Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Gadget show review of weather stations

Comments

  • #2
    Deep Easterly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,150 ✭✭✭Deep Easterly


    ch750536 wrote: »
    Was yesterday on C5.

    http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmain.jsp?lnk=401&section=Features&show=s8e9&featureid=778&description=Weather%20Stations

    Interesting that of the 3 the oregon was the only one to be within 1c of the met office stated temps, that was onsite, located right next to the met office ones.

    Was amazed at how inaccurate one of the stations was at 3c out.

    Think it was S08E09 for anyone looking for it.

    Any chance of a quick summery of the reviews? They don't seem to mention them on that site. :)


  • #3
    ch750536
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭ch750536


    The oregon won easily, it got a 4/5 rating.

    The other 2 got a 1/5 rating and in my opinion should be stopped from selling them.

    Tests:
    Set them up next to MO UK to check accuracy, like i said the oregon was 1c out, pressure spot on, humidity thereabouts, wind was slightly worse.

    Other 2 were very poor, wrong in all of them.

    Then tested the reactions by going from cold to hot, they were all exactly the same.

    Tested the wireless range, think one of the poor ones won that.

    Not massively scientific but even so, very poor results from 2 of them.

    I imagine that the people making them will have something to say if the units were not set uo correctly, getting 1/5 on TV is a bit poor for sales I imagine.

    Oregon did well though, 4/5.

    Full episode is on uknova .com


  • #4
    Mothman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,498 ✭✭✭Mothman


    I was goijng to mention that temperature readings is down to the quality of shield, but I see the Oregan shield is fairly basic as well.


  • #5
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I see(just from that initial link anyhow) they didn't test the Davis-arguably the best of the available private weather stations to buy and the one most of us here own.

    As MM will tell you because he has Met office installed equipment on the same site,there is a small difference usually between the Davis and the MO recordings.
    Probably down to the mentioned isea that the shield is better.


  • #6
    Mothman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,498 ✭✭✭Mothman


    Its argueable that the Davis FARS (Fan aspirated radiation shield, ie fan powered) is actually more accurate than a standard Stevenson Screen, but that the Davis standard shield is quite similar on exposed sites, though I've found the older square shield better than the more recent round one.

    To sum up about the Davis, if you want to acheive as near Stevenson Screen standard on a fairly open site, than the standard shield is the way to go, but in a more closed environment that may be sheltered from wind a lot, then the FARS unit may be preferable, but when this is not working, then it is really bad!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement