Work - Chron.comwork.chron.comSAMPLE APPLICATION SCORING MATRIXwww.talent.wisc.eduSix Steps to Conducting a Job Analysis - OPM.govwww.opm.govJob Evaluation: Point Method - HR-Guidewww.hr-guide.comRecommended to you b
3 Evaluation reference group: The evaluation commissioner and evaluation manager should consider establishing an evaluation reference group made up of key partners and stakeholders who can support the evaluation and give comments and direction at key stages in the evaluation process.
tion rate, evaluation use accuracy, evaluation use frequency, and evaluation contribution. Among them, the analysis of evaluation and classification indicators mainly adopts the induction method. Based on the converted English learning interest points, the evaluation used by the subjects is deduced for classification, and the evaluation list .
Annual Women’s Day Sunday, August 24 Congratulations on a blessed Youth Day!! Enjoy your break during the month of August. Women’s Day Choir Rehearsals July 31, August 7, 14, 19, 21 . Beginners Andrew Ash Chaz Holder Primary Deion Holder Nia Belton Junior William Ash Deondrea Belton Intermediate RaShaune Finch Jaylin Finch Advanced Rayanna Bibbs Tavin Brinkley Adult #2 Jeffry Martin Joseph .
