21-06-2015, 19:18
This seems very interesting! I'm more inclined to a modification of the formula, than your previous suggestion, mostly because this way we keep the results with one decimal place.
It will be interesting, if we could have something like a table, to adjust the formula, considering the absorbing of the cover, in factors of, say 5 to 30%
Exactly now, I'm testing a new simple and very low cost housing, for the the Solar / UV sensor. In this implementation, the UV sensor is covered with just a very thin film of clear epoxy resin (liquid epoxy, two components - long cure time). Later I'm planning to add a very thin crystal glass over the PV cell and the UV sensor (epoxy resin don't resist for a long time when directly exposed to hail)
I will gonna try your formula with it.
How your readings are comparing with other nearby weather stations? (Supposing you are having a clear day without clouds in a large area)
It will be interesting, if we could have something like a table, to adjust the formula, considering the absorbing of the cover, in factors of, say 5 to 30%
Exactly now, I'm testing a new simple and very low cost housing, for the the Solar / UV sensor. In this implementation, the UV sensor is covered with just a very thin film of clear epoxy resin (liquid epoxy, two components - long cure time). Later I'm planning to add a very thin crystal glass over the PV cell and the UV sensor (epoxy resin don't resist for a long time when directly exposed to hail)
I will gonna try your formula with it.
How your readings are comparing with other nearby weather stations? (Supposing you are having a clear day without clouds in a large area)