1 / 25

Authors

Instrumentation in Environmental Physics -- Is Factory Calibration Reliable? EPSCoR Project Supported by NSF Wenguang Zhao & Richard G. Allen October 24, 2011, Xi’an, China. Authors. University of Idaho – Wenguang Zhao and Richard G. Allen Idaho State University – Matt Germino

sandra-winters
Download Presentation

Authors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Instrumentation in Environmental Physics-- Is Factory Calibration Reliable?EPSCoR Project Supported by NSFWenguang Zhao & Richard G. AllenOctober 24, 2011, Xi’an, China

  2. Authors University of Idaho – Wenguang Zhao and Richard G. Allen Idaho State University – Matt Germino Boise State University – Sridhar V.

  3. Background 1. Most people believe the factory calibration. 2. Representation of H and ET measured by traditional methods (EC and BR etc) is limited, especially for heterogeneous fields. 3. Large aperture scintillometry (LAS) is an alternative method to estimate H from a relatively large footprint (source) area.

  4. Questions 1. How can we accurately calculate H from the LAS measurement, structure function constant of refractive index fluctuations for the wavelength used by the LAS (Cn2)? 2. How does the H calculated by the LAS measurement compare to the traditional EC measurement result?

  5. 4-way net radiometers

  6. Intercomparison of 5 NR01 4-way net radiometers in 2009 (A) (B)

  7. Intercomparison in summer 2009 Measured atmospheric long wave radiation by using factory calibration coefficients of each NR01’a Measured atmospheric long wave radiation by using the modified calibration coefficients of ourselves

  8. Intercomparison of 10 4-way net radiometers (8 NR01s & 2 CNR1s) in 2010

  9. Intercomparison in summer 2010 Measured atmospheric long wave radiation by using factory calibration coefficients of each NR01’a Used self calibration Coef. Measured atmospheric long wave radiation by using the modified calibration coefficients of ourselves Used factory calibration Coef.

  10. Intercomparison of 8 4-way net radiometers (6 NR01s, a CNR1 & a CNR4) in 2011

  11. Intercomparison in summer 2011 Used factory calibration coefficient Used self calibration coeficient (from day+night data) Used self calibration coefficient (from night data) + about 2.3% (from 2.0% to 2.5%) short wave radiation correction

  12. 3-D Sonic anemometers

  13. 3 sets of EC systems (RM Young 8000 3D sonic + LI-7500)

  14. -3.54 mm -1.77 mm -3.68 mm

  15. Comparison of the 3 EC systems

  16. BLS 9000 Boundary Layer Scintillometers

  17. Intercomparison of 3 receivers and their SPU with the same transmitter Transmitter Receiver

  18. Intercomparison of 2 independent sets of BLS 9000 scintillometers with the opposite light transmiting directions R2 R1 T1 T2

  19. SN:T-E-0112 measured a lower sensible heat flux (H) than SN: T-E-0115 SN:T-E-0112 measured a lower sensible heat flux (H) than SN: T-E-0114

  20. REBS HFT-3.1 Heat Flow Transducer

  21. Multiple Depths of Plates (~4 and 8 cm) Soil Temperature profile TCs @1,2,3 and 6cm)

  22. LAS: Transmitter A & Receiver B

  23. Conclusions 1. Good agreement was obtained between H measured by CSAT3 and RM Young 81000 3-D sonic anemometers 2. H measured by Scintec BLS900 compared well with both EC systems (CSAT3 and RM Young). Thankyou!

  24. Questions? Do I need to STOP here?

More Related