- 120: Sonics, Site , Mon 24-Sep-2001 16:23:14 MDT, Modifications to sonic wind data
The following procedure was used to adjust the sonic azimuths
for residual wind direction differences following rotation of the
data to incorporate the theodolite-measured sonic orientations.
The model used was as follows. ASTER calculates the wind direction as
a = atan(-u,-v) (u>0 is wind from west or 270 degrees)
da = cos^2(a)*(v*du - u*dv)/v^2
= (v*du - u*dv)/spd^2
= -(du*cos(a) - dv*sin(a))/spd
where du, dv are instrument offsets in the meausurement of u and v
Also including a possible error in the sonic azimuth measurement:
da = a.err - (du*cos(a) - dv*sin(a))/spd
da is calculated for each 5-min sonic wind direction sample as
the deviation from the median of all sonic wind directions
at the same height at that time (excluding the a, b, and reference
sonics).
Then for each array, roughly a week of data, the data are fit to the
model by linear regression to determine du and dv. The fit is
applied to all data with wind directions within +/- 45 deg of normal to
the array and for sigma-wind-direction less than 7 degrees. (As might
beexpected, it is observed that the scatter among the sonics
increases with sigma-wind-direction.)
Next the data for all sonics are corrected with the fitted values of
du and dv, and the median da is determined.
This is assumed to be an error in determining the sonic azimuth and
will be used to adust the azimuths.
Finally, the fitting procedure is repeated to determine new values for
du and dv after the wind directions have been corrected with the median
da from the previous step. The new values of du and dv are within
1.5 cm/s of the previous values. The new values will be used for
correcting the data.
CSAT3 S/N's 251 and 423 were sent back to Campbell Scientific for
recalibration after the field project. The offsets derived in the
procedure described here were found to be consistent with those
determined by the manufacturer, giving confidence in the procedure.
If the median value of da is again calculated with the new values of
du and dv, it is within 0.1 degree of the old value. Thus the procedure
appears to be robust. When the data are corrected with du, dv and the
median value of da, they are independent of wind direction and have a
median value close to zero.
These changes were implemented by modifying the csat3 calibration files
as shown below. The u and v offsets are in columns 2 and 3, while the
median value of da has been subtracted from the boomaz determined from
the theodolite measurements.
# $Log: csat3.d0.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:02 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS00 sonic(s) d0
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d0.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 1.4 -11.2 271.02 0
# array #2, d0.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.5 -62.8 270.99 0
# array #3, d0.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 -0.06 0.03 0.01 0.7 118.5 272.92 0
# array #4, d0.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 -0.02 0.01 -0.01 0.6 2.6 270.26 0
#
# $Log: csat3.d1.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:03 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS sonic(s) d1
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d1.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0.01 -0.02 0.01 1.1 -33.8 270.64 0
# array #2, d1.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.9 -19.4 270.29 0
# array #3, d1.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 1.0 -5.0 271.42 0
# array #4, d1.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1.1 -154.3 269.36 0
#
# $Log: csat3.d2.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:04 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS sonic(s) d2
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d2.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.6 -52.0 269.92 0
# array #2, d2.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0.0 0.01 -0.01 0.2 -151.2 271.42 0
# array #3, d2.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.6 143.9 271.06 0
# array #4, d2.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0.0 0.03 0.02 0.1 55.0 269.91 0
#
# $Log: csat3.d3.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:05 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS00 sonic(s) d3
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d3.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0.01 -0.02 -0.01 0.5 46.1 269.77 0
# array #2, d3.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0.0 -0.02 -0.01 1.0 35.5 270.15 0
# array #3, d3.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0.06 -0.01 -0.01 0.8 -59.6 269.04 0
# array #4, d3.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 -0.03 0.01 0.00 0.8 -80.0 269.61 0
#
# $Log: csat3.d4.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:05 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS00 sonic(s) d4
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d4.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0.0 -0.01 -0.01 0.6 -49.7 270.24 0
# array #2, d4.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.7 -102.8 269.96 0
# array #3, d4.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0.0 0.0 -0.01 0.2 170.7 270.06 0
# array #4, d4.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 -0.04 -0.03 0.01 0.2 -34.2 269.84 0
#
# $Log: csat3.d5.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:06 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS00 sonic(s) d5
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d5.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 -0.01 -0.02 0.00 0.7 1.7 270.29 0
# array #2, d5.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.6 7.3 269.94 0
# array #3, d5.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 -0.03 -0.04 -0.01 0.1 22.2 271.24 0
# array #4, d5.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0.05 -0.02 -0.03 1.0 -135.7 268.39 0
#
# $Log: csat3.d6.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:07 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS00 sonic(s) d6
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d6.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:000 -0.02 0.01 0.00 0.8 -29.5 269.36 0
# array #2, d6.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.2 -54.0 268.93 0
# array #3, d6.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.7 151.7 270.24 0
# array #4, d6.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0.02 0.0 -0.02 0.2 -111.3 269.33 0
#
# $Log: csat3.d7.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:07 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS00 sonic(s) d7
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d7.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.5 10.2 269.57 0
# array #2, d7.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.7 64.5 269.50 0
# array #3, d7.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 -0.05 -0.02 -0.01 0.5 -52.9 272.52 0
# array #4, d7.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.4 -122.2 269.86 0
#
# $Log: csat3.d8.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:08 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS00 sonic(s) d8
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array 1, d8.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.7 -34.1 269.65 0
# array #2, d8.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0.01 -0.03 0.00 0.7 -56.6 269.55 0
# array #3, d8.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0.0 0.05 0.01 0.4 -132.8 271.35 0
# array #4, d8.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 -0.01 0.0 -0.02 0.6 -147.3 271.14 0
#
# $Log: csat3.d9.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:09 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS00 sonic(s) d9
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d9.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 -0.01 0.03 0.01 0.8 -17.1 268.70 0
# array #2, d9.4 m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0.0 0.05 0.00 0.2 84.2 268.55 0
# array #3, d9.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 -0.01 0.0 0.00 0.5 -78.1 269.04 0
# array #4, d9.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0.01 0.03 -0.01 1.5 -164.9 270.83 0
#
# $Log: csat3.s0.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:09 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS00 sonic(s) s0
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, s0.6m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 -0.05 0.05 0.00 1.3 12.7 272.62 0
# array #2, s0.8m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 -0.05 0.05 0.01 0.7 118.5 272.01 0
# array #3, s0.4m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0.0 -0.01 -0.01 0.5 -62.8 271.72 0
# array #4, s0.5m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 -0.05 0.05 0.00 1.6 93.7 271.60 0
#
# $Log: csat3.s1.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:10 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS00 sonic(s) s1
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, s1.6m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0.02 0.0 -0.02 1.1 -9.6 271.13 0
# array #2, s1.8m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.6 -10.8 270.73 0
# array #3, s1.4m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0.04 -0.01 -0.02 1.0 -106.9 270.99 0
# array #4, s1.5m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0.2 -134.8 271.06 0
#
# $Log: csat3.s2.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:11 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS00 sonic(s) s2
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, s2.6m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.1 51.8 267.17 0
# array #2, s2.8m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.5 -25.5 268.34 0
# array #3, s2.4m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0.01 0.02 -0.02 0.8 -100.5 269.24 0
# array #4, s2.5m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.6 121.2 269.82 0
#
# $Log: csat3.s3.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:11 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS00 sonic(s) s3
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, s3.6m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 -0.01 -0.02 0.03 0.3 -58.3 268.50 0
# array #2, s3.8m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 -0.01 -0.02 0.02 0.1 41.0 269.86 0
# array #3, s3.4m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.6 44.3 270.57 0
# array #4, s3.5m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0.0 -0.03 -0.01 0.8 174.3 270.08 0
#
# $Log: csat3.s4.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:12 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS00 sonic(s) s4
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, s4.6m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.5 -36.3 271.92 0
# array #2, s4.8m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 -0.02 0.01 -0.01 0.5 -38.5 271.19 0
# array #3, s4.4m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.1 49.8 270.49 0
# array #4, s4.5m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0.0 0.01 0.01 1.0 172.0 268.96 0
#
# $Log: csat3.s5.SGS00,v $
# Revision 1.1 2001/03/13 23:52:13 maclean
# initial checkin
#
#
# SGS00 sonic(s) s5
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, s5.6m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.9 -77.8 266.77 0
# array #2, s5.8m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.7 -159.8 268.12 0
# array #3, s5.4m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 -0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.3 -115.7 270.18 0
# array #4, s5.5m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0.02 0.0 -0.01 1.2 179.0 270.60 0
- 119: Prop vanes, Site , Wed 11-Jul-2001 10:39:34 MDT, Heights of prop vanes and hygrothermometers
The prop vanes and hygrothermometers were mounted at nominal heights
of 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10 m above the base of the towers.
Since the prop vanes project above their booms, the booms were actually
mounted 50 cm lower than the desired heights. The prop vanes project
18" + 0.5*(2.5") = 19.25" = 48.9 cm above the center of the booms. Thus
the actual heights of the prop vanes above the base of the tower are
1.1 cm lower than the nominal heights.
Since the hygrothermometers hang below their booms, the booms were
mounted 50 cm higher than the desired heights. The inlets to the
radiation shields are 16 5/8" + 0.5*2.5" = 17.875" = 45.4 cm below the
center of the booms. Thus the actual heights of the hygrothermometer
inlets above the base of the tower are 4.6 cm higher than the nominal
heights.
- 118: Sensor Array, Site , Mon 25-Jun-2001 09:58:50 MDT, Towers a and b: sonic heights and tower spacing and azimuth
To my embarrassment, Jan notes that the sonic heights and tower spacings
for towers a and b are mostly missing from the logbook. I looked
through the scraps of paper that were used to note things in the field
and only find one note from Don Lenschow recording sonic heights on
9/24/00 (array 4), see below.
Sonic heights
-------------
The intent was for the sonic heights on towers a and b to match those
on the other sonic towers, so they presumably were:
z.d z.s
(m) (m)
Array 1 3.45 6.90
Array 2 4.33 8.66
Array 3 8.66 4.33
Array 4 4.15 5.15 but see the following note
Logbook entry #90 notes that the PAM masts did not allow the sonics in
Array 4 to be precisely mounted at the intended heights because of
interference with gussets, etc. This should not have been a problem
with Arrays 1-3, because the sonics in the s and d arrays (with the
exception of tower 0) were also mounted on PAM masts. The heights
for Array 4 were (found in both the logbook and Don's field notes):
a 4.13 and 5.05 m
b 4.13 and 5.02 m
Note that the sonic heights for towers a and b were simply measured
from the local ground surface. The heights were not determined
relative to the other towers using the theodolite as was done for
towers 0-9. That degree of precision was thought to be unnecessary for
the intended purpose of the data from towers a and b.
Tower spacing
-------------
The intention was for the tower spacing to equal the span of the d
array, 8*S.d. Thus these presumably were
S.d a/b spacing
Array 1 3.350 26.8 m
Array 2 2.167 17.3 m
Array 3 2.167 17.3 m
Array 4 0.500 17.3 m see following note
Note that array 4 does not follow the original design. It was decided
in the field that 8*0.5m = 4m was unreasonably close, so the towers
were left in the same location as for arrays 2-4. Thus my recollection
is that there was only one change in the location of towers a and b.
The change in spacing between arrays 1 and 2 is supported by the
following from logbook entry 39, dated Sunday, Sept 10:
"The towers were reconfigured starting with tower 1 and proceeding to
tower 9, then tower 0, and finally towers a and b. By the end of
Friday we had completed towers 1-7. On Saturday morning we completed
towers 8-9 and tower 0, finishing about noon.
On Saturday afternoon we completed towers a and b, finishing
tower a about 3 pm PDT and tower b about 4 pm PDT."
It should not have taken another hour to "complete" tower b unless the
tower was actually moved.
It also makes sense that no change of towers a and b occurred between
arrays 2 and 3 because the sonic spacing in the d array was not changed,
only the height of the d array changed. Thus the only real ambiguity
is the spacing between a and b for array 1 and then arrays 2-4.
Azimuth of tower line
---------------------
The azimuth of the line between towers a and b was only measured twice,
consistent with my recollection that there was only one change in their
location, between arrays 1 and 2. Note that tower b was nominally NW
of tower a (logbook #29)
a/b alignment logbook date
Array 1 135 deg 53' 25" 29 9/4/00
Array 2 135 deg 36' 28" 39 9/11/00
- 117: Sonics, Site , Tue 08-May-2001 12:21:39 MDT, sonic sampling mode
By looking at the CSAT configurations (logbook 106), Ed Swiatek confirmed
that we were operating the sonics in the single sample mode, i.e. there
is one pulse per path per output sample:
From: "Edward Swiatek"
To: horst@atd.ucar.edu
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 12:14:18 -0600
Subject: Re: CSAT configs
Tom,
All of the CSAT3s where configured to run at 20 Hz without the
oversample mode. The current sample rate is given by the AQ
parameter, e.g. AQ= 20 means 20 Hz. The oversample mode
status is given by the os= parameter, e.g. a blank mean the
oversample mode was off, a 1 means it is on.
Regards,
Ed
- 116: Post-processing, Site , Tue 16-Jan-2001 14:43:11 MST, Reprocessed and checked covars
Gordon reran the covars using the calculated tilt angles and the
theodolite-measured azimuths in the cal files. I rechecked the
resulting tilt fits and found that in most cases the resulting fits
had lean angles of 0.1 degree or less and offsets of less than
1 cm/sec. The few exceptions were the cases where I had decided that
the objective offset should be different from that found in the
original fit with the offset one of the free parameters (see entry
110).
- 115: Sensor Array, Site , Thu 30-Nov-2000 12:06:41 MST, sonic heights and spacing
Following is a summary of the sonic heights and spacings for all arrays.
The filter designation refers to the array (1-4) and the 5 (s) or 9 (d)
sonic crosswind line.
height(m)
----------------
filter nominal measured spacing (m)
-------------------------------------------
1d 3 3.45 3.35
1s 6 6.90 6.70
2d 4 4.33 2.167
2s 8 8.66 4.33
3d 8 8.66 2.167
3s 4 4.33 1.05
4d 4 4.15 0.50
4s 5 5.15 0.625
These dimensions are contained in a file
$ASTER/projects/SGS00/sonics/dim.array:
# SGS array dimensions
#
# sonic height, z, and spacing, S, in meters
# for both (d)ouble and (s)ingle filter arrays
#
#Date Time z.d S.d z.s S.s
# (GMT)
# Array #1
2000 Sep 01 00:00 3.45 3.35 6.90 6.70
# array #2
2000 Sep 09 18:00 4.33 2.167 8.66 4.33
# array #3
2000 Sep 16 00:25 8.66 2.167 4.33 1.05
# array #4
2000 Sep 25 00:00 4.15 0.50 5.15 0.625
- 114: Post-processing, Site , Thu 30-Nov-2000 08:54:45 MST, naming conventions for Splus sonic data files
I have been developing and testing the rotation of the sonic data
through prep.config using the sonic calibration files in $ASTER,
which contain sonic tilt and orientation angles. In parallel, I
I have also been rotating the data in the horizontal with the Splus
routine rotate.dir.
My naming convention for the resultant data files is
0 raw data, no rotation
1 apply tilt rotation
2 apply theodolite-measured azimuth angle
3 rotate each sonic to match its wind direction to the average of the
wind directions measured by all sgs sonics at the same height
(either s1-s5 or d1-d9).
Since I was creating duplicate (when successful) data files for these
various rotations, I have used e.g. 1 and 1b to distinguish them but
without any consistency as to which was done directly through
prep.config and which were additionally processed through rotate.dir.
However, I found that prep.config generates a single precision data
file while additional processing by rotate.dir outputs a double
precision file.
So far I have been working with a single 30-minute segment of data
starting on Sept 4 at 2:45 PDT, just looking at the 3m 9-sonic
data (in order to test my software for calculation of double-filtered
moments). Now I am writing code to calculate spatial derivatives,
so I also need the 5-sonic, single-filter data in order to calculate
vertical derivatives. Thus I will now distinguish the data as e.g.
2s or 2d.
- 113: Post-processing, Site , Tue 28-Nov-2000 13:06:26 MST, Post-processing update, November 28, 2000
SGS post-processing update, 11-28-00
After looking further at the sonic azimuth measurements and the wind
direction deviations, I have decided to not pursue additional
refinements of the sonic azimuths at this time. An uncertainty of one
degree in sonic orientation generates an uncertainty in the u and v
wind components (normal and parallel to the array) of
du = -S*sin(theta)*pi/180
dv = S*cos(theta)*pi/180
where theta = atan(v/u) and S = sqrt(u^2 + v^2).
Thus for 0 < theta < pi/4,
0 < du/S < 0.012
0.017 < dv/S < 0.012
In addition, I am not optimistic about determining an objective
correction to the sonic azimuths. The residual wind direction
differences (after application of the measured sonic azimuths) are not
constant for a given array, but are quite scattered with perhaps a weak
dependence on temperature and wind direction. Ed Swiatek has provided
some information on the variability of the CSAT3 head geometry. I will
look at that to determine its possible contribution to uncertainty in
the visual alignment of the sonics with the theodolite.
Thus for the moment, I have incorporated the measured sonic azimuths
and the measured sgs (CSAT3) array orientations in the sonic
calibration functions used by prep.config during data post-processing.
The sonic data will be rotated to a coordinate system with u normal to
the sgs array (nominally from the NW) and v parallel to the array
(nominally from the SW). Note that I have also placed the sonic data
from towers a and b in the same coordinate system. However, analysis
of data from those two towers may in some cases require resolving the
data into components parallel and normal to the line between the two
towers, which of course is not identical to a line normal to the sgs
arrays.
As I analyze data from various time periods and arrays, I will keep an
eye on the range of wind directions among the various sonics.
Hopefully they will remain on the order of 1-2 degrees or less. One
option during analysis will also be to reorient the data from the
individual sonics so that all sonics have a mean wind direction equal
to the mean for all sonics at the same height within the sgs array
(d1-d9 or s1-s5). I will examine how sensitive various statistics are
to this additional, somewhat ad-hoc processing.
Having specified the sonic orientations, the SGS data should soon be
ready for distribution. Gordon has proposed writing several sets of
CD's in NetCDF format for this purpose. Give Gordon a call if you are
unfamiliar with this format. I believe that he can provide utilities
to facilitate accessing the data. At this time the data will be
distributed only to a limited set of cooperative investigators who have
agreed to delay submitting papers until the first SGS paper by the PI's
is accepted for publication. Thus it is not permissible to
redistribute the data in any form to others. Further distribution
would also complicate correcting the data for any errors found during
the initial analysis.
Note that I found an error in the pre-project document that I wrote to
describe data analysis. On the bottom of page 2 where I discuss
matching the Tong crosswind filter with a streamwise Gaussian filter at
their half-power points, the sonic spacing S should be replaced with
S*cos(theta), where theta is the wind direction relative to the normal
to the array. S*cos(theta) is the effective sonic spacing for data
projected onto a line normal to the streamwise direction.
- 112: Post-processing, Site , Fri 10-Nov-2000 11:31:08 MST, Post-processing update, November 10
To: bstevens@atmos.ucla.edu, kleissl@jhu.edu, lenschow@ucar.edu,
mbparlange@jhu.edu, meneveau@jhu.edu, moeng@ucar.edu, mpahlow@jhu.edu,
oncley, pps@ucar.edu, weil@ash.mmm.ucar.edu
Cc: brac00@essc.psu.edu maclean, cole@ale.atd.ucar.edu, dcarlson,
eswiatek@campbellsci.com, wyngaard@ems.psu.edu
Subject: SGS update
Following is an update of recent progress on post-processing of the
SGS data. If you become bored with the update, you might at least skip
to the last two paragraphs where I introduce a question about one of
the details of data processing associated with off-normal wind
directions. Any feedback on that discussion will be appreciated.
Post-processing of the SGS data is proceeding more slowly than I had
optimisticaly anticipated in September (big surprise!). The principal
reason is that I took several days of vacation to "decompress" after 40
days and 40 nights of Kettleman City duty and to enjoy the beautiful
fall weather at home, but other responsibilities (such as reviewing
journal manuscripts) have also taken time away from SGS.
In October, I completed post-project wind tunnel tests of the 17 CSAT3
sonics, running three individual tests per sonic, and have now shipped
them back to their owners. The results, which I forwarded to you, show
very good consistency among the sonics. Two exceptions, SN 0251 from
UIA and SN 0423 from UMN, had offsets on the order of 6-8 cm/s, which
exceeds the factory spec of +/- 4 cm/s. These two sonics have been
sent to Campbell for recalibration. Ed Swiatek will provide the pre-
and post- calibration specs in case those can be useful for data
interpretation. Hopefully, the consequences of these small offsets
are negligible.
I have also calculated the sonic tilt coefficients and will incorporate
them in future data processing. Most sonics had tilt angles that were
less than 1 degree and all sonics had tilt angles that were less than 2
degrees. My recollection is that a tilt of 1 degree in the streamwise
direction can induce errors in u* and the sensible heat flux on the
order of 5%.
Most recently I worked on the corrections for sonic orientation.
Without any correction, the differences in the wind directions measured
by the sonics within each array varied over ranges of 1-5 degrees. In
general these differences were correlated with the sonic azimuths
measured with the theodolite, but after using those azimuths to correct
the wind directions, the range of wind direction differences were
reduced by only about 1 degree. The smallest range was for the last
array, number 4, with the smallest sonic spacing. This could be
because the true wind field was more uniform across the smaller
distance, because the actual array was more uniform due to the common
support structure, and/or because by then we were perhaps better at
measuring the sonic azimuths.
Based on a set of repeated theodolite measurements made by John
Militzer, it appears to me that the overall accuracy of the sonic
orientation measurements is on the order of 0.1-0.3 degrees. The
actual theodolite readings appear to be accurate to better than 0.1
degree, including a comparison of the direct solar technique using the
Nikon theodolite to the 'two triangle' technique using the digital
theodolite. The greater uncertainty is the visual alignment of the
theodolite placement with the u axis of the sonic. Thus the remaining
variance in measured wind direction is a little disappointing.
There are several factors for further consideration. First, the
internal alignment of the sonics is not exact. The actual alignment of
each sonic is precisely measured at CSI and used to convert the path-
averaged speeds to orthogonal wind components. Thus our visual
alignment of the theodolite with the array is not a precise alignment
with the true u axis. I have requested the actual rotation matrices
from CSI in order to investigate this further.
Second, the observed range of wind direction differences among the
sonics of each array is consistent with possible offsets in the
along-array wind component of +/- 4 cm/s, which is within the factory
spec. The possible contribution of these offsets is also consistent
with a temperature dependence of the wind direction differences for
some sonics.
Finally, I have no absolute standard for wind direction when making a
comparison among the sonics. The best that I can do is to use the
average wind direction for each array as a standard, which is not
completely satisfactory. A question at this time, then, is how much
effort to expend on the sonic alignment issue. The concomitant
question is how sensitive are the resolved and subgrid-scale statistics
to the remaining uncertainties in absolute wind direction for each
sonic.
One standard that I could use for evaluating the quality of the data,
including the sensitivity to absolute wind direction is the
repeatibilty of single-filtered (5-sonic) second moments. Originally,
I thought that a comparison of single-filtered and double-filtered
moments would be valuable for quality control, but this is simply an
identity and thus is perhaps most valuable as a test of the
computational software.
This brings me to looking once more at the details of the calculation
of spatially-resolved turbulence. One issue that has not been entirely
resolved is the consequence of off-normal winds. My feeling is that
the principle issue there is aliasing, as noted by John's student Mark
Kelly. Other issues can be addressed directly during processing of the
data. In order to minimize aliasing, I propose using a time-varying
wind speed and direction to project the data from the sonic array onto
a line normal to the current wind direction. Thus the horizontal box
used for spatial averaging of the flow variables would rotate in time
to follow the current wind direction. The 2-D box would also change in
size slightly because of the projection of the (fixed) sonic array onto
a line normal to the current wind direction.
This opens the question about what wind speed and direction to use for
projection of the data onto a line normal to the current wind
direction. Candidates vary from the instantaneous wind (measured at 20
Hz) to a mean wind calculated for a time period equal to that used to
achieve stationary turbulence statistics (e.g. 15-60 min). It is not
clear what standard or procedure can be used to establish the "correct"
wind speed and direction for this purpose. In the absence of a-priori
criteria for the appropriate "projection" wind speed and direction, I
propose that a natural candidate is the resolved-scale wind, that is
Projection wind speed = sqrt(ur^2 + vr^2)
projection wind direction = atan(vr/ur)
where (ur,vr) are the resolved-scale horizontal wind components. I
would like to hear any thoughts on this matter from the other PI's.
Tom
- 111: Sonics, Site , Thu 02-Nov-2000 09:35:39 MST, Accuracy of sonic azimuth measurements
Between arrays 2 and 3, the sonics at 8.66 m on towers 0,1,3,5,7,9 were
not moved. No work was done on tower 0, but the PAM towers 1,3,5,7,9
were lowered to work on the 4.33 m sonics. Ideally, the orientation of
these 8.66 m sonics were unchanged. Following is a comparison of Peter
Sullivan's (corrected for 2000) measurements of the azimuths for array
2 (logbook #102) and Jeff Weil's and John Militzer's measurements of
array 3 (logbook #87). Note that John repeated his measurements on
some of the towers because he questioned whether he had used the
correct reference stake for his first measurements. Peter's
measurements used the Nikon theodolite oriented with the solar
azimuth. Jeff and John's measurements used the rented Spectra
theodolite with the two triangle technique (logbook #86).
Tower PS JW JM.1 JM.2
0 137.28 137.39 137.08 136.92
1 136.20 135.78 136.55 136.63
3 135.31 135.66 135.90 135.92
5 134.93 135.84 135.48 135.34
7 136.16 137.19 136.69
9 134.99 135.22 134.41
Note that John's repeated measurements are consistant within 0.15 deg,
but that there are differences among the three persons generally on the
order of 0.5 deg and sometimes as great as 0.8 deg. The differences
for the ASTER tower 0 are the smallest, 0.2 - 0.3 deg, suggesting that
some of the differences may be real changes in the orientations of the
sonics on the PAM towers associated with lowering and raising these
towers and retensioning the guy wires.
For array 4, I measured the angles using the Nikon theodolite oriented
with the (2000) sun azimuth. John repeated these measurements using
the Spectra theodolite and the two triangle technique. I eliminated
the subjective alignment aspect by staking the theodolite positions for
my measurements, although in each case John noted whether or not he
agreed with my alignments. See logbook entry 99.
In general, John's measurements agreed with mine within +/- 0.05 deg.
Two differed by 0.1 deg, but many were within 0.01 deg. In two cases
the differences were 1.0 and 0.5 deg, but re-measurements showed these
both to be my error. Thus the two techniques are very equivalent.
For each stake, John also recorded the angles of other sonics if he
judged them to be aligned at that location. The differences of these
angles from the angles at the alignment positions that I chose were
generally on the order of 0.05 - 0.2 degrees, with the largest
difference being 0.26 deg.
My conclusions are that the two techniques are equivalent within 0.05
degree or better. The biggest uncertainty appears to be the subjective
alignment of the theodolite with the sonic. John's repeated
measurements on the 8.66 m sonics of array 3 had differences of 0.02 -
0.16 degrees. Between John and me, the differences for array 4 were
on the order of 0.1 - 0.2 degrees. Among Peter, Jeff, and John they
appear to be 0.2 - 0.3 degrees. Thus the overall accuracy of the
sonic alignments might be on the order of perhaps 0.3 degrees when the
measurements are well done.
- 110: Sonics, Site , Tue 31-Oct-2000 16:45:32 MST, sonic tilt angles
I calculated the sonic tilt angles for all the sonics in each array.
If the offset in vertical velocity from the planar fit was 3 cm/s or
greater, I went back and looked also at a plot of w versus speed to
judge the reality of the offset.
The offsets looked real for
s3.6m in array 1
b.3m in array 1 (UW#4, -3 cm/S)
d5.4m in array 4
I forced the offset to zero for
b.6m in array 1 (UW#5)
b.5m in array 4 (UW#5)
I forced the offset to -4 cm/s (as opposed to -6 cm/sec from the fit)
for b.5m in array 5 (UW#4)
The calibration files are as follows:
# SGS00 sonic(s) d0
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d0.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 -0.01 1.4 -11.2 271.62 0
# array #2, d0.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 -0.01 0.5 -62.8 271.89 0
# array #3, d0.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 0.01 0.7 118.5 271.92 0
# array #4, d0.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 -0.01 0.6 2.6 270.86 0
# SGS sonic(s) d1
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d1.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 0.01 1.1 -33.8 270.14 0
# array #2, d1.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 0.01 0.9 -19.4 270.19 0
# array #3, d1.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 0.00 1.0 -5.0 271.12 0
# array #4, d1.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 -0.01 1.1 -154.3 269.56 0
# SGS sonic(s) d2
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d2.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 -0.01 0.6 -52.0 270.52 0
# array #2, d2.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 -0.01 0.2 -151.2 271.42 0
# array #3, d2.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 0.02 0.6 143.9 272.16 0
# array #4, d2.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 0.02 0.1 55.0 270.81 0
# SGS00 sonic(s) d3
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d3.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 -0.01 0.5 46.1 269.77 0
# array #2, d3.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 -0.01 1.0 35.5 269.65 0
# array #3, d3.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 -0.01 0.8 -59.6 270.44 0
# array #4, d3.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 0.00 0.8 -80.0 270.11 0
# SGS00 sonic(s) d4
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d4.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 -0.01 0.6 -49.7 269.84 0
# array #2, d4.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 0.00 0.7 -102.8 269.76 0
# array #3, d4.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 -0.01 0.2 170.7 270.06 0
# array #4, d4.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 0.01 0.2 -34.2 269.84 0
# SGS00 sonic(s) d5
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d5.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 0.00 0.7 1.7 269.39 0
# array #2, d5.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 0.00 0.6 7.3 267.94 0
# array #3, d5.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 -0.01 0.1 22.2 269.94 0
# array #4, d5.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 -0.03 1.0 -135.7 269.39 0
# SGS00 sonic(s) d6
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d6.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:000 0 0 0.00 0.8 -29.5 269.36 0
# array #2, d6.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 0.00 0.2 -54.0 269.53 0
# array #3, d6.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 0.01 0.7 151.7 270.74 0
# array #4, d6.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 -0.02 0.2 -111.3 268.93 0
# SGS00 sonic(s) d7
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d7.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 0.01 0.5 10.2 269.77 0
# array #2, d7.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 0.01 0.7 64.5 270.00 0
# array #3, d7.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 -0.01 0.5 -52.9 271.22 0
# array #4, d7.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 0.01 0.4 -122.2 269.36 0
# SGS00 sonic(s) d8
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array 1, d8.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 0.00 0.7 -34.1 269.55 0
# array #2, d8.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 0.00 0.7 -56.6 269.85 0
# array #3, d8.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 0.01 0.4 -132.8 272.25 0
# array #4, d8.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 -0.02 0.6 -147.3 270.74 0
# SGS00 sonic(s) d9
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, d9.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 0.01 0.8 -17.1 269.50 0
# array #2, d9.4 m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 0.00 0.2 84.2 269.25 0
# array #3, d9.8m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 0.00 0.5 -78.1 268.94 0
# array #4, d9.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 -0.01 1.5 -164.9 270.43 0
# SGS00 sonic(s) s0
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, s0.6m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 0.00 1.3 12.7 271.62 0
# array #2, s0.8m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 0.01 0.7 118.5 271.81 0
# array #3, s0.4m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 -0.01 0.5 -62.8 271.92 0
# array #4, s0.5m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 0.00 1.6 93.7 270.90 0
# SGS00 sonic(s) s1
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, s1.6m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 -0.02 1.1 -9.6 270.33 0
# array #2, s1.8m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 0.00 0.6 -10.8 270.73 0
# array #3, s1.4m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 -0.02 1.0 -106.9 270.09 0
# array #4, s1.5m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 -0.01 0.2 -134.8 270.66 0
# SGS00 sonic(s) s2
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, s2.6m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 0.00 0.1 51.8 268.97 0
# array #2, s2.8m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 0.00 0.5 -25.5 269.84 0
# array #3, s2.4m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 -0.02 0.8 -100.5 269.64 0
# array #4, s2.5m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 0.01 0.6 121.2 270.12 0
# SGS00 sonic(s) s3
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, s3.6m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 0.03 0.3 -58.3 268.50 0
# array #2, s3.8m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 0.02 0.1 41.0 269.46 0
# array #3, s3.4m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 0.00 0.6 44.3 269.67 0
# array #4, s3.5m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 -0.01 0.8 174.3 269.58 0
# SGS00 sonic(s) s4
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, s4.6m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 -0.01 0.5 -36.3 270.52 0
# array #2, s4.8m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 -0.01 0.5 -38.5 270.69 0
# array #3, s4.4m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 0.00 0.1 49.8 270.49 0
# array #4, s4.5m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 0.01 1.0 172.0 268.96 0
# SGS00 sonic(s) s5
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz bytshft
# Array #1, s5.6m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 0.00 0.9 -77.8 267.77 0
# array #2, s5.8m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 -0.01 0.7 -159.8 269.52 0
# array #3, s5.4m
2000 Sep 16 00:25 0 0 -0.01 0.3 -115.7 270.38 0
# array #4, s5.5m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 -0.01 1.2 179.0 270.80 0
# SGS00 lower sonic(s) on tower a
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz fATI fUSE
# Array 1 UW#6, a.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 0.02 0.2 -131.3 272.76 0 0
# Array 1 ATI980505 deployed at 1500 PDT, Sept 5
2000 Sep 05 22:00 0 0 -0.02 0.6 25.3 272.76 0 0.20
# Arrays #2,3 a.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 0.00 1.1 35.0 274.40 0 0.20
# Array 4, a.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 0.00 1.1 35.0 274.34 0 0.20
# SGS00 upper sonic(s) on tower a
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz fATI fUSE
# Array 1 a.6m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 0.00 1.1 4.3 273.48 0 0
# arrays #2&3 a.8m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 0.01 1.9 16.5 274.27 0 0
# array #4, a.5m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 -0.01 1.4 18.0 274.73 0 0
# SGS00 lower sonic(s) on tower b
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz fATI fUSE
# Array 1 UW#4, b.3m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 -0.03 0.4 -117.3 270.75 0 0
# Array 1 ATI980303 deployed at 1527 PDT, Sept 5
2000 Sep 05 22:27 0 0 -0.01 1.0 -54.7 270.75 0 0.20
# Arrays #2&3 b.4m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 -0.01 0.2 -25.6 271.92 0 0.20
# Array #4, b.4m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 -0.01 0.2 -25.6 272.04 0 0.20
# SGS00 upper sonic(s) on tower b
#
# Date u.off v.off w.off theta phi boomaz fATI fUSE
# Array 1 b.6m
2000 Sep 01 00:00 0 0 0.00 1.1 -174.6 271.86 0 0
# arrays #2&3 b.8m
2000 Sep 09 18:00 0 0 0.00 1.1 142.4 272.47 0 0
# array #4, UW#5, b.5m
2000 Sep 25 00:00 0 0 0.00 1.1 114.5 273.74 0 0
# array #4, UW#4, b.5m
2000 Sep 27 16:47 0 0 -0.04 0.6 113.0 273.74 0 0
- 109: Base_systems, Site , Fri 27-Oct-2000 10:22:52 MDT, Corrected ops.config
The swap from array 2 to array 3 was completed at 17:25 PDT, Sept 15
This was mistakenly entered into ops.config in local time. I changed
this today (10/26/00) to 00:25 GMT, Sept 16.
- 108: Sonics, Site , Fri 27-Oct-2000 09:25:24 MDT, Post-project wind tunnel tests
I ran each SGS CSAT sonic through the wind tunnel three times over a
period of several days, with the pitot tube 12 inches from the wall of
the tunnel. Run "a" was made from 10/13 until 10/18; run "b" was made
on 10/23 and 10/24; and run "c" was made on 10/24 and 10/25. The
resulting fits to the sonic wind speed data versus the pitot tube are
as follows for each run and then for all three runs (a+b+c) combined.
I also made two additional runs ("d" and "e") with CSAT0423 on 10/26
because of the anomolous results in the first three runs. The appended
numbers in parenthesis are the rms residuals (cm/s) of the linear
fits.
10/13/00 CSAT 0203a: sonic speed = 0.000 + 0.971*pitot speed (1.0)
10/23/00 CSAT 0203b: sonic speed = 0.021 + 0.970 pitot speed (0.8)
10/25/00 CSAT 0203c: sonic speed = 0.001 + 0.973 pitot speed (0.5)
a+b+c CSAT 0203: sonic speed = 0.005 + 0.972 pitot speed (0.5)
10/18/00 CSAT 0250a: sonic speed = 0.016 + 0.973*pitot speed (1.0)
10/23/00 CSAT 0250b: sonic speed = 0.016 + 0.970 pitot speed (0.9)
10/25/00 CSAT 0250c: sonic speed = 0.009 + 0.973 pitot speed (0.8)
a+b+c CSAT 0250: sonic speed = 0.007 + 0.974 pitot speed (0.6)
10/18/00 CSAT 0251a: sonic speed = 0.059 + 0.973*pitot speed (0.6)
10/23/00 CSAT 0251b: sonic speed = 0.062 + 0.972 pitot speed (0.7)
10/25/00 CSAT 0251c: sonic speed = 0.066 + 0.969 pitot speed (1.0)
a+b+c CSAT 0251: sonic speed = 0.062 + 0.972 pitot speed (0.5)
10/18/00 CSAT 0290a: sonic speed = 0.007 + 0.968*pitot speed (0.6)
10/23/00 CSAT 0290b: sonic speed = 0.032 + 0.965 pitot speed (1.0)
10/25/00 CSAT 0290c: sonic speed = -0.009 + 0.970 pitot speed (0.7)
a+b+c CSAT 0290: sonic speed = 0.002 + 0.969 pitot speed (0.5)
10/13/00 CSAT 0325a: sonic speed = -0.037 + 0.970*pitot speed (1.1)
10/23/00 CSAT 0325b: sonic speed = -0.005 + 0.965*pitot speed (0.8)
10/25/00 CSAT 0325c: sonic speed = -0.026 + 0.967 pitot speed (1.0)
a+b+c CSAT 0325: sonic speed = -0.023 + 0.968 pitot speed (0.6)
10/13/00 CSAT 0326a: sonic speed = 0.008 + 0.958*pitot speed (0.9)
10/23/00 CSAT 0326b: sonic speed = 0.001 + 0.955*pitot speed (0.9)
10/25/00 CSAT 0326c: sonic speed = -0.007 + 0.958 pitot speed (0.8)
a+b+c CSAT 0326: sonic speed = -0.012 + 0.959 pitot speed (0.6)
10/13/00 CSAT 0333a: sonic speed = 0.023 + 0.971*pitot speed (0.9)
10/23/00 CSAT 0333b: sonic speed = 0.029 + 0.966 pitot speed (0.8)
10/25/00 CSAT 0333c: sonic speed = 0.038 + 0.966 pitot speed (0.9)
a+b+c CSAT 0333: sonic speed = 0.035 + 0.967 pitot speed (0.6)
10/16/00 CSAT 0364a: sonic speed = 0.008 + 0.966*pitot speed (0.7)
10/23/00 CSAT 0364b: sonic speed = 0.011 + 0.960 pitot speed (0.6)
10/25/00 CSAT 0364c: sonic speed = 0.009 + 0.961 pitot speed (0.7)
a+b+c CSAT 0364: sonic speed = -0.009 + 0.965 pitot speed (0.6)
10/16/00 CSAT 0367a: sonic speed = -0.035 + 0.973*pitot speed (1.2)
10/23/00 CSAT 0367b: sonic speed = -0.045 + 0.972 pitot speed (1.6)
10/25/00 CSAT 0367c: sonic speed = -0.044 + 0.972 pitot speed (1.4)
a+b+c CSAT 0367: sonic speed = -0.039 + 0.971 pitot speed (0.8)
10/16/00 CSAT 0373a: sonic speed = 0.004 + 0.972*pitot speed (0.7)
10/23/00 CSAT 0373b: sonic speed = 0.016 + 0.967 pitot speed (0.7)
10/25/00 CSAT 0373c: sonic speed = -0.002 + 0.972 pitot speed (0.8)
a+b+c CSAT 0373: sonic speed = -0.002 + 0.972 pitot speed (0.6)
10/16/00 CSAT 0374a: sonic speed = -0.030 + 0.978*pitot speed (1.2)
10/23/00 CSAT 0374b: sonic speed = -0.012 + 0.970 pitot speed (0.9)
10/25/00 CSAT 0374c: sonic speed = -0.027 + 0.974 pitot speed (0.8)
a+b+c CSAT 0374: sonic speed = -0.023 + 0.973 pitot speed (0.6)
10/16/00 CSAT 0375a: sonic speed = 0.012 + 0.975*pitot speed (0.9)
10/23/00 CSAT 0375b: sonic speed = -0.032 + 0.979 pitot speed (1.4)
10/25/00 CSAT 0375c: sonic speed = -0.001 + 0.975 pitot speed (0.8)
a+b+c CSAT 0375: sonic speed = -0.025 + 0.978 pitot speed (0.7)
10/16/00 CSAT 0376a: sonic speed = 0.022 + 0.973*pitot speed (0.9)
10/23/00 CSAT 0376b: sonic speed = 0.077 + 0.963 pitot speed (0.9)
10/25/00 CSAT 0376c: sonic speed = 0.020 + 0.975 pitot speed (1.3)
a+b+c CSAT 0376: sonic speed = 0.035 + 0.971 pitot speed (0.7)
10/16/00 CSAT 0378a: sonic speed = -0.047 + 0.973*pitot speed (1.2)
10/24/00 CSAT 0378b: sonic speed = -0.024 + 0.968 pitot speed (1.0)
10/25/00 CSAT 0378c: sonic speed = -0.019 + 0.968 pitot speed (1.1)
a+b+c CSAT 0378: sonic speed = -0.038 + 0.971 pitot speed (0.8)
10/16/00 CSAT 0379a: sonic speed = -0.003 + 0.968*pitot speed (1.0)
10/24/00 CSAT 0379b: sonic speed = 0.016 + 0.962 pitot speed (0.7)
10/24/00 CSAT 0379c: sonic speed = -0.009 + 0.964 pitot speed (0.7)
a+b+c CSAT 0379: sonic speed = 0.006 + 0.964 pitot speed (0.5)
10/16/00 CSAT 0422a: sonic speed = -0.053 + 0.973*pitot speed (1.2)
10/24/00 CSAT 0422b: sonic speed = -0.031 + 0.966 pitot speed (1.0)
10/24/00 CSAT 0422c: sonic speed = -0.030 + 0.965 pitot speed (0.9)
a+b+c CSAT 0422: sonic speed = -0.041 + 0.968 pitot speed (0.8)
10/18/00 CSAT 0423a: sonic speed = -0.079 + 0.971*pitot speed (1.9)
10/24/00 CSAT 0423b: sonic speed = -0.049 + 0.962 pitot speed (1.7)
10/24/00 CSAT 0423c: sonic speed = -0.047 + 0.960 pitot speed (1.7)
a+b+c CSAT 0423: sonic speed = -0.071 + 0.966 pitot speed (1.2)
10/26/00 CSAT 0423d: sonic speed = -0.082 + 0.971 pitot speed (2.0)
10/26/00 CSAT 0423e: sonic speed = -0.085 + 0.972 pitot speed (2.1)
a+b+c+d+e CSAT 0423: sonic speed = -0.083 + 0.970 pitot speed (1.0)
6/29/01
Because of their large offsets, SN's 251 and 423 were set to the
manufacturer for recalibration. Following is Ed Swiatek's report:
From: "Edward Swiatek"
To: horst@atd.ucar.edu
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:16:08 -0700
Subject: Re: SGS update
Tom,
[text cut]
> In October, I completed post-project wind tunnel tests of the 17 CSAT3
> sonics, running three individual tests per sonic, and have now shipped
> them back to their owners. The results, which I forwarded to you,
> show very good consistency among the sonics. Two exceptions, SN 0251
> from UIA and SN 0423 from UMN, had offsets on the order of 6-8 cm/s,
> which exceeds the factory spec of +/- 4 cm/s. These two sonics have
> been sent to Campbell for recalibration. Ed Swiatek will provide the
> pre- and post- calibration specs in case those can be useful for data
> interpretation. Hopefully, the consequences of these small offsets
> are negligible.
The recalibration of s/n 0251 and 0423 was finished last week and
the CSAT3s were shipped to their respective owners. The
recalibration shows that s/n 0423's offset changed, but not outside
of the CSAT3's specifications. At this time I can not explain why
you saw an 8 cm/s offset for s/n 0423 during the wind tunnel
calibration.
The Ux and Uy offset, for s/n 0251, changed by as much as -8
cm/s at 0 degrees C and by as much as +4 cm/s at 40 degrees C,
respectly. I will send you, by facsimile, several graphs that show
the change in the Ux, Uy, and Uz offset with temperature for
CSAT3 s/n 0251 and 0423.
- 107: Post-processing, Site , Thu 12-Oct-2000 13:28:35 MDT, CSAT reconfiguration
On Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, I reconfigured the CSAT sonics used
in the field for prompted data output mode.
- 106: Sonics, Site , Sat 30-Sep-2000 12:25:00 PDT, CSAT configurations
Following are the CSAT configurations obtained with
rserial -A cosmos channel
T
??
Note that this was done from 1140 PDT until 1230 PDT, September 30, so there
are missing data on the CSAT sonics for this period.
Cosmos 200
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=413a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=016 016 016 ELb=016 016 016 TNo=bba d TNb=cba JD= 007
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=8 8 8 tlb=8 8 8 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD= duty=047 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0422 31may00 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 rev 3.0a cs=03159 &=1 os=
Cosmos 201
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=322a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=1 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=016 016 016 ELb=016 016 016 TNo=bcc d TNb=bcc JD= 007
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=8 8 8 tlb=8 8 8 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD= duty=041 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0423 31may00 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 rev 3.0a cs=46995 &=1 os=
Cosmos 202
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=222a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=016 016 016 ELb=016 016 016 TNo=dcd d TNb=dcd JD= 005
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=8 8 8 tlb=8 8 8 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD= duty=046 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0250 27may98 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 rev 3.0a cs=31984 &=1 os=
Cosmos 203
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=131a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=016 016 016 ELb=017 016 016 TNo=fee d TNb=ede JD= 007
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=8 8 8 tlb=9 8 8 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD= duty=046 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0326 19jul00 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 rev 3.0a cs=30529 &=1 os=
Cosmos 204
Would not enter terminal mode
Therefore, I printed out the config for S/N 0373 after returning to Boulder,
Oct 11:
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=222a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0
AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=017 016 016 ELb=017 016 016 TNo=dce d TNb=ede
JD= 007
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=9 8 8 tlb=9 8 8 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD=
duty=047 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1
XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0373 23nov99 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1
rev 3.0a cs=55215 &=1 os=
Cosmos 205
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=212a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=017 016 016 ELb=015 017 016 TNo=eec d TNb=ded JD= 007
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=9 8 8 tlb=7 9 8 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD= duty=046 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0375 01dec99 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 rev 3.0a cs=01082 &=1 os=
Cosmos 206
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=222a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=016 016 016 ELb=016 016 016 TNo=ecd d TNb=ecd JD= 007
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=8 8 8 tlb=8 8 8 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD= duty=046 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0378 01dec99 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 rev 3.0a cs=16582 &=1 os=
Cosmos 207
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=111a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=016 017 017 ELb=016 017 017 TNo=fdc d TNb=edd JD= 007
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=8 9 9 tlb=8 9 9 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD= duty=047 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0325 14jul00 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 rev 3.0a cs=35813 &=1 os=
Cosmos 208
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=111a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=016 016 016 ELb=016 016 016 TNo=edd d TNb=dcd JD= 007
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=8 8 8 tlb=8 8 8 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD= duty=046 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0364 22aug00 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 rev 3.0a cs=23461 &=1 os=
Cosmos 209
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=121a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=016 016 016 ELb=016 016 016 TNo=eef d TNb=ede JD= 007
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=8 8 8 tlb=8 8 8 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD= duty=045 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0374 01dec99 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 rev 3.0a cs=42585 &=1 os=
Cosmos 210
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=322a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=016 016 017 ELb=016 016 016 TNo=ced d TNb=ced JD= 007
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=8 8 9 tlb=8 8 8 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD= duty=047 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0367 01nov99 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 rev 3.0a cs=28315 &=1 os=
Cosmos 211
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=122a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=017 016 016 ELb=017 016 016 TNo=ccd d TNb=ccc JD= 007
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=9 8 8 tlb=9 8 8 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD= duty=047 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0251 24aug00 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 rev 3.0a cs=03750 &=1 os=
Cosmos 212
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=211a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=016 017 017 ELb=016 017 016 TNo=d9d d TNb=dbe JD= 007
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=8 9 9 tlb=8 9 8 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD= duty=047 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0376 01dec99 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 rev 3.0a cs=57390 &=1 os=
Cosmos 213
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=111a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=016 016 017 ELb=016 017 017 TNo=eee d TNb=ede JD= 007
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=8 8 9 tlb=8 9 9 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD= duty=047 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0333 16jun99 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 rev 3.0a cs=03509 &=1 os=
Cosmos 214
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=215a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=017 016 015 ELb=017 016 015 TNo=fea d TNb=fea JD= 005
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=9 8 7 tlb=9 8 7 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD= duty=047 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0290 18nov98 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 rev 3.0a cs=16423 &=1 os=
Cosmos 215
ET= 20 ts=i XD=d GN=222a TK=1 P=5 FK=0 RN=1 IT=1 DR=102 rx=2 fx=038 BX=0 AH=1 AT=0 RS=1 BR=0 RI=0 GO=00000 HA=0 6X=3 3X=2 PD=2 SD=0 ?d sa=1
WM=o ar=0 ZZ=0 DC=4 ELo=016 016 016 ELb=016 016 016 TNo=dde d TNb=dee JD= 007
C0o=-2-2-2 C0b=-2-2-2 RC=0 tlo=8 8 8 tlb=8 8 8 DTR=01740 CA=1 TD= duty=047 AQ= 20 AC=1 CD=0 SR=1 X=0 MX=0 DT=02320 DTC=01160 RD=o ss=1 XP=2 RF=018 DS=007 SN0379 01dec99 HF=005 JC=3 CB=3 MD=5 DF=05000 RNA=1 rev 3.0a cs=45107 &=1 os=
- 105: Sonics, Site , Sat 30-Sep-2000 09:55:24 PDT, Hawk on sonic
When I arrived at the measurement array around 08:15 PDT, Sept 30, there
was a hawk roosting on sonic a.5m. I shooed him away at 08:55 PDT.
There was an anomolous excursion of tc.a.5m from about 0700 PDT until
0900 PDT.
- 104: Daily Status, Site , Fri 29-Sep-2000 10:32:42 PDT, Daily status, Sept 29
September 29, 1000
Highlights: Good wind directions much of yesterday and last night.
Spd: 4m has high starting speed
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.15m ab 4.15 m sgs 5.15 m ab 5.15 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok b noisy*
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok b noisy*
samples:ok ok ok ok
*likely a hawk roosting on the sonic
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Staffing: horst, militzer
- 103: Field Site, Site , Thu 28-Sep-2000 15:13:25 PDT, Site location
The measurement array is located 1 mile north of Racine Street
and 3.5 miles east of Highway 41. Racine Street and Highway 41
cross in Kettleman City, California.
For the purpose of using the sun angle program, I read latitude
and longitude from the Kettleman City quadrangle to be
latitude 36 deg 1'15" north and
longitude 119 deg 53'45" west.
- 102: Sonics, Site , Thu 28-Sep-2000 12:59:49 PDT, Corrections to sonic azimuth angles, arrays #1 and #2
On September 4, I measured the azimuth angles of the sonics, using
a theodolite, properly oriented using known sun angles.
Note that the theodolite was oriented using data from Sept 4-5, 1900,
rather than Sept 4-5, 2000. The corrections are entered below.
First, (11:10 PDT)I measured the azimuth of a line between stations
a and b (Taylor's hypothesis towers; note that tower b is nominally
NW of tower a).
The measured azimuth of a relative to b is 135 deg 53'25".
The correction is +19'36", so that the correct azimuth is
136 deg 13'01".
The sonic azimuths are:
Tower Height Time Azimuth Correction Corrected
(m) (PDT) (deg) Azimuth
----- ------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------
a 3 11:45 137 55'07" +18'35" 138.23
6 12:00 138 40'11" +16'47" 138.95
b 3 11:10 135 53'25" +19'36" 136.22
6 11:30 137 00'15" +19'47" 137.33
0 3 12:20 136 50'48" +14'23" 137.09
6 12:20 136 50'48" +14'23" 137.09
1 3 14:00 135 46'00" -9'36" 135.61
6 14:15 135 59'20" -11'24" 135.80
2 3 14:35 136 12'40" -13'12" 135.99
3 3 14:55 135 29'08" -14'24" 135.24
6 15:00 134 41'38" -15'00" 134.44
4 3 15:40 135 33'50" -15'00" 135.31
5 3 16:00 135 07'04" -15'37" 134.86
6 16:30 134 13'07" -15'00" 133.97
6 3 16:50 135 04'25" -14'25" 134.83
7 3 09:20 134 55'50" +18'35" 135.24
6 09:35 135 40'15" +19'13" 135.99
8 3 10:05 134 42'00" +19'11" 135.02
9 3 10:15 134 38'25' +19'49" 134.97
6 10:30 132 54'20" +19'48" 133.24
Jan Kleissl measured the azimuths after 15:00 PDT, September 4
(towers 4-9). He finished towers 7-9 on the morning of September 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Array #2:
Peter Sullivan measured the sonic angles with the theodolite on
September 11 and 12. Towers a,b,0-4 were measured on September
11 and towers 5-9 on September 12.
These measurements were made using sun angles for Sept 11-12, 1900
to orient the theodolite, rather than Sept 11-12, 2000. Following
are the correct angles.
Correct
Tower Height Time Azimuth Correction Azimuth
(m) (PDT) (deg) (deg)
----- ------ ----- ----------- ---------- --------
0 4 16:50 137 35'40" -13'49" 137.36
8 17:00 137 31'25" -14'23" 137.28
1 4 15:30 135 53'18" -13'47" 135.66
8 16:30 136 25'38" -13'48" 136.20
2 4 17:15 137 07'15" -13'49" 136.89
3 4 17:30 135 20'47" -13'48" 135.12
8 17:45 135 32'20" -13'48" 135.31
4 4 18:00 135 27'52" -13'49" 135.23
5 4 9:00 133 06'35" +17'59" 133.41
8 9:10 134 37'20" +18'36" 134.93
6 4 9:30 134 41'27" +18'37" 135.00
7 4 9:50 135 08'45" +19'11" 135.47
8 10:05 135 49'47" +19'48" 136.16
8 4 10:20 134 59'10" +19'49" 135.32
9 4 10:35 134 23'25" +19'48" 134.72
8 10:45 134 39'17" +20'24" 134.99
a 4 12:25 139 39'18" +12'37" 139.87
8 12:45 139 36'43" + 7'48" 139.74
b 4 11:25 137 04'20" +19'12" 137.39
8 11:55 137 39'20" +16'48" 137.94
- 101: Prop vanes, Site , Thu 28-Sep-2000 10:42:38 PDT, Correction to prop-vane anemometer azimuths
I used sun angle tables for Sept 4, 1999 for the prop-vane azimuth
measurements, rather than Sept 4, 2000.
Following are the corrections to be applied in post-processing:
Time Height Azimuth Channel Azimuth+180deg Correction
(PDT) (m) (deg) (daisy) (deg)
09:35 10 130 55' 50" 204 310.9 +18'37"
09:55 7 129 57' 25" 205 310.0 +19'11"
10:15 4 132 30' 00" 206 312.5 +19'48"
10:30 2 131 48' 07" 207 311.8 +19'48"
10:45 1 132 45' 15" 208 312.8 +20'24"
- 100: Daily Status, Site , Thu 28-Sep-2000 08:23:03 PDT, Daily status, September 28
September 28, 0800
Highlights: Cotton harvest in full swing at Westlake Farms.
Good wind directions last night and this morning.
Replaced uw sonic at b.5m, but it's quite possible
that the noise was caused by hawks perching on the sonic.
Added fuel pump to generator fuel tank.
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.15m ab 4.15 m sgs 5.15 m ab 5.15 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok b noisy*
tc: ok ok ok b noisy*
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok b noisy*
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok b noisy*
samples:ok ok ok ok
*probably a hawk on sonic
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data: Problems with generator yesterday morning and afternoon.
Staffing: horst, militzer
- 99: Sonics, Site , Wed 27-Sep-2000 10:22:55 PDT, Sonic azimuths, array #4
On September 26, Don Lenschow and I began to measure the sonics azimuths
for array 4.
Tower Height Time* Azimuth Correction** Correct azimuth
(m) (PDT) (deg) (deg)
---- ------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------------
b 4 15:25 138 01'15" -11'59" 137 49'16' = 137.82
b 5 15:55 139 43'35" -12'37" 139 30'58' = 139.52
a 4 16:25 140 19'35" -12'36" 140 6'59" = 140.12
a 5 16:45 140 43'47" -13'12" 140 30'35" = 140.51
*estimated
**correction for using year 1900 sun angle data rather than year 2000 data.
Note that the correction is about 0.2 degrees.
I completed measuring the sonic angles with the Nikon on the afternoon
of September 27. I marked the measurement locations with stakes for
John to use the two triangle method with the rented Spectra theodolite.
Sonic Time* Azimuth Azimuth
(PDT) (deg) (deg)
----- ----- ---------- -------
d1 13:10 135 20'25" 135.34
d2 13:25 135 34'07" 135.57
s1 14:45 136 26'23" 136.44
d3 14:55 135 25'07" 135.42
s2 15:15 135 53'43" 135.90
d4 15:50 135 37'25" 135.62
d5 " 135 10'00" 135.17
d6 " 134 42'22" 134.71
s2 " 135 48'30" 135.81
s3 16:15 135 21'28" 135.36
s4 " 134 44'40" 134.74
d6** " 134 52'40" 134.88
s0 16:40 136 40'35" 136.68
d0 " 136 38'35" 136.64
s5 16:55 136 34'48" 136.58
d8 17:15 136 31'25" 136.52
d9 17:25 136 12'30" 136.21
d7 17:45 135 08'37" 135.14
*accurate time of orienting theodolite to known sun angle
**originally I recorded this as d7, but John pointed out that d7 was
not aligned at this location, but d6 was.
John's measurements:
Azimuth measurements (deg,min,sec)
------------------------------------------------------- Derived
Sonic N C W Sonic Azimuth
----- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
d1,* 0 57,58,00 113,54,00 61,05,20 135.34
180,00,20 237,58,00 293,53,40 241,05,40 135.35
s3,* 0 59,14,20 115,51,40 61,06,20 135.39
180,00,20 239,14,20 295,51,40 241,06,40 135.40
s4,ok 60,29,40 134.78
240,29,40 134.78
d6,ok 60,37,20 134.91
240,37,40 134.92
d4,JM 61,35,40 135.88
241,36,00 135.89
s1,JM 62,21,00 135.63
242,21,00 136.64
s2,JM 61,44,00 136.02
241,44,00 136.02
d4,ok 0 59,01,20 115,29,00 61,18,20 135.68
180,00,00 239,01,00 295,29,00 241,18,20 135.66
d5,ok 60,50,20 135.21
240,50,20 135.20
d6,ok 60,20,00 134.71
240,20,00 134.69
s2,ok 61,26,00 135.81
241,26,00 135.79
s1,JM 62,03,20 136.43
242,03,20 136.41
s2,ok 0 58,53,40 115,11,00 61,20,00 135.90
180,00,00 238,53,40 295,11,00 241,20,00 135.90
s1,JM 61,57,00 136.52
241,57,20 136.52
d6,JM 60,14,20 134.80
240,14,20 134.80
d4,JM 61,12,20 135.77
241,12,20 135.77
John finished the measurements on the afternoon of September 28.
s0,ok 0 71,15,20 131,47,40 64,59,00 136.74
180,00,00 251,15,00 311,47,20 244,59,00 136.75
d0,ok 64,57,00 136.71
244,57,00 136.72
d2,ok 0 58,47,40 115,04,20 62,00,20 136.49
180,00,00 238,47,20 295,04,20 242,00,20 136.49
d3,ok 0 58,45,40 115,02,20 61,25,20 135.88
180,00,00 238,45,40 295,02,40 241,25,20 135.87
s1,ok 0 58,51,20 115,07,40 61,53,20 136.45
180,00,00 238,51,20 295,07,40 241,53,40 136.45
d7,ok 0 57,55,40 112,54,00 59,01,40 135.15
180,00,00 237,55,20 292,54,20 239,01,40 135.12
s5,ok 0 58,03,40 112,35,20 59,17,40 136.55
179,59,40 237,59,00 292,29,40 239,23,40 136.57
d8,ok 0 58,03,40 112,35,20 59,17,40 136.52
180,00,00 238,03,40 292,35,40 239,17,40 136.51
d9,ok 0 58,11,20 112,48,00 58,59,00 136.18
179,59,40 238,11,20 292,48,00 238,59,00 136.17
ok: John agrees with my alignment
JM: John sees this sonic as also aligned well at this location
*John sees alignment as being slightly off
September 30
------------
There is a large disagreement between John's values for d2 and d3 and
my measurments:
Sonic Time* Azimuth Azimuth
(PDT) (deg) (deg)
----- ----- ---------- -------
d2 13:25 135 34'07" 135.57
d3 14:55 135 25'07" 135.42
Azimuth measurements (deg,min,sec)
------------------------------------------------------- Derived
Sonic N C W Sonic Azimuth
----- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
d2,ok 0 58,47,40 115,04,20 62,00,20 136.49
180,00,00 238,47,20 295,04,20 242,00,20 136.49
d3,ok 0 58,45,40 115,02,20 61,25,20 135.88
180,00,00 238,45,40 295,02,40 241,25,20 135.87
Thus I remeasured d2 and d3 this morning. The stakes are only about 10cm
apart, so I measured the azimuths of both sonics from each stake. Although
the both sonics d2 and d3 look good from each stake, it can be seen that
d2 is slightly better aligned with stake d2 and similarly for sonic d3 from
stake d3.
Stake Sonic Time* Azimuth Azimuth
(PDT) (deg) (deg)
----- ----- ----- ---------- -------
d2 d2 08:20 136 35'30" 136.59
d3 136 5'10" 136.09
d3 d2 08:35 136 24'33" 136.41
d3 135 53'27" 135.89
These measurements agree significantly better with John's measurements.
- 98: Sonics, Site , Wed 27-Sep-2000 10:02:08 PDT, Replaced 5m sonic on tower b
Replaced sonic UW5 with sonic UW 4 at the 5m (upper) level
on tower b. The pickup left the vicinity of the tower around
0945 PDT.
b.5m was showing occasional large excursions in w'tc' and tc'tc'.
It's possible these were caused by hawks perching on the sonic.
- 97: Daily Status, Site , Wed 27-Sep-2000 10:01:34 PDT, Daily status, September 27
September 27, 0800
Highlights: Good wind directions yesterday afternoon and last night
Spd: 4m has high starting speed
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.15m ab 4.15 m sgs 5.15 m ab 5.15 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok b NG
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok b NG
samples:ok ok ok ok
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data: Problems with generator yesterday morning and afternoon.
Staffing: horst, militzer
Don Lenschow left this morning
- 96: Daily Status, Site , Tue 26-Sep-2000 11:20:00 PDT, Daily status, September 26
September 26, 1000
Highlights: Completed change from array 3 to array 4 at 1730 PDT,
September 25.
Spd: 4m has high starting speed
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data: Some problems with generator during the transition.
Staffing: horst, militzer, lenschow
Bjorn Stevens and student left yesterday afternoon.
- 95: Field Site, Site , Tue 26-Sep-2000 09:31:36 PDT, Various array and site dimensions
This morning, September 26, John and I measured various dimensions
of the array layout. Starting from the NE end of the array, and
measuring along the NE/SW line of the array:
Northern check dam to tower 9 (array 2/3) = 44.60 m
Tower 1 (array 2/3) to tower 0 = 10.40 m
Tower 1 to NE leg of array 4 = 19.95 m
SW leg of array 4 to intermediate check dam = 27.55 m
Intermediate check dam to TRH profile tower = 34.75 m
TRH profile tower to wind profile tower = 9.95 m
Wind profile tower to tower a = 10.35 m
Tower a to southern check dam = 30 m
The road to the east is 85-90 cm above the level of the field.
The check dams are 20-25 cm above the level of the field.
The ditchs on either side of a check dam are 45-50 cm deep
relative to the top of the check dam.
On September 28, John estimated the NS ditch east of the array to
be 6' deep and 25' wide.
He also estimated the width of the EW canal along Quebec to be 90'
directly north of the site or 2.5 mile east of the base trailer.
At that location the height of the banks is about 2'-4'.
The height of the north bank above the water 0.5 mile east of the base
is 6'-8'.
- 94: ADAMs, Site , Mon 25-Sep-2000 18:47:33 PDT, plugged in power to daisy
We moved the generator this afternoon and extended the power cable
to daisy. Unfortunately, we forgot to plug the power cable into
daisy again. I plugged it in around 1837 PDT and daisy is now
running. All daisy sensors operating okay.
- 93: Base_systems, Site , Mon 25-Sep-2000 18:19:31 PDT, Changed prep.config for ops4
We made a wiring error on ops4, so I changed prep.config and
rebooted cosmos around 1820 PDT, September 25.
The changes were:
Sonic Old channel New Channel
S1 202 203
S2 203 204
S3 204 202
- 92: Base_systems, Site , Mon 25-Sep-2000 18:17:21 PDT, Started ops4
We started reconfiguring the array from geometry 3 to geometry 4
around 1300 PDT, September 24 and completed it around 1730 PDT,
September 25. I changed ops from 3 to 4 at 0000 (GMT?) September 25.
- 91: Daily Status, Site , Sun 24-Sep-2000 10:21:42 PDT, Daily status, September 24
September 24, 1000
Highlights: Wind directions are again more favorable. We plan to
change from array 3 to array 4 this afternoon.
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok ok ok ok
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data:
Staffing: horst, militzer, lenschow, stevens & students
- 90: Sensor Array, Site , Sat 23-Sep-2000 11:31:36 PDT, Array geometry, array #4
In preparation for changing from array 3 to array 4, John Militzer and
I placed a reference height mark on tower 0 and on the two supporting
towers for array 4, using the theodolite in a transit mode.
This new mark is 5.5 cm above the mark for array 1. Since the height
mark for array 1 is 1.62m above the surface, this new mark is
assumed to be 1.675m above the surface.
Next, we measured the heights of the two horizontal towers to be
used to support the sonics in array 4. On the NE leg of array 4,
the heights of the two horizontal towers are (we measured the heights
to each of the two legs of each horizontal tower where they were
attached to the vertical towers):
(256 + 244)/2 - 10 cm = 240 cm + 1.675 m = 4.075 m
and
(356 + 344)/2 - 10 cm = 340 cm + 1.675 m = 5.075 m
On the SW leg of array 4, the heights of the two horizontal towers are:
(258 + 245)/2 - 10 cm = 241.5 cm + 1.675 m = 4.09 m
(358 + 345)/2 - 10 cm = 341.5 cm + 1.675 m = 5.09 m
Thus the heights of the CSAT sonics are 4.08 m + 5cm = 4.13 m and 5.13 m*
*Note that I mistakenly added 5 cm to the height of the middle of the
horizontal ASTER towers and the middle of the ASTER yokes on tower
zero. I should have added this dimension to height of the top of
the booms. The booms are 1.5 in x 1.5 in, and thus the true height
of the sonics on towers s0-s1, d0-d1 is higher by 0.75 in = 1.9 cm
or 4.15 m and 5.15 m.
The sonics on towers a and b were placed at the following heights
relative to the local surface. The height of the 5m sonics are
slightly lower than s0-s5 because of interference with the gussets
on the PAM mast:
A 4.13 m 5.05 m
B 4.13 m 5.02 m
The upper sonic on tower B is S/N NUW5.
The serial numbers and cosmos channel numbers of the CSAT sonics are:
sonic S/N channel
d0 * 200
d1 325 207
d2 364 208
d3 374 209
d4 367 210
d5 251 211
d6 376 212
d7 333 213
d8 290 214
d9 379 215
s0 * 201
s1 326 203
s2 373 204
s3 250 202
s4 375 205
s5 378 206
*unchanged from array 3
On Sept 29, 08:45 PDT, I measured the alignment of array 4 with the
theodolite. It is 45 deg 46'45" = 45.78 deg.
11/28/00:
I appear to have forgotten to note the sonic spacing. The spacing of
the d array at a nominal height of 4 m was 0.5 m and the spacing of the
s array at a nominal height of 5 m was 0.625 m. twh
- 89: Daily Status, Site , Sat 23-Sep-2000 08:48:04 PDT, Daily status, September 23
September 23, 0900
Highlights:
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok ok ok ok
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data:
Staffing: horst, militzer, lenschow, stevens & students
Don Lenschow scheduled to arrive later this morning
after taking Jeff Weil to the airport.
- 88: Daily Status, Site , Fri 22-Sep-2000 09:13:48 PDT, Daily status, September 22
September 22, 0900
Highlights: High winds yesterday (10m/s at 10m), but
directions generally poor. Overcast this morning.
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok ok ok ok
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data: Daisy operating okay
Staffing: horst, militzer, weil, stevens
Bjorn Stevens and 2 students arrived at noon yesterday.
Chin-Hoh Moeng left this morning
- 87: Sonics, Site , Fri 22-Sep-2000 08:29:19 PDT, Sonic azimuths for array #3
On September 21 and 22, Jeff Weil measured the sonic angles using
the technique described in entry 86.
On September 21, Jeff made the following measurements from 1500 PDT
to 1800 PDT. In reference to logbook entry 264, the EW baseline is
line A and the NS baseline is line E. BM1 is located at the north
end of line E, the intersection of D and E. BM2 is located at the
south end of line E, the intersection of A and E. BM3 is located
at the east end of line A, the intersection of B and A.
Thus the angle BM2 is angle e, and
the angle BM3 is the sum of angles a and e.
EW baseline (A): 70.37m*
NS baseline (E): 77.70m*
*On September 22 we remeasured these distances to be:
EW baseline (A): 73.52m
NS baseline (E): 77.65m
We believe that on September 21 we mistakenly wrote down
70.37m for 73.70m. Note that the 9/22 distances are
slightly shorter than the 9/21 distances. We believe
that the 9/22 measurements are better.
The angle between A and E (f=b+d) is 90 degrees.
John Militzer and I remeasured this angle on 9/23 because the
theodolite was not directly above BM2 on 9/21. However we also
measured the angle to be 90 degrees (90.00.20 using the theodolite
in one direction and 89.59.40 in the other direction).
This angle was again confirmed to be 90 degrees on September 27,
when we measured the true azimuths of the two lines. See below.
d.m.s = deg, min, sec
Tower Height BM1 BM2 BM3 Sonic Azimuth
(m) (d.m.s) (d.m.s) (d.m.s) (d.m.s) (deg)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 4.33 0 41.24 80.49.20 37.19.20 137.39
0 8.66 37.19.20 137.39
1 8.66 0 40.59.40 80.38.40 31.16.28 135.78
180.00.40 220.59.40 260.38.40 211.16.40
2 8.66 0 41.33.40 81.47.00 32.09.40 137.63
0 32.09.20
3 8.66 0 41.52.0 82.23.40 29.31.20 135.66
0 82.24.00 29.31.20
4 8.66 0 42.19.40 83.15.40 28.39.40 135.53
0 83.15.40 28.40.00
0 42.25.40 83.23.20 28.41.40 135.10
42.22.40 83.20.20 28.38.40 135.43
00.00.20 42.23.20 83.21.00 28.39.20 135.37
4 4.33 0 42.19.40 83.15.40 28.41.20 135.56
4.5 4.33 0 42.28.40 83.32.00 28.02.40 135.11
83.32.00 28.02.40
5 4.33 0 42.43.20 83.59.00 27.36.40 135.14
0.0.20 83.59.00 27.36.40
These angle measurements were continued on September 22, from 0900 PDT
until about 1200 PDT:
5 8.66 0 42.57.00 84.23.20 27.57.20 135.84
0 84.23.20 27.57.20
5.5 4.33 0 43.06.40 84.42.00 27.27.00 135.96
359.59.40 84.42.00
6 8.66 0 43.32.00 85.25.00 27.08.00 136.21
0 85.25.00 27.08.00
6 4.33 0 43.29.40 85.20.20 27.00.40 135.85
0 43.29.20 85.20.20 27.00.40
7 8.66 0 44.02.20 86.18.20 26.19.20 137.19
359.59.40 86.18.00 26.19.20
8 8.66 0 44.31.20 87.06.00 25.17.20 137.72
0 87.06.00 25.17.00
0 44.34.00 87.09.40 25.18.40 137.64
87.09.20 25.18.40
9 8.66 0 44.26.20 86.57.20 23.19.00 135.22 0 86.57.20 23.19.00
In the afternoon of September 23, John Militzer repeated these
measurements on some of the sonics at the 8.66 m height. John repeated
each set of theodolite readings by inverting the telescope of the
theodolite. He also repeated some of the measurements with a
newly-placed theodolite location, after questioning whether he had used
the correct stake for finding BM1.
Tower BM1 BM2 BM3 Sonic Azimuth
(d.m.s) (d.m.s) (d.m.s) (d.m.s) (deg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 0 37.52.00 74.22.20 33.57.00 137.08
180.00.00 217.52.00 254.22.20 213.57.00
1 0 40.20.40 79.37.00 30.51.20 136.55
180.00.20 220.20.40 259.37.20 210.51.20
3 0 39.54.20 79.08.20 27.59.40 135.90
180.00.00 219.54.20 259.08.00 207.59.40
5 0 40.16.00 80.01.40 25.50.20 135.48
180.00.00 220.16.00 260.01.20 205.50.20
7 0 38.43.40 78.03.00 22.24.00 136.69
180.00.00 218.43.20 258.03.00 202.24.20
9 0 40.02.20 80.15.00 20.14.00 134.41
180.00.00 220.02.00 260.15.20 200.14.20
5 0 42.38.20 83.51.40 27.37.00 135.34
180.00.00 222.38.00 263.51.40 207.37.00
3 0 42.05.40 82.47.40 29.44.20 135.92
180.00.20 222.05.20 262.47.20 209.44.20
1 0 40.36.40 80.05.00 31.05.00 136.63
180.00.00 220.36.40 260.04.40 211.05.00
0 0 37.58.20 74.32.20 34.00.40 136.92
180.00.00 217.58.00 254.32.40 214.01.00
On September 26, we got back the repaired Nikon theodolite. Don Lenschow
and I measured the true azimuths of BM1 and BM3 relative to BM2, by
placing the theodolite over BM2 and orienting it with the sun. The
measured azimuths are:
BM2 to BM1: 0 deg 37' 00"
BM2 to BM3: 270 deg 37' 00"
However, I realized later that day that we have been using the sun angles
for year 1900. At the time of these measurements (~1450 PDT, September 26),
the azimuths angle for 1900 is higher than that for 2000 by 9' 36". Thus
the corrected angles are:
BM2 to BM1: 0 deg 27' 24" = 0.46 deg
BM2 to BM3: 270 deg 27' 24" = 270.46 deg
Note that 9' corresponds to 0.15 degrees. It also appears that the sun
angle tables have a resolution of 0.01 degrees (36").
11/2/00
The last column above, labeled azimuth, was caculated using the NS angle
equal to 0.46 degrees.
- 86: Sonics, Site , Thu 21-Sep-2000 16:23:24 PDT, Finding sonic angles without the sun
The Nikon theodolite cannot be easily rotated about its
vertical axis relative to its base. We have sent it to
a repair shop. The only theodolite that we can find to
rent cannot be aligned relative to true north using the
sun, as is our normal procedure.
As an alternative, Jeff Weil developed a technique to
measure the orientation of the sonics relative to a
surveyed baseline. We do not know the orientation of
this baseline, but will hopefully determine it after
return of the repaired Nikon theodolite.
Jeff's technique uses the following geometry:
D
o................x
.\ e c' |
. \ |
.a \ |
. \ |
. \ |
. \ |
. \ |
B . \ C | E
. \ |
. \ |
. \ |
. \ |
. \ |
. \ d|
. s \ |
. c b \|
x----------------x
A
Here the end points of lines A and E, marked with x's, are surveyed
by measuring the included angle, f=b+d, and the distances A and B.
Note that I have drawn this as a rectangle, but this is not a
requirement or assumption of the technique.
Then the theodolite is placed at location o, in a line with the u
axis of one of the sonic anemometers, at location s. Then the angles
a and e are measured along with the relative angle to the sonic at s.
The angle d is then found using the following relationships:
A^2 + B^2 - 2*A*B*cos(c) = C^2
a + b + c = pi
sin(b)/B = sin(a)/A
E^2 + D^2 - 2*E*D*cos(c') = C^2
d + e + c' = pi
sin(d)/D + sin(e)/E
b+d = f
I have solved this set of equations with the following S program:
find.angle <- function(a,e,A,E,f=pi/2, d1=0,d2=pi, dacc=pi/180*0.1,
verbose=F, browse=F)
{
# Function to find one angle, d, in a pair of triangles
# with a common side, given measurementss of three other angles,
# a,e,f, and the lengths of two sides A and E.
# dacc is an acceptable value for dd, the nth refinement for d
# First bracket the root using zbrac, Numerical Recipes, Ch 9.1
if (d1 == d2)
stop(paste("d1 =",d1, "and d2 =",d2, "cannot be equal\n"))
ntry <- 50
jtry <- 0
factor <- 1.6
f1 <- two.triangle(d1, a,e,f,A,E)
f2 <- two.triangle(d2, a,e,f,A,E)
while (f1*f2 > 0 & jtry < ntry) {
jtry <- jtry+1
if (abs(f1) < abs(f2)) {
d1 <- d1 + factor*(d1-d2)
f1 <- two.triangle(d1, a,e,f,A,E)
}
else {
d2 <- d2 + factor*(d2-d1)
f2 <- two.triangle(d2, a,e,f,A,E)
}
}
if (verbose)
cat(jtry,signif(c(c(d1,d2)-d1,dacc)*180/pi,3),"\n")
# Now find the root using Newton-Raphson method,
# rtnewt, Numerical Recipies, Ch 9.4
jmax <- 20
j <- 0
d <- (d1+d2)/2
dd <- 2*dacc
while (abs(dd) > dacc & j < jmax) {
j <- j+1
# dd = -f(d)/f'(d)
dd <- -two.triangle(d, a,e,f,A,E)/two.triangle(d, a,e,f,A,E, T)
d <- d + dd
if ((d1-d)*(d-d2) < 0)
warning(paste("rtnewt jumped out of brackets, j=",j,"\n"))
if (verbose)
cat(j,signif(c(d,dd,d-d1)*180/pi,3),"\n")
}
if (browse)
browser()
d <- abs(d)
if(d > pi)
d <- d-pi
d
}
two.triangle <- function(d, a,e,f,A,E, derivative=F)
{
# function to calculate triangle function and its derivative,
# given angles a and b
b <- f-d
c <- pi-(a+b)
cp <- pi-(e+d)
B <- A*sin(b)/sin(a)
D <- E*sin(d)/sin(e)
dB <- -A*cos(b)/sin(a)
dcosc <- -sin(c)
dD <- E*cos(d)/sin(e)
dcoscp <- sin(cp)
if (derivative)
f <- 2*B*dB - 2*A*(dB*cos(c) + B*dcosc) -
(2*D*dD - 2*E*(dD*cos(cp) + D*dcoscp))
else
f <- A^2 + B^2 - 2*A*B*cos(c) - (E^2 + D^2 - 2*E*D*cos(cp))
}
- 85: Daily Status, Site , Thu 21-Sep-2000 09:21:09 PDT, Daily Status, September 21
September 21, 0900
Highlights: None whatsoever. Winds are poor.
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok ok ok ok
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data: Daisy operating okay
Staffing: horst, militzer, moeng, weil
- 84: Daily Status, Site , Wed 20-Sep-2000 09:05:57 PDT, Daily Status, September 20
September 20, 0830
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok * ok *
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data: Daisy operating okay for the moment; *occasional data losses
from ATI sonics
Staffing: horst, militzer, moeng, weil
John Militzer arrived late yesterday afternoon
Charlie Martin is leaving this morning
- 83: Daily Status, Site , Tue 19-Sep-2000 09:29:26 PDT, Daily status, September 19
September 19, 0800
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok ok ok ok
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data: ok
Staffing: horst, martin, moeng, weil
- 82: LOG, Site , Tue 19-Sep-2000 08:59:30 PDT, wind direction
Noted yesterday afternoon that the wind at the base was from the NW
while the wind at the measurement array was from the NE!!
- 81: LOG, Site , Tue 19-Sep-2000 08:58:38 PDT, oil
Added oil to generator
- 80: LOG, Site , Mon 18-Sep-2000 20:25:21 PDT, gas
added 18 gals. gas to generator tank.
- 79: Calibrations, Site , Mon 18-Sep-2000 16:07:00 PDT, Changed Tbox calibration in prep.config
Yesterday we found that the calibration of Tbox for cosmos in
prep.config was simply linear(10.0,"degC"). We looked at prep.config
for EBEX and used the calibration for cosmos Tbox,
linear(-86.11932,159.5322,"degC"), to change all the prep.configs
for SGS.
- 78: ADAMs, Site , Mon 18-Sep-2000 14:36:04 PDT, testing matrix cards using daisy
We used daisy to test our current
stock of matrix cards, so daisy
was rebooted a few times during the
last hour.
The card marked "marigold" is the
matrix card that we have been
using for the last couple of days,
having swapped it in on Sep. 13.
It is has been involved in a few
periods of flaky behavior on daisy,
although there is no proof that it
has been the cause.
The card marked "daisy" is the one that
we had used up until Sep. 13. It booted
up just fine during the test today. This
is the card that had failed attempting network
access on Sep. 13th. Today however,
the whole ADAM worked fine, with serial
measurements coming in from the Ironics
card.
The unmarked card would boot just fine,
but the backplane network appeared not to
work. I couldn't rlogin into chicory from
aster, or from daisy. rserial did not
work either. During one boot I did see
the message come across the console: "socket
connected to serial card". However, we didn't
get any serial data.
- 77: Daily Status, Site , Mon 18-Sep-2000 08:47:52 PDT, Daily status, September 18
September 18, 0800
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok ok ok ok
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data: Daisy rebooted often yesterday afternoon.
Staffing: horst, martin, moeng, weil
- 76: LOG, Site , Sun 17-Sep-2000 18:33:30 PDT, Generator stopped; restarted
Generator stopped unexpectedly at 1755. Restarted
without any problem. Dip stick showed adequate oil
level, and after restarting, the oil warning light
was NOT on.
Data streams resumed at 1820.
- 75: ADAMs, Site , Sun 17-Sep-2000 15:55:21 PDT, daisy heartburn
Daisy started it's reboot game
around noon.
Eventually it stopped booting at
all. The field terminal showed that
it was completely hung; no response
at all.
Cycled power on it to get it going.
It looks like the current matrix power
supply has an intermittant power switch,
as noted by a post-it note (which disappeared
a couple of days ago).
After cycling the power, reseating the power
supply, and exercising the front panel
power switch, daisy rebooted and has run now
for 90 minutes.
- 74: Data analysis, Site , Sun 17-Sep-2000 14:06:42 PDT, Good wind directions versus stability, array 3
A quick look at the wind direction versus stability for array 3,
using good.dir() gives the following periods for possible analysis:
day dir 8m/L
9/18 -15 -3
9/17 +30 -1
9/20 +10 -1
9/17 +20 -0.75
9/23 +25 -0.6
9/16 +15 -0.5
9/16 +25 -0.5
9/16 +20 -0.5
9/16 +15 -0.3
9/16 +25 -0.3
9/23 +15 -0.3
9/23 +25 -0.3
9/24 +15 -0.3
9/24 +15 -0.2
9/18 -15 0
9/21 -10 +0.1
9/22 +15 +0.1
9/21 -10 +0.2
9/21 +5 +0.3
9/21 -15 +0.4
9/23 -15 +0.5
9/19 -30 +1
9/17 0 +2
9/17 -25 +2
9/24 -30 +2
9/18 -15 +3
9/17 0 +10
9/20 +7 +20
dir is relative to the array normal, 315 degrees.
- 73: Field Site, Site , Sun 17-Sep-2000 10:03:53 PDT, photos taken of ground cover
photos taken of the ground cover in the fields
upwind of the array. All photos were taken from the
NE corner of each field, looking to the SW. The file
names contain the field number. A yard stick provided
scale for close up photos.
Westlake Farms field numbering scheme:
/ /
/ /
/ / ^
/ / US 41 / \
/ / |
/ / |
/ / N
/ /
/ / pump ditch
/ /--------------------------------------------------
/ /| base | | |
/ | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| 22055 | 22057 | 22040 | 22030 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| 22085 | 22087 | 22090 | 22100 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | array |
------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | 22177 | 22160 | 22150 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------
On September 24, Tom Horst repeated the photos from the NW corner of
the fields.
- 72: Daily Status, Site , Sun 17-Sep-2000 07:35:42 PDT, Daily status, September 17
September 17, 0730
Highlights: Winds still from NW!!!
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok ok ok ok
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data: Daisy rebooted often late yesterday afternoon.
Staffing: horst, martin
- 71: ADAMs, Site , Sun 17-Sep-2000 06:21:04 PDT, daisy reboot
daisy rebooted several times again yesterday, amounting
to 9 reboots between 1500 and 1800.
Had to restart sonic a.8m and b.8m using reserial.
Sep 16 08:42:36 daisy daisy booted
Sep 16 15:05:42 daisy daisy booted
Sep 16 15:20:06 daisy daisy booted
Sep 16 15:22:08 daisy daisy booted
Sep 16 15:24:00 daisy daisy booted
Sep 16 15:57:17 daisy daisy booted
Sep 16 16:10:17 daisy daisy booted
Sep 16 16:15:22 daisy daisy booted
Sep 16 16:51:07 daisy daisy booted
Sep 16 18:00:26 daisy daisy booted
- 70: ADAMs, Site , Sat 16-Sep-2000 15:34:02 PDT, Daisy rebooted
Daisy rebooted itself 3 times. I restarted sonic a.8m and b.8m,
as well as the propvane at 2m by rserial connection.
- 69: Daily Status, Site , Sat 16-Sep-2000 15:22:04 PDT, Daily Status, September 16
September 16, 1500
Highlights: Changed from array 2 to array 3 from 1225 to 1725 PDT,
September 15.
Generator stopped, 1830 PDT, 9/15, until 0845 PDT, 9/16.
NW wind direction all day so far.
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok ok ok ok
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data: Lost data last night because generator stopped.
Staffing: horst, martin
Charles Meneveau and Jan Kleissl left late afternoon, 9/15
Chin-Hoh Moeng left at noon 9/15.
- 68: Prop vanes, Site , Sat 16-Sep-2000 15:04:22 PDT, Checked 1m wind direction
Charlie and I checked the wind direction on the 1m prop vane
around 1450 PDT. The data showed a 10 deg offset from the
other vanes. However a recalibration using the jig to align
the vane with the boom showed no change.
- 67: LOG, Site , Sat 16-Sep-2000 09:10:09 PDT, Generator stopped; restarted
The generator stopped around 1830 PDT last night and did not find
this until 0800 this morning. Would not restart until after I
changed the oil (it was scheduled for an oil change today). Perhaps
the oil level was low and the generator can detect this???
However changing the oil also requires tipping the generator, so
this may have been the reason it restarted.
Data collection started again around 0845 PDT.
- 66: Sensor Array, Site , Fri 15-Sep-2000 18:04:34 PDT, Changed from Array 2 to Array 3 today
Today, September 15, we changed from array 2 to array 3
between 1225 PDT and 1725 PDT. The new array has the
9-sonic, double filter array at the 8.66 m height with a
spacing of 2.167 m and the 5-sonic, single filter array
at the 4.33 m height with a spacing of 1.08 m on towers
4-6. Three of the 4.33 m sonics (S2,S3,S4) are mounted
on tower 5 and their actual spacing is 0.5*2.09 m =
1.05 m, not 1.08 m. Note that the booms on these three
sonics are also perhaps 5 cm shorter than the other booms!
I confirmed the shorter length of the triple boom. These booms
measure 138 cm between the mounting bolt for the sonic and the
mounting bolt for the boom to the yoke on the mast. The other
booms are 143 cm long.
The sonic serial numbers and cosmos channels are:
Tower serial number cosmos channel
-------------- --------------
4.33 m 8.66 m 4.33 m 8.66 m
0 422 423 200 201
1 290 203
2 333 204
3 251 206
4 376 378 207 202
5 379 205
5 375 250 208 209
5 367 211
6 374 373 210 214
7 326 212
8 364 213
9 325 215
- 65: Daily Status, Site , Fri 15-Sep-2000 08:59:01 PDT, Daily Status, September 15
September 15, 0900
Highlights: Replaced 1m prop. Wind directions often NW in past 24 hrs.
Will switch to array 3 this afternoon.
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok * ok *
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data: *Occasional data losses from ATI sonics
Staffing: horst, martin, moeng, kleissl, meneveau
- 64: Prop vanes, Site , Thu 14-Sep-2000 18:39:30 PDT, reinstalled 1m prop
Reinstalled the prop vane #1, which had been at 4m,
at 1m. the direction looked
okay in the lab, and so far the direction
has been fine on the tower.
Checked parameters (twh):
sagebrush:$ASTER: rserial daisy 208
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
send socket open to chicory
recv socket open to chicory
W:0003 208 136 3279 250 00l\n\r
W:0003 168 110 3307 250 00w\n\r
\r
\n\r
W:0003 175 115 3327 250 00r\n\r
W:0003 223 146 3391 250 00s\n\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 486 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 312.8 degrees\n\r
True North = 041 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 306 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
\r
\r
\n\r
W:0003 258 169 2958 250 00^\n\r
W:0003 241 158 3089 250 00
- 63: Daily Status, Site , Thu 14-Sep-2000 09:41:46 PDT, Daily status, September 14
September 14, 0900
Highlights: Daisy Matrix board replaced. Moved 1m prop to 4m.
Spd: 1m missing
Dir: 1m missing
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok * ok *
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data: *Occasional data losses from ATI sonics
Staffing: horst, martin, moeng, kleissl, meneveau
Peter Sullivan left yesterday afternoon, September 13.
NG = not good
- 62: Prop vanes, Site , Wed 13-Sep-2000 17:32:49 PDT, Swapped 1m and 4m props
Charlie and I removed the 4m prop and replaced it with the 1m prop
around 1500 PDT, September 13.
We entered the boom angle from the previous 4m prop, 312.5,
in the replacement prop.
sagebrush:$ASTER: rserial daisy 206
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
send socket open to chicory
recv socket open to chicory
W:0006 88 58 795 250 00P\n\r
W:0006 88 58 838 250 00R\n\r
\r
\n\r
W:0006 88 58 880 250 00U\n\r
W:0006 90 59 829 250 00X\n\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 255 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 312.5 degrees\n\r
True North = 323 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 306 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
\r
\r
\n\r
W:0006 100 66 928 250 00R\n\r
W:0006 105 69 914 250 00O\n\r
received interrupt signal (#2)
- 61: Base_systems, Site , Wed 13-Sep-2000 15:20:07 PDT, how to monitor the breezecom performance
Use the Ambra notebook computer to
check on the status of the wireless
lan units. The Ambra is connected
to the network, and has software to
talk to the breezecom unit in the
trailer, which is known as the access
point.
If not already on, power on the Ambra.
You have to hold in the power button
on the back of the unit for a few seconds.
Choose the trackball option when
booting.
After W95 is running, run the the
DS11 program from the icon on the desktop.
Enter the aster password in the
"community" box, in the lower left
corner of the screen.
Next, click on "network autodiscovery"
in the upper right corner. The IP addresses
of the breezecom devices will be listed in
the box below the autodiscovery button.
Click on any of the IP addresses to check
the status of that unit. The access
point has AP listed after it; the remote
units have SA designations.
If you choose an SA unit, you get a nice
metter indication of the link quality.
One of the links shows 100%, the other
fluctuates between 90-98%.
Don't necessarily trust the locations listed in
the address for a given SA.
- 60: ADAMs, Site , Wed 13-Sep-2000 15:19:44 PDT, how to reconfigure a matrix card
If matrix cards are swapped out in
an adam, the new card needs to be
configured so that it is addressed
correctly on the network.
If you are lucky enough to have
the first card still running,
you can see how it is currently
configured by entering the vxWorks
command:
bootParamsShow 0x700
However, probably the reason you are
changing it is because it is dead.
The two pieces of information that you
need are the IP address of the
matrix card and the IP address of
backplane network that the matrix
card will implement. Let's say that
you are replacing the matrix card known as
daisy. You can look in aster:/etc/hosts to find
the IP address of daisy, and of daisy-bp.
The latter is the backplane IP address.
Once you are armed with this info, you can
use the field terminal plugged into the
ADAM to reconfigure the matrix card.
Just enter the command - be sure to include
the parenss:
bootChange()
A series of questions will be asked
of you. Enter a return after a question
to keep the current value. Enter a period
in order to set a value to a null value.
Here are the questions you will be asked, and
the proper values:
boot device : med
processor number : 0
host name : aster
inet on ethernet (e) : 128.117.80.195:ffffff00
inet on backplane (b) : 128.117.80.196:ffffff00
host inet (h) : 128.117.80.29
user (u) : aster
flags (f) : 0x108
target name (tn) : daisy
The (tn), (e) and (b) parameters are the ones which
will change depending on the particular ADAM that you
are configuring.
- 59: ADAMs, Site , Wed 13-Sep-2000 14:59:42 PDT, daisy restored 1430
Daisy is back online at around 1430.
After the failure this morning, daisy was
not able to restart. It was a problem in the networking
on the matrix card. VxWorks would reboot from
ROM okay, and run it's "startup" task. The startup
task would then hang while trying to connect
to aster. An error message would come forth complaining
that getHosts (via RPC) was failing.
On Gordon's suggestion, I swapped the matrix card
and reconfigured it as daisy. This fixed daisy's problem
immediately, and it has been running fine for the last
couple of hours.
See a following enter for a description on setting the
matrix boot parameters when the matrix cards are swapped.
- 58: Data analysis, Site , Wed 13-Sep-2000 11:26:29 PDT, Good wind directions versus stability, array 2
A quick look at the wind direction versus stability for array 2,
using good.dir() gives the following periods for possible analysis:
day dir 4m/L
9/14 -10 -1
9/14 +20 -0.5
9/12 +20 -0.3
9/14 +10 -0.3
9/11 +20 -0.2
9/14 +10 -0.2
9/14 +10 -0.15
9/15 +3 -0.15
9/12 +25 -0.1
9/14 +5 -0.1
9/12 +28 0
9/14 +10 +0.03
9/10 -10 +0.5
9/13 -5 +0.5
9/13 -5 +1
9/14 -25 +1
9/9 -28 +1.5
9/11 -15 +3
9/10 -5 +5
dir is relative to the array normal, 315 degrees.
- 57: Daily Status, Site , Wed 13-Sep-2000 10:29:46 PDT, Daily status, Sept. 13
September 13, 1000
Spd: ok
Dir: 4m NG
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok ok ok ok
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data: Daisy rebooted multiple times yesterday afternoon. Stopped
without rebooting this morning.
Staffing: horst, martin, moeng, sullivan, kleissl, meneveau
NG = not good
- 56: ADAMs, Site , Wed 13-Sep-2000 09:37:12 PDT, Replaced Daisy power supply
Daisy stopped again at 0815 PDT. I replaced its power supply
around 0900 PDT, but daisy did not successfully reboot.
- 55: ADAMs, Site , Wed 13-Sep-2000 08:14:48 PDT, Daisy last reboot 7 hours ago
Daisy last rebooted at 01:33:36 PDT, Sept 13. All sensors
appear to have kept running after the reboot.
- 54: ADAMs, Site , Tue 12-Sep-2000 19:05:12 PDT, daisy status
Daisy has had a spate of reboots this afternoon, as reported
in the previous posting.
As with the incident on Sept. 7, some of the sensors had
jammed serial connections. Using rserial, we we able
to reset most of them, but at one point an ati sonic (b.4m)
could not be restarted this way, and we had to cycle its
power to get it running again.
After some of the daisy reboots, different serial sensors
would be jammed. It sure appears that the reboot, or some
other problem, is sending out junk to the serial sensors
and causing their firmware to become confused.
I beleive that this is an old problem; i.e. it sure
sounds familiar.
Daisy has now been running smoothly for almost an hour.
- 53: ADAMs, Site , Tue 12-Sep-2000 17:14:43 PDT, daisy is flaking out
Daisy is rebooting continuously. The ingestors and displays will
start, but no data is received. It seems to have the same problem
that it had on 7 Sep. It started doing this at 1342 (local) today,
and has rebooted 16 times since then.
- 52: LOG, Site , Tue 12-Sep-2000 17:13:49 PDT, gas
put 15 gals. of gas in the fuel drum.
- 51: Sonics, Site , Tue 12-Sep-2000 11:13:40 PDT, Sonic azimuths, Array #2
Peter Sullivan measured the sonic angles with the theodolite on
September 11 and 12. Towers a,b,0-4 were measured on September
11 and towers 5-9 on September 12.
These measurements were made using sun angles for Sept 11-12, 1900
to orient the theodolite, rather than Sept 11-12, 2000. The
corrections are listed in logbook entry 102.
4.33 m 8.66 m
--------------- ---------------
Tower Time Azimuth Time Azimuth
(PDT) (deg) (PDT) (deg)
0 16:50 137 35' 40" 17:00 137 31' 25"
1 15:30 135 53' 18" 16:30 136 25' 38"
2 17:15 137 07' 15"
3 17:30 135 20' 47" 17:45 135 32' 20"
4 18:00 135 27' 52"
5 9:00 133 06' 35" 09:10 134 37' 20"
6 9:30 134 41' 27"
7 9:50 135 08' 45" 10:05 135 49' 47"
8 10:20 134 59' 10"
9 10:35 134 23' 25" 10:45 134 39' 17"
a 12:25 139 39' 18" 12:45 139 36 43"
b 11:25 137 04' 20" 11:55 137 39' 20"
- 50: Daily Status, Site , Tue 12-Sep-2000 10:57:10 PDT, Daily status, Sept 12
September 12, 1000
Spd: ok
Dir: 4m NG
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok * ok *
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o':ok
Data: *Occassional data losses (less than 6000 samples/5 min) on ATI sonics.
Staffing: horst, martin, moeng, sullivan, kleissl
NG = not good
- 49: Daily Status, Site , Mon 11-Sep-2000 16:41:05 PDT, Daily status, September 11
September 11, 1600
Highlights: Swapped 2m TRH; changed kh2o adam channel
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok * ok ok
h2o: ok
w'h2o': ok
h2o'h2o': ok
Data: Occassional data losses (less than 6000 samples/5 min) on ATI sonics.
Staffing: horst, maclean, moeng, sullivan, kleissl, martin
Gordon left Monday noon, September 11
NG = not good
- 48: Base_systems, Site , Mon 11-Sep-2000 16:13:15 PDT, aster backup
aster disks backed up to exabyte tape #4.
- 47: Base_systems, Site , Mon 11-Sep-2000 15:50:19 PDT, how to do aster system backups
This procedure dumps the file systems mounted on aster
to an exebyte tape. The tape drive on clover is used
for writing the tape.
A scrap of paper in the top of the box containing the
backup tapes is used to record the numerical cycling
of the backup tapes.
steps:
1. put the next log tape into /dev/rmt/0 on clover.
2. log onto aster as root.
3. cd /usr/local/adm/backup
4. ./rbackup clover root /dev/rmt/0mn
It will tape forever to finish the backups.
- 46: Base_systems, Site , Mon 11-Sep-2000 15:45:46 PDT, system down for 15 minutes
Aster was shut down for about 40 minutes, from
1235 until 1310 PDT. This was to remove the magma serial port
card, so that it could be taken back to NCAR to
be used on the VTMX project.
The GPS signal was switched to /dev/cua/a on aster.
- 45: KH2O, Site , Mon 11-Sep-2000 15:42:05 PDT, kh20 fixed
Analog cable between the breakout box and the adam
was plugged into the wrong analog port on the adam.
Once plugged into the port for channels 0-3, the
kh20 signal came through fine.
This was corrected around 1130 PDT.
Mistake is probably due to the analog connectors
not being labelled on this particular adam.
- 44: TRH, Site , Mon 11-Sep-2000 14:06:02 PDT, Swapped TRH at 2m
At 11:55 PDT, I swapped the 2m hygrothermometer for a different unit.
The old unit had humitter s/n T35 10004.
- 43: Base_systems, Site , Sun 10-Sep-2000 13:56:45 PDT, monitoring status
To check the status of aster processes, adamserver, nc_server, ingest
covar, and archive, enter (from aster):
check_aster
The adams and aster processes all write messages to aster's syslog.
The syslog is displayed on aster's console and written to
/var/log/local/isff.log
on aster. $ASTER/log/isff.log is a link to /var/log/local/isff.log.
This link only works on aster.
- 42: ADAMs, Site , Sun 10-Sep-2000 13:13:03 PDT, rserial and rlogin
With a PC connected to the adam console port, bring up procom-plus.
(On the toshiba, pcplus is on the b: drive)
From the VxWorks prompt, rlogin to aster, then run rserial:
-> rlogin "aster" note the quotes around "aster"
Last login...
Sun Micro...
$ASTER: rserial cosmos 200
$ASTER: exit
Use ctrl-c or ctrl-d to exit rserial.
To rlogin into an adam from aster:
rlogin cosmos
VxWorks login: aster
Password: asterize
-> i
-> logout
- 41: Base_systems, Site , Sun 10-Sep-2000 12:48:11 PDT, Changing ops
To change ops:
1. cd $ASTER/projects/SGS00
2. make a new directory for the ops:
mkdir ops99
3. copy 5 config files to it (channel_config, prep.config,
archive_config, ingest.conf, covar.config).
Ideally the only thing that should change during SGS are
the variable names, so you only need to edit prep.config
and covar.config.
4. edit ops.config. Enter a new ops name and start/stop times.
Remember to set the stop time of the previous ops period
# pre-project testing
ops0 2000 jun 7 00:00:00 - 2000 sep 1 00:00:00
# array #1
ops1 2000 sep 1 00:00:00 - 2000 sep 9 18:00:00
# array #2
ops2 2000 sep 9 18:00:00 - 2000 oct 1 00:00:00
5. Check the ops:
getops now
showproject
6. reboot the adams. From aster:
mxreset cosmos
enter a comment for syslog
mxreset daisy
7. watch the console on aster for errors as the adams are rebooting.
- 40: Daily Status, Site , Sun 10-Sep-2000 09:09:43 PDT, Daily Status, December 10
September 10, 0900
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: h2o profile not monotonic
P: ok
sonics sgs 4.33m ab 4.33 m sgs 8.66 m ab 8.66 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok ok ok ok
h2o: 37 gm/m^3 !!
w'h2o': fluctuates around zero, with a range of 4e-3 m/s gm/m^3
h2o'h2o': 0.04 (gm/m^3)^2
Data: Occassional data losses (less than 6000 samples/5 min) on ATI sonics.
Highlights: Reconfigured sonics to array #2 on Friday and Saturday,
September 8 and 9.
Staffing: horst, maclean, moeng, sullivan
Peter Sullivan arrived late Friday afternoon, September 8
Jan Kleissl left at noon on Saturday
NG = not good
- 39: Sensor Array, Site , Sun 10-Sep-2000 08:17:25 PDT, Reconfigured sonics to array 2
On Friday morning, September 8, we started reconfiguring the
sonics from array 1 to array 2. Array 2 has a PAM tower spacing
of 2.167 m and sonics heights of 4.33 m (double filter array of 9
sonics) and 8.66 m (single filter array of 5 sonics with 4.33 m spacing).
The PAM masts were located by stretching a string along the ground
that followed the line of the previous array and marking the line
at intervals of 2.167 m. We then used a plumb bob hanging from
the bolt connecting the PAM mast to the tripod to locate the center
of each tripod. We oriented the tripod by aligning the back leg
with a truck parked 1550 m to the NW of the array. We parked
the truck about 3.5 m west of the previous location to account for
the shrinkage of the tower 1-9 array from 26.8 m to 17.33 m.
The sonic heights were determined by again using the theodolite,
locked into a horizontal orientation to place marks on the towers
at the same geopotential height. This new mark was 5.4 cm below the
previous mark for array #1. The old mark was interpreted to be
1.62 m, so the new mark is interpreted to be 1.56 m (1.62m - 0.054m).
The towers were reconfigured starting with tower 1 and proceeding to
tower 9, then tower 0, and finally towers a and b. By the end of
Friday we had completed towers 1-7. On Saturday morning we completed
towers 8-9 and tower 0, finishing about noon.
On Saturday afternoon we completed towers a and b, finishing
tower a about 3 pm PDT and tower b about 4 pm PDT.
The masts on towers 1-9 were again oriented using the truck as a
reference. On tower 2 there was insufficient leeway to complete the
orientation and the sonic is pointed to a spot about 20 m west
of the truck. This orientation was completed about 11 am PDT,
September 9.
On September 11, Peter Sullivan and I measured the array azimuths.
The SGS array was measured at 0950 PDT to be 225 deg 15' 50".
The AB array was measured at 1035 PDT to be 135 deg 36' 28"
- 38: Data analysis, Site , Thu 07-Sep-2000 12:19:38 PDT, Good wind directions versus stability, array 1
A quick look at the wind direction versus stability for array 1,
using good.dir() gives the following periods for possible analysis:
day dir 3m/L
9/2 -25 -0.5
9/3 +10 -0.2
9/4 +15 -0.2
9/6 +20 -0.2
9/6 +15 -0.2
9/3 +20 -0.1
9/7 +20 -0.1
9/3 +20 +0.02
9/3 +15 +0.05
9/2 -20 +0.1
9/4 +5 +0.15
9/3 +0 +0.2
9/3 +20 +0.2
9/4 -15 +0.2
9/2 -30 +0.3
9/6 -15 +0.6
9/2 -20 +0.6
9/5 -20 +1.0
9/5 -15 +1.5
dir is relative to the array normal, 315 degrees.
- 37: ADAMs, Site , Thu 07-Sep-2000 11:52:06 PDT, daisy reboots
Daisy rebooted herself on Sep 6 15:21 PDT, and then four times again
this morning, Sep 7 10:11, 10:12, 10:21, 10:37.
Jan was out at daisy on Sep 6 at 15:00 measuring voltages on the
filter board (debugging krypton). Perhaps a power connection was
bumped.
I tightened the power connectors under the external power supply.
The connector for the adam power was a bit loose, and the AC input
connector was tweaked to the side a bit.
The VME power supply was off (no lights) when the adam was opened,
which I hope is due to low input power because of a loose connector.
This VME power supply is the one with the questionable rocker switch.
(We have a spare VME power supply).
The voltage on an external plug looked OK at 118 V.
I moved the adam power cable to another connector under the external power
supply, and booted daisy. Several serial sensors were not
transmitting (two ATI sonics and one prop), and needed some
nudging with rserial. After bringing up rserial, and hitting
CR, the ATIs display a menu. Enter 0 to exit the menus and enter
run mode. rserial to the prop and hit return until it starts transmitting.
- 36: Daily Status, Site , Thu 07-Sep-2000 09:39:51 PDT, Daily status, September 7
September 7, 0900
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: h2o profile not monotonic
P: ok
sonics sgs 3.45m ab 3.45 m sgs 6.90 m ab 6.90 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok * ok ok
h2o: 37 gm/m^3 !!
w'h2o': fluctuates around zero, with a range of 4e-3 m/s gm/m^3
h2o'h2o': 0.04 (gm/m^3)^2
Data: *some occaisional data losses from ATI-K sonics
Staffing: horst, maclean, kleissl, moeng
NG = not good
- 35: Prop vanes, Site , Wed 06-Sep-2000 15:40:23 PDT, Prop.cor and flakey 4 meter prop
The prop vane azimuths have been entered in $ASTER/cal_files/prop.cor,
and the covars rerun to correct the data collected before the
azimuths were entered into the sensor.
The azimuth of the 4 meter prop (id=3) was measured as 312.5 deg.
On Sep 4 (logbook entry 21) we reset the zero of the 4 meter prop, and
the boom align value changed from 406 to 346 counts. This is a difference of
60 counts, or 60 * 360deg/512cnt = 42.2 degrees. So I entered
a value of 312.5 + 42.2 = 354.7 degrees into prop.cor for this prop.
This made the 4m prop agree with the others from Sep 2 14:00 GMT
to sep 5 16:30 GMT.
Prior to Sep 2 14:00 GMT however, the 4m prop direction was
61 degrees higher than the others, estimated from a time series plot..
It appears that the output of the prop suddenly jumped by 61 degrees
at that time. To correct for this, the correction value in prop.cor
is 354.7 - 61.2 = 292.5 degrees from the beginning of the project
until Sep 2 14:00 GMT.
- 34: KH2O, Site , Wed 06-Sep-2000 15:32:59 PDT, voltage on Krypton Hygrometer
measured voltage inside the ADAM next to the profile towers on one card:
ground and pin on channel 1: 10.2 mV +- .5 mV
two capacities at input of channel 1: same
- 33: Sonics, Site , Wed 06-Sep-2000 15:27:40 PDT, sonic azimuth angles of ab towers
shoot azimuth angles of the new ATI sonics on towers a and b with theodolite.
a 3m: 138 deg 47' 44"
b 3m: 138 deg 34' 44"
the shooting was done from 14:40 until 15:15
- 32: Daily Status, Site , Wed 06-Sep-2000 11:05:49 PDT, Daily status, September 6
September 6, 0900
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: ok
P: ok
sonics sgs 3.45m ab 3.45 m sgs 6.90 m ab 6.90 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
sw/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok * ok ok
h2o: 37 gm/m^3 !!
w'h2o': fluctuates around zero, with a range of 4e-3 m/s gm/m^3
Data: *a at 3.45m has some dropouts around 0500 PDT this morning
Highlights: Replaced 3.45m sonics on towers a and b yesterday
Staffing: horst, maclean, kleissl, moeng
NG = not good
- 31: Sonics, Site , Tue 05-Sep-2000 16:49:19 PDT, 4 hour time tag glitches
We see spikes in the Splus dat variable "samples.sonic",
which is the number of samples in each 5 minute average.
These spikes occur exactly every 4 hours. The number of samples usually
jumps from a value which is varying between 5999 and 6000 to
6003 or 6004. Once it jumped down to 5998.
The adam contacts ASTER to correct its clock every 4 hours from the
time it was rebooted. Therefore I suspect that the spikes in
samples.sonic are due to the adam's clock being adjusted forward or back,
causing more or fewer samples to be included in each of the 5 minute
statistics.
Both daisy and cosmos were last rebooted on Sep 02 at 11:21 PDT.
The spikes are occuring at 17min 30 sec and 22min 30 sec after
the hour.
- 30: Sonics, Site , Tue 05-Sep-2000 16:08:57 PDT, Replaced 3.45 m sonics on towers a and b
The 3.45m UW sonic on tower a (UW#6) had a speed, sqrt(u^2 + v^2),
that was anomolous by as much as 20 cm/s. Thus Jan Kleissl and I
replaced both 3.45m UW sonics on towers a and b with ATI K probes.
On tower A we replaced UW#6 with ATI 980505 at 14:57:30 PDT.
On tower B we replaced UW#4 with ATI 980303 at 15:22:30 PDT.
- 29: Sonics, Site , Tue 05-Sep-2000 12:50:23 PDT, Sonic azimuth angles, array #1
On September 4, I measured the azimuth angles of the sonics, using
a theodolite, properly oriented using known sun angles.
Note that the theodolite was oriented using data from Sept 4-5, 1900,
rather than Sept 4-5, 2000. The corrections are in logbook entry 102.
First, (11:10 PDT)I measured the azimuth of a line between stations
a and b (Taylor's hypothesis towers; note that tower b is nominally
NW of tower a).
The measured azimuth of a relative to b is 135 deg 53' 25".
The sonic azimuths are:
3.45m 6.90m
Time Azimuth Time Azimuth
(PDT) (deg) (PDT) (deg)
a 11:45 137 55' 07" 12:00 138 40' 11"
b 11:10 135 53' 25" 11:30 137 00' 15"
0 12:20 136 50' 48" 12:20 136 50' 48"
1 14:00 135 46' 00" 14:15 135 59' 20"
2 14:35 136 12' 40"
3 14:55 135 29' 08" 15:00 134 41' 38"
4 15:40 135 33' 50"
5 16:00 135 07' 04" 16:30 134 13' 07"
6 16:50 135 04' 25"
7 09:20 134 55' 50" 09:35 135 40' 15"
8 10:05 134 42' 00"
9 10:15 134 38' 25' 10:30 132 54' 20"
Jan Kleissl measured the azimuths after 15:00 PDT, September 4
(towers 4-9). He finished towers 7-9 on the morning of September 5.
- 28: Daily Status, Site , Tue 05-Sep-2000 12:15:46 PDT, Daily status, Sept 5
September 5, 1500
Spd: ok
Dir: ok
T: ok
RH: 4m low?
P: ok
sonics sgs 3.45m ab 3.45 m sgs 6.90 m ab 6.90 m
spd: ok a anomolous ok ok
dir: ok a anomolous? ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok ok ok ok
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok a anomolous?? ok ok
w/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
samples:ok ok ok ok
h2o: 37 gm/m^3 !!
w'h2o': fluctuates around zero, with a range of 4e-3 m/s gm/m^3
Data: samples.sonic has 6000 counts +/- 4 or so at 0317.5 PDT, 0717.5 PDT,
1117.5 PDT, etc.
Highlights: Added pressure port, measured anemometer azimuths
Staffing: horst, maclean, kleissl
kleissl returned yesterday afternoon
NG = not good
- 27: Prop vanes, Site , Tue 05-Sep-2000 10:41:18 PDT, Propvane azimuth angles
On September 4, I measured the azimuth angles of the prop-vane booms,
using a theodolite, properly oriented with known sun angles.
Note: I used sun angles for year 1900 rather than year 2000.
The corrections are found in logbook entry 101.
The measured angles are:
Time Height Azimuth Channel Azimuth+180 deg
(PDT) (m) (deg) (daisy) (deg)
09:35 10 130 55' 50" 204 310.9
09:55 7 129 57' 25" 205 310.0
10:15 4 132 30' 00" 206 312.5
10:30 2 131 48' 07" 207 311.8
10:45 1 132 45' 15" 208 312.8
At 9:30 PDT, September 5, I entered the propvane boom angles
as measured with the theodolile (~ 131 deg).
At 10:30 PDT, I changed the propvane boom angles to the measured values
plus 180 degrees (~ 311 deg).
Following are the serial sessions for changing channels 204-208.
I lost the record of the session for changing channel 208.
I have appended a query to channel 208.
sagebrush:$ASTER/projects/SGS00/ops1: rserial daisy 204
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
send socket open to chicory
recv socket open to chicory
W:0004 166 109 1803 250 00q\n\r
W:0004 164 108 1766 250 00l\n\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 502 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 130.9 degrees\n\r
True North = 316 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 305 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
d310.9\0x8\0x89\r
D310.9\0x8\0x89\r
\n\r
\n\r
Illegal value entered. Range 0--3600\n\r
d3109\r
D3109\r
\n\r
q\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 502 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 310.9 degrees\n\r
True North = 060 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 305 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
\r
\r
\n\r
W:0004 282 185 232 250 00C\n\r
received interrupt signal (#2)
sagebrush:$ASTER/projects/SGS00/ops1: rserial daisy 205
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
send socket open to chicory
recv socket open to chicory
W:0002 327 215 1868 250 00k\n\r
W:0002 335 220 1853 250 00v\n\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 402 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 130.0 degrees\n\r
True North = 217 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 305 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
d3100\r
D3100\r
\n\r
q\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 402 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 310.0 degrees\n\r
True North = 473 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 305 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
\r
\r
\n\r
W:0002 210 138 19 250 00]\n\r
W:0002 207 136 3576 250 00n\n\r
received interrupt signal (#2)
sagebrush:$ASTER/projects/SGS00/ops1: rserial daisy 206
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
send socket open to chicory
recv socket open to chicory
W:0003 32 21 1132 250 00f\n\r
W:0003 22 15 1077 250 00\\n\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 346 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 132.5 degrees\n\r
True North = 158 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 306 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
d3125\r
D3125\r
\n\r
q\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 346 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 312.5 degrees\n\r
True North = 414 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 306 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
\r
\r
\n\r
W:0003 165 108 705 250 00D\n\r
W:0003 194 127 742 250 00@\n\r
received interrupt signal (#2)
sagebrush:$ASTER/projects/SGS00/ops1: rserial daisy 207
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
send socket open to chicory
recv socket open to chicory
W:0005 175 115 2570 250 00q\n\r
W:0005 179 117 2601 250 00p\n\r
W:0005 183 120 2580 250 00u\n\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 424 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 131.8 degrees\n\r
True North = 237 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 306 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
d3118\r
D3118\r
\n\r
q\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 424 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 311.8 degrees\n\r
True North = 493 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 306 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
\r
\r
\n\r
W:0005 246 161 721 250 00E\n\r
W:0005 226 148 697 250 00v\n\r
received interrupt signal (#2)
sagebrush:$ASTER/projects/SGS00/logbook: rserial daisy 208
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
send socket open to chicory
recv socket open to chicory
W:0006 223 146 71 250 00X\n\r
W:0006 220 144 68 250 00W\n\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 255 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 312.8 degrees\n\r
True North = 322 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 306 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
\r
\r
\n\r
W:0006 201 132 11 250 00g\n\r
W:0006 237 155 3500 250 00s\n\r
received interrupt signal (#2)
- 26: LOG, Site , Sun 03-Sep-2000 19:03:33 PDT, SGS setup chronology
Following is a rough chronology of SGS setup:
Tuesday, August 22
Steve Semmer on site, Tom Horst arrived mid-afternoon.
TH previewed site
Wednesday, August 23
Kurt Knudson arrived mid-afternoon.
TH surveyed ground cover of fields
Thursday, August 24
Marc Parlange, Jan Kleissl arrived mid-afternoon.
TH re-surveyed ground cover
Friday, August 25
Selected site; moved PAM towers from Hanford storage to field site;
began to assemble PAM tripods and masts (TH, MP, JK).
Saturday, August 26
Finished PAM assembly, assisted with EBEX tear down
Sunday, August 27
Packed base trailer, tested Breezecom communications
Monday, August 28
Gordon Maclean arrived mid-morning
Moved base trailer, surveyed and staked array (TH & JK)
Tuesday, August 29
Staked towers in place (TH & MP); brought ADAMs to field site
Wednesday, August 30
Marc took ISCAT box to Port Hueneme; surveyed array angles (TH & SS);
mounted CSAT sonics on PAM/ASTER towers (TH, MP, JK)
Thursday, August 31
Configured CSAT sonics, raised PAM towers, oriented CSAT sonics
Raised ASTER profile towers, instrumented and raised AB towers
Friday, September 1
Steve Semmer left mid-day.
Instrumented prop tower, replaced generator fuel tank, assembled array #4
Saturday, September 2
Raised ASTER CSAT tower, array #4
Sunday, September 3
Kurt Knudson, Marc Parlange, Jan Kleissl leave mid-day.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
- 25: Barometer, Site , Sun 03-Sep-2000 18:27:28 PDT, Added pressure port
Added pressure port about 1730 PDT. It is mounted at a height
of roughly 1.5m on the psych tower.
- 24: Daily Status, Site , Sun 03-Sep-2000 15:11:00 PDT, Daily status, September 3
September 3, 1500
Spd: ok
Dir: needs boom angles
T: ok
RH: 4m low?
P: needs pressure port
sonics sgs 3.45m ab 3.45 m sgs 6.90 m ab 6.90 m
spd: ok ok ok ok
dir: ok ok ok ok
w: ok ok ok ok
tc: ok b.3m ? ok b.6m ?
h2o: -- too large -- --
u'u': ok ok ok ok
v'v': ok ok ok ok
w'w': ok ok ok ok
u*: ok ok ok ok
w/u*: ok ok ok ok
w'tc': ok ok ok ok
tc'tc': ok ok ok ok
w'h2o': -- ?? -- --
samples:ok* ok* ok* ok*
Note that sonic reference tower ("0" sonics) was raised and leveled
between 10 and 11 PDT Sept 2.
Data: *At midnight GMT, some data samples lost due to ASTER being
overloaded while creating a new netCDF file.
Staffing: horst, maclean, knudson, parlange, kleissl
knudson, parlange, kleissl left today
NG = not good
- 23: KH2O, Site , Sun 03-Sep-2000 11:20:26 PDT, clean and swap krypton
The krypton was cleaned for the first time 9/3/00 at 9:20 am pst.
Around 1745 pdt we swapped s/n 1397 for s/n 1395. There was no change
in the output (37 gm/kg), so we replaced s/n 1395. twh
- 22: Sonics, Site , Sun 03-Sep-2000 09:30:04 PDT, new sonic, lower level tower b (9/3/00;925 am pst)
Installed new sonic (Jan and Marc) 9 am on the lower level of tower b
(The new sonic is B-NUW4-c; the old one was B-NUW3-c). (Also the lower sonic on
tower a (not changed) is B-NUW6-c.)
Changing the lower sonic on tower b appears to have corrected the problem
and the top sonic (for "some" reason) is now working. (This sonic was not
changed). Gordan noted the two sonics are now "spitting" clean data.
The KH20 was cleaned. Also noted the wind is blowing from the north east!
Cooler weather, broken clouds, general clearing of clouds.
- 21: Prop vanes, Site , Sat 02-Sep-2000 12:12:48 PDT, Prop vane parameters; new alignment
Field notes about prop vane configuration
height id pitch of
installed prop
10m 4 305 (prop was calibrated on this sensor)
7m 2 305 (prop was calibrated on this sensor)
4m 3 306 (labeled as #005)
2m 5 306 (labeled as #001)
1m 6 306 (labeled as #003)
Ran rserial to display current prop vane parameters.
Then set the prop pitches for the 4m and 1m sensors to 306 per
the field notes.
Boom angles of prop vanes have not yet been determined.
*****************************************************
orig new
height chan id boom boom true prop prop
align angle north pitch pitch
10m 204 4 503 0.0 503 305
7m 205 2 402 0.0 402 305
4m 206 3 406 0.0 406 305 306
2m 207 5 420 0.0 420 306
1m 208 6 254 0.0 254 305 306
*****************************************************
Around 1730 PDT, Sept 3, we re-zeroed the vane angle using the jig to
align the vane with the boom. After this operation, we had the following
parameters (twh) (note the big change on 4m):
*****************************************************
height chan id boom boom true prop
align angle north pitch
10m 204 4 502 0.0 502 305
7m 205 2 402 0.0 402 305
4m 206 3 346 0.0 346 306
2m 207 5 424 0.0 424 306
1m 208 6 255 0.0 255 306
*****************************************************
Actual rserial output (before and after pitch change) follows.
rserial daisy 204
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
connected to chicory
connected to chicory
W:0004 315 207 1103 250 00}\n\r
W:0004 280 184 1083 250 00q\n\r
W:0004 236 155 1059 250 00o\n\r
\n\r
q\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 503 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 0.0 degrees\n\r
True North = 503 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 305 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
clover:$ASTER: rserial daisy 205
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
connected to chicory
connected to chicory
W:0002 83 55 195 250 00b\n\r
W:0002 83 55 169 250 00a\n\r
W:0002 79 52 183 250 00c\n\r
\n\r
q\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 402 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 0.0 degrees\n\r
True North = 402 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 305 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
clover:$ASTER: rserial daisy 206
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
send socket open to chicory
receive socket open to chicory
W:0003 108 71 444 250 00X\n\r
W:0003 106 70 247 250 00Z\n\r
\n\r
q\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 406 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 0.0 degrees\n\r
True North = 406 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 305 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
clover:$ASTER: rserial daisy 207
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
send socket open to chicory
receive socket open to chicory
W:0005 71 47 647 250 00_\n\r
W:0005 62 41 647 250 00e\n\r
q\n\r
\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 420 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 0.0 degrees\n\r
True North = 420 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 306 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
clover:$ASTER: rserial daisy 208
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
send socket open to chicory
receive socket open to chicory
W:0006 134 88 162 250 00Q\n\r
W:0006 129 85 155 250 00N\n\r
X\r
\n\r
Your choice of 32767 gives a data rate\n\r
slower or equal to 0.1Hz. \n\r
q\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 254 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 0.0 degrees\n\r
True North = 254 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 305 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
*****************************************
After new alignment:
*****************************************
sagebrush:/data/clover: rserial daisy 204
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
send socket open to chicory
receive socket open to chicory
\r
\r
\n\r
W:0004 254 167 757 250 00x\n\r
W:0004 259 170 808 250 00|\n\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 502 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 0.0 degrees\n\r
True North = 502 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 305 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
\r
\r
\n\r
W:0004 271 178 676 250 00w\n\r
W:0004 289 190 728 250 00v\n\r
received interrupt signal (#2)
sagebrush:/data/clover: rserial daisy 205
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
send socket open to chicory
receive socket open to chicory
W:0002 254 167 610 250 00F\n\r
W:0002 257 169 673 250 00x\n\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 402 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 0.0 degrees\n\r
True North = 402 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 305 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
\r
\r
\n\r
W:0002 244 160 680 250 00G\n\r
W:0002 251 165 669 250 00}\n\r
received interrupt signal (#2)
sagebrush:/data/clover: rserial daisy 206
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
send socket open to chicory
receive socket open to chicory
W:0003 192 126 765 250 00~\n\r
W:0003 212 139 770 250 00E\n\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 346 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 0.0 degrees\n\r
True North = 346 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 306 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
\r
\r
\n\r
W:0003 243 159 717 250 00~\n\r
W:0003 238 156 743 250 00~\n\r
received interrupt signal (#2)
sagebrush:/data/clover: rserial daisy 207
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
send socket open to chicory
receive socket open to chicory
W:0005 194 127 529 250 00{\n\r
W:0005 206 135 571 250 00E\n\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 424 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 0.0 degrees\n\r
True North = 424 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 306 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
\r
\r
\n\r
W:0005 257 168 559 250 00s\n\r
received interrupt signal (#2)
sagebrush:/data/clover: rserial daisy 208
*** use ^d or ^c to terminate rserial
send socket open to chicory
receive socket open to chicory
W:0006 157 103 631 250 00G\n\r
W:0006 157 103 688 250 00{\n\r
Q\r
\n\r
Parameters \n\r
Sample rate = 250 Hz\n\r
Xmit rate = 0250 samples\n\r
Boom align = 255 counts\n\r
Boom angle = 0.0 degrees\n\r
True North = 255 counts\n\r
Prop Pitch = 306 mm/rev\n\r
\n\r
\r
\r
\n\r
W:0006 154 101 581 250 00H\n\r
W:0006 139 91 533 250 00P\n\r
received interrupt signal (#2)
k
- 20: Base_systems, Site , Fri 01-Sep-2000 15:53:18 PDT, Sys Admin info
Networking:
192.168.80.*
The 16 port ethernet hub underneath the printer serves the
192.168.80.* net, which is where all new hosts should be added.
Aster is a DHCP server, so you can configure systems to use dhcp
and just plug them into the hub.
128.117.80.*
This is the net between aster and the adams. We want to keep
extraneous traffic off of it. The 4 port hub in the trailer,
on the shelf to the right of aster serves this network.
cosmos -> Breezecom SA -> RF \ / aster
\__ Breezecom AP -> 4port hub /
/ \
daisy -> Breezecom SA -> RF / \ ambra
NIS: passwd, hosts, group, and automount maps etc are provided via NIS.
To change them, edit the file on aster and do a NIS make (see below).
The passwd and shadow files are in aster:/var/yp, the
rest are on /etc, as normal.
NIS make: After making a change, do the following as root on aster:
cd /var/yp
/usr/ccs/bin/make
This reports an error about a "k" target, which you can ignore.
Since you can use DHCP, you probably won't need to add
any hosts.
Automounting: the auto mount maps are on aster: /etc/auto_master,
auto_home and auto_data. Using the net automount map,
any shared disk can be automounted as /net/host/mountprint
where host is the host name, and mountpoint is the
mount point on that host.
- 19: Sensor Array, Site , Thu 31-Aug-2000 07:42:44 PDT, Array 1 geometry; sonic S/Ns
The PAM stations for Array #1 have a spacing of 3.35 m and the
normal to the array is at azimuth 315 deg 10 minutes.
This measurement was made around 0900 PDT, Sept 4, using the
sun angles for year 1900 rather than year 2000. The correction
is +18' for a final angle of 315 deg 28' = 315.47 deg.
On Sept 29, 09:00 PDT, I remeasured this angle using the stakes
that were used to align array. The angle was 45 deg 9'.
A reference surface for setting the heights of the sonics was
determined by using the theodolite to mark a common height on
the nine PAM masts and on the reference ASTER tower. The
heights of this mark above the local surface at the PAM masts
were:
1.63 m
1.63 m
1.61 m
1.63 m
1.66 m
1.61 m
1.58 m
1.62 m
1.61 m
for an average height of 1.62 m. The sonics were placed at a height
of 3.45 m (!) above the surface by measuring 1.78 m from this mark to the
tops of the booms. The center of the CSAT sonic array is another 5 cm
above the top of the boom.
Note that, after determining this reference height and marking it on the
masts, some of the PAM masts were moved up slightly to allow them
to be reoriented. When we changed arrays on September 8, we measured
a new reference mark with the theodolite. Following are the differences
between the two reference heights. Since the height of the ASTER tower 0
was not changed, the change in the heights of the PAM masts is the
difference between dz at the PAM masts and dz at the ASTER tower.
The biggest change appears to be 8.0 - 5.4 = 2.6 cm.
tower dz (cm)
0 5.4
1 5.8
2 8.0
3 6.8
4 (mark on plate, which did not get moved with the mast)
5 6.2
6 6.6
7 7.1
8 5.9
9 6.3
The second sonic is at a height of 3.45 m above the lower sonic, or
6.90 m above the surface.
The length of the CSAT booms is 143 cm, measured between the mounting
bolt for the sonic and the bolt used to attach the boom to the yoke
on the mast.
Going from NE to SW, the CSAT sonics are
CSAT S/N Cosmos serial channel
-------------- ---------------------
Tower 3.45 m 6.90 m 3.45 m 6.90 m
9 364 325 214 215
8 367 213
7 373 326 211 212
6 374 210
5 375 250 208 209
4 376 207
3 378 251 205 206
2 379 204
1 333 290 202 203
0 422 423 200 201
The lower sonics on the PAM towers were aligned using a telescope
attached to a flat reference surface. That surface was mated to
the side of the CSAT junction box at the rear of each array and
the pam mast was rotated until the telescope lined up with a truck
parked at azimuth 315 deg 10 min at a distance of 1550 m.
The upper sonics were aligned roughly by orienting their booms paralled
to the lower sonic boom on the same tower.
The UW sonics on towers a and b (the Taylor's hypothesis array, with
tower b upwind of tower a) are:
3.45m 6.90m
a UW#6
b uw#3 uw#5*
*read on September 26
- 18: Field Site, Site , Sun 27-Aug-2000 12:59:06 PDT, Ground cover at field site
On August 24, I surveyed the ground cover surrounding the SGS field
site. I am using as a basis, the Westlake Farms 5 digit field numbers.
Each square mile is referenced as the transect (22), followed by
the section (1-36). The last digit refers to a subdivision of the
square mile into separately managed fields.
The section numbers are allocated to a 6-mile by 6-mile square
transect/range plot and are arranged as follows:
6 5 4 3 2 1
7 8 9 10 11 12
18 17 16 15 14 13
19 20 21 22 23 24
30 29 28 27 26 25
31 32 33 34 35 36
Our current plan is to locate the array in the SE corner of section
10, Range 19E, Transect 22S. This is field 22100. The ground cover
is stubble and there are periodic E/W irrigation check dams. The
dam spacing appears to be generally 64 paces (~yards) or about
60m. A 45-degree diagonal spans about 80 m between checks. Near
the south end of the field there is one spacing of 82 paces or about
75m. Here a 45-degree diagonal spans about 100m.
The field directly to the north (22030) is fallow, that is bare dirt,
plowed or low surface weeds.
The field to the NW (22040) is fallow, but with scattered weeds perhaps
12-18 inches tall which look to me like russian thistle(?).
There is a group of 4-6 oil storage tanks on the west edge of this
field about 0.6 miles S of the north edge.
The field to the west (22090) is a mix of stubble and russian thistle.
The north "half" is fallow, the south "half" has more stubble and weeds.
The weeds are particularly dense near the southwest corner.
To the north of fields 22030 and 22040 is a road named Quebec. On the
north side of this road is a very large irrigation canal. The fields
immediately to the north of the canal are mostly fallow.
The base trailer will be located in the NW corned of field 22057,
which runs 0.5 mile E/W and 1 mile N/S. To the west of field 22057 is
field 22055, which also runs 0.5 mile E/W and 1 mile N/S. Both of
these fields are fallow.
The fields further to the south of the base and directly west of the
field site are 22087 and 22085. Each is 0.5 mile E/W and 1 mile N/S.
22087 is flattened and standing stubble. The north "half" is fallow.
To the west of these fields is cotton (22063, 22077, 22187, 22174.
Going south from Quebec, the fields to the east of the field site are
22025 and 22110 (immediately east of the field site). 22025 is planted
in cotton and 22110 has been recently plowed.
To the south of the field site, 22150 is fallow. Field 22160 to the SW is
a wetlands with tall shrubs and small trees. It is surrounded by a dike
which is about 5.5 ft tall. On the east edge of 22160, this dike ends
about 0.7 mile north of the south edge.
- 17: LOG, Site , Sun 27-Aug-2000 12:35:43 PDT, telephone numbers on site
NCAR ATD
Tom Horst, Edgewater Apt 645C, 559-589-9535
cell 303-994-5998
Gordon Maclean, Edgewater Apt 673A, 559-589-9561
cell 303-994-5997
Charlie Martin
John Militzer
Steve Semmer, Best Western Hanford #114, 559-583-7300
Kurt Knudson, Best Western Hanford #212, 559-583-7300
NCAR MMM
Chin-Hoh Moeng, Edgewater Apt 611F, 559-582-4217
Peter Sullivan
Jeff Weil
Don Lenschow
JHU
Marc Parlange, Edgewater Apt 673D, 559-589-1195
cell 443-255-2204
Jan Kleissl
Charles Meneveau
UCLA
Bjorn Stevens
- 16: Planning, Site , Wed 19-Jul-2000 10:22:56 MDT, CSAT spectral response
Don:
>No strong opinion. If the path averaging limits the response to about 10 Hz,
>there doesn't seem to be much reason to not block average.
The half-power point for w is at k1*d = 4.3 for the CSAT; those for u
and v are around k1*d = 20, although the transfer function for u does
not decrease monotonically with k1 but has a local minimum of 0.65
around k1*d = 3 and a local maximum of 0.9 around k1*d = 9.
The CSAT has a path length of 11.55 cm (the vertical projection is
10 cm), so for the vertical component the half-power point is at a
frequency equal to 5.9*U(m/s).
The wind speed climatology in that area for July 1991 is
Spd.5m (m/s)
1st Qu.:1.472
Median :2.121
Mean :2.292
3rd Qu.:2.912
Max. :7.076
where Qu is Quartile. This puts the w half-power point generally
between 10 and 20 Hz.
Tom
- 15: Sonics, Site , Tue 18-Jul-2000 10:29:57 MDT, Revised wind tunnel results
5/23/00
I ran the seven PSU CSAT sonics in the NCAR wind tunnel. The test
section of this wind tunnel has a circular cross section with a
diameter of 35".
The sonic was mounted approximately in the center of the test section
using a vertical post which supported the sonic about 14" above the
bottom of the test section. The pitot tube used as a speed rererence
is mounted adjacent to the sonic about 12" from the side wall of the
test section.
For each sonic, data were collected at 9 speeds from 0 to a little more
than 15 m/s. At each speed, 60 data samples were collected from both
the sonic and the pitot tube. The average and standard deviations of
each 60-sample period were calculated with the following regressions
between the sonic speed, sqrt(u^2 + v^2 + w^2), and the pitot tube
speed.
PSU 0367: sonic speed = 0.003 m/s + 0.969 pitot speed
PSU 0373: sonic speed = 0.024 m/s + 0.968 pitot speed
PSU 0374: sonic speed = 0.009 m/s + 0.969 pitot speed
PSU 0375: sonic speed = 0.014 m/s + 0.972 pitot speed
PSU 0376: sonic speed = 0.011 m/s + 0.968 pitot speed
PSU 0378: sonic speed = -0.006 m/s + 0.967 pitot speed
PSU 0379: sonic speed = 0.006 m/s + 0.964 pitot speed
The average gain is 0.968 +/- 0.002
It is easy to conjecture that the flow is retarded at the sonic
transducer array by the downstream bulk of the sonic support structures
and commensurately accelerated at the location of the pitot tube to the
side of the sonic. The consistency among the sonics is gratifying.
6/2/00
Markus Pahlow sent data from their wind tunnel test of the Johns
Hopkins sonics. I calculated the regressions as above and found
JHU 0325: sonic speed = -0.076 m/s + 0.987*pitot speed
JHU 0326: sonic speed = 0.082 m/s + 0.985*pitot speed
Note that the JHU wind tunnel has a rectangular cross section of 3.25'
x 4.25' = 14 ft^2, versus 7 ft^2 for the NCAR wind tunnel. This could
be the reason for the gain being closer to unity in the JHU wind
tunnel.
7/6/00
I ran 5 new sonics through our wind tunnel, plus 3 of the PSU sonics
for a cross-reference to the 5/23 results. After the tests, I noted
that the pitot tube was now at distance of ~12.75" from the wall. This
is possibly the reason for the difference in the gains from the 5/23
tests. Note below the smaller gain for the JHU sonic in the NCAR wind
tunnel and the virtually identical offset to the JHU wind tunnel data.
PSU 0367b: sonic speed = -0.012 m/s + 0.959 pitot speed
PSU 0375b: sonic speed = -0.001 m/s + 0.965 pitot speed
PSU 0378b: sonic speed = -0.010 m/s + 0.956 pitot speed
JHU 0325: sonic speed = -0.101 m/s + 0.959 pitot speed
UIA 0203: sonic speed = 0.014 m/s + 0.961 pitot speed
UIA 0250: sonic speed = -0.047 m/s + 0.963 pitot speed
UIA 0290: sonic speed = -0.008 m/s + 0.959 pitot speed
OCS 0333: sonic speed = 0.027 m/s + 0.960 pitot speed
The average gain is 0.960 +/- 0.003
7/17/00
I ran the two U of Minnesota sonics through our wind tunnel, plus a one
UIA and two PSU sonics. The first run (UMN0422B) had the pitot tube at
11" from the wall. The last run (UMN0422D) had the pitot tube at
12.75" from the wall. The remainder had the pitot tube at 12" from the
wall, duplicating the 5/23 runs. These runs do not support the
hypothesis that the placement of the pitot tube can explain the
difference in gain between 5/23, 7/6 and the current data. The gain
appears to be decreasing with time??
UMN 0422b: sonic speed = -0.041 m/s + 0.950 pitot speed
UMN 0422: sonic speed = -0.025 m/s + 0.949 pitot speed
UMN 0422c: sonic speed = -0.030 m/s + 0.952 pitot speed
UMN 0422d: sonic speed = -0.011 m/s + 0.947 pitot speed
UMN 0423: sonic speed = -0.049 m/s + 0.952 pitot speed
UMN 0423b: sonic speed = -0.030 m/s + 0.949 pitot speed
UIA 0203b: sonic speed = 0.018 m/s + 0.952 pitot speed
PSU 0367c: sonic speed = -0.006 m/s + 0.951 pitot speed
PSU 0375c: sonic speed = 0.015 m/s + 0.954 pitot speed
The average gain is 0.951 +/- 0.002
I realized that my initial fits to all of these data included a point
without the fan running in the wind tunnel. In that case the pitot
tube wind speed is set to zero, since the pitot tube is not accurate at
low wind speeds. However, there is no guarantee that the flow in the
tunnel is absolutely zero at that time. Thus I redid all of the fits
without that data point. The result was to reduce the fitted offset in
almost all cases and to decrease the range of the gain values for each
set of runs.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
10/27/00
Note that the JHU sonics 325 and 326 were both recalibrated at no
cost because the foam packing in the case was misaligned, possibly
deforming the sonic head when in the case.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Test run on August 11:
JHU 0325b: sonic speed = 0.003 m/s + 0.949 pitot speed
JHU 0326: sonic speed = -0.057 m/s + 0.952 pitot speed
UIA 0203c: sonic speed = 0.008 m/s + 0.957 pitot speed
PSU 0367d: sonic speed = -0.023 m/s + 0.958 pitot speed
PSU 0375d: sonic speed = 0.011 m/s + 0.957 pitot speed
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Test run on August 14:
JHU 0325c: sonic speed = 0.012 m/s + 0.956 pitot speed
JHU 0326b: sonic speed = -0.020 m/s + 0.952 pitot speed
UIA 0203d: sonic speed = 0.034 m/s + 0.958 pitot speed
UIA 0251: sonic speed = -0.078 m/s + 0.964 pitot speed
PSU 0367e: sonic speed = -0.013 m/s + 0.961 pitot speed
PSU 0375e: sonic speed = -0.002 m/s + 0.967 pitot speed
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Test run on August 15:
JHU 0326d: sonic speed = -0.009 m/s + 0.953 pitot speed
UIA 0251b: sonic speed = -0.092 m/s + 0.969 pitot speed
UIA 0251c: sonic speed = -0.085 m/s + 0.968 pitot speed
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
10/27/00
Sonic UIA 0251 was recalibrated on 8/24/00
- 14: Data communications, Site , Fri 07-Jul-2000 09:41:58 MDT, Changed CSAT sonics to 20 Hz
Steve changed the CSAT sonics to 20 Hz output on Wed morning. The ingest
and transmission has gone pretty well until recently:
/data/big/aster/projects/SGS00/raw_data/all: data_stats < cos000707.080000
Opened:
# of points start time end time delta time freq
0 2426 08:00:04.990 14:48:01.250 24476.260 0.099
2 2 10:30:06.490 14:29:59.120 14392.630 0.000
107 24409 08:00:00.390 14:48:03.480 24483.090 0.997
200 488078 08:00:00.030 14:48:03.460 24483.430 19.935
201 488081 08:00:00.030 14:48:03.460 24483.430 19.935
202 488085 08:00:00.000 14:48:03.450 24483.449 19.935
203 488087 08:00:00.000 14:48:03.450 24483.449 19.935
204 488082 08:00:00.030 14:48:03.460 24483.430 19.935
205 488082 08:00:00.030 14:48:03.460 24483.430 19.935
206 488086 08:00:00.000 14:48:03.450 24483.449 19.935
207 488087 08:00:00.000 14:48:03.450 24483.449 19.935
208 488083 08:00:00.020 14:48:03.440 24483.420 19.935
209 488086 08:00:00.020 14:48:03.490 24483.471 19.935
210 488083 08:00:00.010 14:48:03.470 24483.461 19.935
211 488084 08:00:00.010 14:48:03.470 24483.461 19.935
212 488085 08:00:00.020 14:48:03.490 24483.471 19.935
213 488084 08:00:00.020 14:48:03.440 24483.420 19.935
214 488083 08:00:00.010 14:48:03.470 24483.461 19.935
215 488083 08:00:00.010 14:48:03.470 24483.461 19.935
data_stats < cos000707.000000
Opened:
# of points start time end time delta time freq
0 2856 00:00:04.890 07:59:54.940 28790.051 0.099
2 2 02:30:21.160 06:30:13.790 14392.630 0.000
107 28740 00:00:00.580 07:59:59.390 28798.811 0.998
200 574661 00:00:00.010 07:59:59.980 28799.971 19.953
201 574662 00:00:00.010 07:59:59.980 28799.971 19.954
202 574666 00:00:00.010 07:59:59.950 28799.939 19.954
203 574667 00:00:00.010 07:59:59.950 28799.939 19.954
204 574660 00:00:00.010 07:59:59.980 28799.971 19.953
205 574662 00:00:00.010 07:59:59.980 28799.971 19.954
206 574666 00:00:00.010 07:59:59.950 28799.939 19.954
207 574669 00:00:00.010 07:59:59.950 28799.939 19.954
208 574668 00:00:00.000 07:59:59.970 28799.971 19.954
209 574668 00:00:00.000 07:59:59.970 28799.971 19.954
210 574662 00:00:00.010 07:59:59.960 28799.949 19.954
211 574661 00:00:00.010 07:59:59.960 28799.949 19.954
212 574668 00:00:00.000 07:59:59.970 28799.971 19.954
213 574666 00:00:00.000 07:59:59.970 28799.971 19.954
214 574664 00:00:00.010 07:59:59.960 28799.949 19.954
215 574663 00:00:00.010 07:59:59.960 28799.949 19.954
data_stats < cos000706.160000
Opened:
# of points start time end time delta time freq
0 2863 16:00:04.820 23:59:54.830 28790.010 0.099
2 2 18:30:35.930 22:30:28.560 14392.630 0.000
107 28802 16:00:00.780 23:59:59.580 28798.801 1.000
200 575995 16:00:00.000 23:59:59.960 28799.961 20.000
201 575995 16:00:00.000 23:59:59.960 28799.961 20.000
202 576001 16:00:00.030 23:59:59.960 28799.930 20.000
203 576001 16:00:00.020 23:59:59.960 28799.939 20.000
204 575995 16:00:00.000 23:59:59.960 28799.961 20.000
205 575995 16:00:00.000 23:59:59.960 28799.961 20.000
206 576001 16:00:00.030 23:59:59.960 28799.930 20.000
207 576001 16:00:00.030 23:59:59.960 28799.930 20.000
208 575999 16:00:00.030 23:59:59.950 28799.920 20.000
209 575999 16:00:00.030 23:59:59.950 28799.920 20.000
210 575996 16:00:00.020 23:59:59.960 28799.939 20.000
211 575996 16:00:00.020 23:59:59.960 28799.939 20.000
212 575999 16:00:00.030 23:59:59.950 28799.920 20.000
213 575999 16:00:00.030 23:59:59.950 28799.920 20.000
214 575996 16:00:00.020 23:59:59.960 28799.939 20.000
215 575996 16:00:00.020 23:59:59.960 28799.939 20.000
data_stats < cos000706.080000
Opened:
# of points start time end time delta time freq
0 2337 08:00:00.930 14:30:02.670 23401.740 0.100
2 1 11:32:01.580 00:00:00.000 -41521.578 -0.000
107 23406 08:00:00.710 14:30:04.040 23403.330 1.000
200 235582 08:00:00.020 14:30:04.620 23404.600 10.066
201 235582 08:00:00.020 14:30:04.620 23404.600 10.066
202 235508 08:00:00.070 14:30:04.610 23404.539 10.062
203 235508 08:00:00.070 14:30:04.610 23404.539 10.062
204 235582 08:00:00.020 14:30:04.620 23404.600 10.066
205 235581 08:00:00.020 14:30:04.570 23404.551 10.066
206 235508 08:00:00.070 14:30:04.610 23404.539 10.062
207 235508 08:00:00.070 14:30:04.610 23404.539 10.062
208 234759 08:00:00.020 14:30:04.600 23404.580 10.030
209 234759 08:00:00.030 14:30:04.600 23404.570 10.030
210 234016 08:00:00.080 14:30:04.600 23404.520 9.999
211 234016 08:00:00.080 14:30:04.600 23404.520 9.999
212 234759 08:00:00.020 14:30:04.600 23404.580 10.030
213 234759 08:00:00.030 14:30:04.600 23404.570 10.030
214 234016 08:00:00.080 14:30:04.600 23404.520 9.999
215 234016 08:00:00.080 14:30:04.600 23404.520 9.999
- 13: Calibrations, Site , Wed 05-Jul-2000 10:08:46 MDT, Changed cosmos to RF data transmission
Steve switched from hardwire to RF data transmission this morning, prior
to 1500 GMT. I then used the lashup to reconfigure the OSU sonic back
to RS=0. The bottom line is that there are a number of interupptions in
data file cos000705.08000.
I did an mxreset on cosmos at 15:32. At this time the data are fine at
10 Hz.
- 12: Planning, Site , Tue 04-Jul-2000 08:17:43 MDT, Revised sonic arrays
I found that the lowest that the sonic could be mounted on the second
section of the PAM mast is 3.25 m. Thus I have revised the arrays as
follows.
Notation:
z = height
1,2 refers to crosswind lines of 9 and 5 sonics, respectively
S = sonic spacing
W = 4*S = width of 5 sonic filter
kc = wave number at filter half-power cutoff
Kc = kc*z/(2*pi)
Array 1: z/w = 0.25, Kc = 0.13
e.g. S1 = 3.25m, z1 = 3.25m; S2 = 6.5m, z2 = 6.5m
|<---------------- 26 m --------------->|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
x | x | x | x | x -- 6.5m
| | | | | | | | |
x x x x x x x x x -- 3.25m
__/_\__/_\__/_\__/_\__/_\__/_\__/_\__/_\__/_\__
elevation ///////////////////////////////////////////////
xx x xx x xx x xx x xx
|| | || | || | || | ||
|| | || | || | || | ||
|| | || | || | || | ||
/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\
plan view /__\ /__\ /__\ /__\ /__\ /__\ /__\ /__\ /__\
* Emulates current LES capabilities.
* Kc near peak of w spectrum only for very strong convection.
* Note that for all arrays, changes in stability change the relation
between Kc and the turbulence spectra.
* Uses nine 10m PAM masts placed foot-to-foot for 3.25m spacing.
Array 2: z/w = 0.5, Kc = 0.27
e.g. S1 = 2.17m, z1 = 4.33m; S2 = 4.33m, z2 = 8.67m
|<----------- 17.3 m ---------->|
x | x | x | x | x -- 8.67m
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
x x x x x x x x x -- 4.33m
| | | | | | | | |
__/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\__
elevation ///////////////////////////////////////
xx x xx x xx x xx x xx
|| | || | || | || | ||
|| | || | || | || | ||
|| | || | || | || | ||
/\ __ /\ __ /\ __ /\ __ /\
plan view /__\\ //__\\ //__\\ //__\\ //__\
\/ \/ \/ \/
* Duplication of Tong measurements, but with greater range of stability.
* Kc near peak of w spectrum for convective case.
* Uses nine 10m PAM masts, nested as shown for 2m spacing; 4 sonic
booms will point down when masts are lowered.
Array 3: z/w = 1, Kc = 0.53
e.g. S1 = 2.17m, z1 = 8.67m; S2 = 1.08m, z2 = 4.33m
|<----------- 17.3 m ---------->|
x x x x x x x x x -- 8.67m
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | x x x x x | | | -- 4.33m
| | | | | | | | |
__/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\__
elevation ///////////////////////////////////////
x x x x x x x x x x x
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
/\ __ /\ __ /\ __ /\ __ /\
plan view /__\\ //__\\ //__\\ //__\\ //__\
\/ \/ \/ \/
* Extends range of Kc into Marc's "transition" regime.
* Kc near peak of w spectrum for neutral case.
* Uses nine 10m PAM masts as above, with a triple boom
on the center tower to add two sonics w/S2=1.08m at z2=4.33m.
Array 2.5: z/w = 0.75, Kc = 0.40
e.g. S1 = 2.17m, z1 = 6.5m; S2 = 1.08m, z2 = 3.25m
|<----------- 17.3 m ---------->|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
x x x x x x x x x -- 6.5m
| | | | | | | | |
| | | x x x x x | | | -- 3.25m
__/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\__
elevation ///////////////////////////////////////
x x x x x x x x x x x
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
/\ __ /\ __ /\ __ /\ __ /\
plan view /__\\ //__\\ //__\\ //__\\ //__\
\/ \/ \/ \/
* Alternative to arrays 2 and 3 if time is short
* Uses nine 10m PAM masts as above, with a triple boom
on the center tower to add two sonics w/S2=1.08m at z2=3.25m.
Array 4: z/w = 2, Kc = 1.1
e.g. S1 = 0.5m, z1 = 4m; S2 = 0.63m, z2 = 5m
|<----- 4m ---->|
||======x=x=x=x=x======|| -- 5m
||==x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x==|| -- 4m
|| ||
__||_____________________||__
elevation /////////////////////////////
x x x x x x x x x
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
_____|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_____
/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\
plan view /\ /\
/__\ /__\
* Kc in inertial range for convective case, near peak of w spectrum
for stable case.
* Requires very different support structure than arrays 1-3.
* Increased possibilty of flow distortion due to small spacing;
we can check for flow distortion in post-analysis by comparing
time-averaged turbulence statistics for all sonics.
This intercomparison can be done as a function of S.
* Setting up this array may require about 2 days of effort,
but the support structure can perhaps be set up while
arrays 2&3 are collecting data.
* It's possible that we might run out to time before using this array,
depending on how quickly we complete data collection with previous
arrays. Note also that the wind climatology may not be as favorable
toward the end of September.
* Uses four 5.5m ASTER steel tower sections.
- 11: Calibrations, Site , Tue 04-Jul-2000 08:08:55 MDT, 10 Hz CSAT data ingest test
On June 29 (?) we hardwired the ADAMS to ASTER, elimininating the RF
data transmission link in order to isolate the cause of the cosmos crashes.
At 1753 GMT, June 30, we reset the CSAT sonics to 10 Hz (A9).
So far, cosmos appears to have operated ok, judging by the lack of
crashes and the output of data_stats.
- 10: Calibrations, Site none, Mon 12-Jun-2000 15:51:48 MDT, Adam test
Attached 4 CSAT3 sonics to cosmos. Each sonic is Y'd into 4 serial ports,
in order to simulate 16 sonics into one adam. The sonics are configured
for 20hz, (parameter Ac).
project SGS00, ops0
Channel grouping
sonic channels variable suffix
#1 200,201,204,205 a,b,e,f
#2 202,203,206,207 c,d,g,h
#3 208,209,212,213 i,j,m,n
#4 210,211,214,215 k,l,o,p
cosmos: matrix sn 940211101
goldenrod: ironics 3234, sn 129043
datel: sn 400190
VME chassis #4
Breezecom radio: unit A, 16db antenna
archive files
cos000610.235245: started test
cos000611.000000 OK
cos000611.080000 OK
cos000611.160000 died at 22:07 (16:07 MDT)
cos000611.220818 restarted itself, but ironics did not come up
cos000612.032846 did an MXRESET. ok
cos000612.080000 ran until 15:57 (09:57 MDT)
So, there are 2 unexplained adam crashes. The other adams kept
running (though they only had 1 1hz analog port enabled).
A data_dump of channel 0 showed no problems before the crash:
data_dump -f cos000612.080000 -c 0 -A
syslog also showed no errors, except for ingest timeouts after adam crashes.
Covars look good during this time. In 23 hours of data from Jun 10 2352 to
Jun 11, 22:07 GMT the results are identical for the four ports connected
to a sonic.
The only differences seen are when a sample is put into a
different 5 minute average. Here are some u averages:
x[44:45,c(1,2,5,6)]
00 06 10 213230.000 0.05689919 0.05690063 0.05689919 0.05690063
00 06 10 213730.000 0.06431438 0.06431170 0.06431438 0.06431170
> attr(x,"weights")[44:45,c(1,2,5,6)]
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4]
[1,] 6001 6000 6001 6000
[2,] 6000 6001 6000 6001
On two channels, 6001 samples are summed the first average and 6000 in
the second average, and vice-versa for the other two channels.
- 9: Sonics, Site , Wed 24-May-2000 11:53:47 MDT, Wind tunnel tests of CSAT sonics
5/23/00
I ran the seven PSU CSAT sonics in the NCAR wind tunnel. The test
section of this wind tunnel has a circular cross section with a
diameter of 35".
The sonic was mounted approximately in the center of the test section
using a vertical post which supported the sonic about 14" above the
bottom of the test section. The pitot tube used as a speed rererence
is mounted adjacent to the sonic about 12" from the side wall of the
test section.
For each sonic, data were collected at 9 speeds from 0 to a little more
than 15 m/s. At each speed, 60 data samples were collected from both
the sonic and the pitot tube. The average and standard deviations of
each 60-sample period were calculated with the following regressions
between the sonic speed, sqrt(u^2 + v^2 + w^2), and the pitot tube
speed.
PSU 0367: sonic speed = 0.003 m/s + 0.969 pitot speed
PSU 0373: sonic speed = 0.030 m/s + 0.968 pitot speed
PSU 0374: sonic speed = 0.018 m/s + 0.968 pitot speed
PSU 0375: sonic speed = 0.018 m/s + 0.972 pitot speed
PSU 0376: sonic speed = 0.030 m/s + 0.966 pitot speed
PSU 0378: sonic speed = 0.030 m/s + 0.963 pitot speed
PSU 0379: sonic speed = 0.010 m/s + 0.966 pitot speed
It is easy to conjecture that the flow is retarded at the sonic
transducer array by the downstream bulk of the sonic support structures
and commensurately accelerated at the location of the pitot tube to the
side of the sonic. The consistency among the sonics is gratifying.
6/2/00
Markus Pahlow sent data from their wind tunnel test of the Johns
Hopkins sonics. I calculated the regressions as above and found
JHU 0325: sonic speed = -0.076 m/s + 0.987*pitot speed
JHU 0326: sonic speed = 0.082 m/s + 0.985*pitot speed
Note that the JHU wind tunnel has a rectangular cross section of
3.25' x 4.25' = 14 ft^2, versus 7 ft^2 for the NCAR wind tunnel.
This could be the reason for the gain being closer to unity in the
JHU wind tunnel.
7/6/00
I ran 5 new sonics through our wind tunnel, plus 3 of the PSU sonics
for a cross-reference to the 5/23 results. After the tests, I noted
that the pitot tube was now at distance of ~12.75" from the wall.
This is likely the reason for the difference in the gains from the
5/23 tests. Note below the smaller gain for the JHU sonic in the
NCAR wind tunnel and the virtually identical offset to the JHU wind
tunnel data.
PSU 0367: sonic speed = 0.020 m/s + 0.957 pitot speed
PSU 0375: sonic speed = 0.016 m/s + 0.964 pitot speed
PSU 0378: sonic speed = 0.037 m/s + 0.953 pitot speed
JHU 0325: sonic speed = -0.078 m/s + 0.957 pitot speed
UIA 0203: sonic speed = 0.033 m/s + 0.960 pitot speed
UIA 0250: sonic speed = -0.032 m/s + 0.961 pitot speed
UIA 0290: sonic speed = 0.012 m/s + 0.958 pitot speed
OCS 0333: sonic speed = 0.039 m/s + 0.959 pitot speed
- 8: Planning, Site , Mon 31-Jan-2000 09:38:01 MST, Proposed sonic arrays
In order to attempt to bring closure to the experimental design, I
propose the following possible set of sonic arrays. They are listed in
order of priority, so that we will collect data with each array until
we have a data set satisfying some (yet to be specified) criteria.
Then we will proceed to the next array. I have changed the order of
the arrays. This order is perhaps slightly more logical from a
logistical standpoint and proceeds systematically from large spacings
and small Kc to small spacings and large Kc.
Notation:
z = height
1,2 refers to crosswind lines of 9 and 5 sonics, respectively
S = sonic spacing
W = 4*S = width of 5 sonic filter
kc = wave number at filter half-power cutoff
Kc = kc*z/(2*pi)
Array 1: z/w = 0.25, Kc = 0.13
e.g. S1 = 3m, z1 = 3m; S2 = 6m, z2 = 6m
|<---------------- 24 m --------------->|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
x | x | x | x | x -- 6m
| | | | | | | | |
x x x x x x x x x -- 3m
__/_\__/_\__/_\__/_\__/_\__/_\__/_\__/_\__/_\__
elevation ///////////////////////////////////////////////
xx x xx x xx x xx x xx
|| | || | || | || | ||
|| | || | || | || | ||
|| | || | || | || | ||
/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\
plan view /__\ /__\ /__\ /__\ /__\ /__\ /__\ /__\ /__\
* Emulates current LES capabilities.
* Kc near peak of w spectrum only for very strong convection.
* Note that for all arrays, changes in stability change the relation
between Kc and the turbulence spectra.
# Uses nine 10m PAM masts placed foot-to-foot for 3m spacing.
Array 2: z/w = 0.5, Kc = 0.27
e.g. S1 = 2m, z1 = 4m; S2 = 4m, z2 = 8m
|<------------ 16 m ----------->|
x | x | x | x | x -- 8m
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
x x x x x x x x x -- 4m
| | | | | | | | |
__/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\__
elevation ///////////////////////////////////////
xx x xx x xx x xx x xx
|| | || | || | || | ||
|| | || | || | || | ||
|| | || | || | || | ||
/\ __ /\ __ /\ __ /\ __ /\
plan view /__\\ //__\\ //__\\ //__\\ //__\
\/ \/ \/ \/
* Duplication of Tong measurements, but with greater range of stability.
* Kc near peak of w spectrum for convective case.
# Uses nine 10m PAM masts, nested as shown for 2m spacing; 4 sonic
booms will point down when masts are lowered.
Array 3: z/w = 1, Kc = 0.53
e.g. S1 = 2m, z1 = 8m; S2 = 1m, z2 = 4m
|<------------ 16 m ----------->|
x x x x x x x x x -- 8m
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | x x x x x | | | -- 4m
| | | | | | | | |
__/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\__
elevation ///////////////////////////////////////
x x x x x x x x x x x
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
/\ __ /\ __ /\ __ /\ __ /\
plan view /__\\ //__\\ //__\\ //__\\ //__\
\/ \/ \/ \/
* Extends range of Kc into Marc's "transition" regime.
* Kc near peak of w spectrum for neutral case.
# Uses nine 10m PAM masts as above, plus either two shorter 4-5m masts
or perhaps some double booms to add two sonics w/S2=1m at z2=4m.
Array 4: z/w = 2, Kc = 1.1
e.g. S1 = 0.5m, z1 = 4m; S2 = 0.63m, z2 = 5m
|<----- 4m ---->|
||======x=x=x=x=x======|| -- 5m
||==x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x==|| -- 4m
|| ||
__||_____________________||__
elevation /////////////////////////////
x x x x x x x x x
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
_____|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_____
/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\_/_\
plan view /\ /\
/__\ /__\
* Kc in inertial range for convective case, near peak of w spectrum
for stable case.
* Requires very different support structure than arrays 1-3.
* Increased possibilty of flow distortion due to small spacing;
we can check for flow distortion in post-analysis by comparing
time-averaged turbulence statistics for all sonics.
This intercomparison can be done as a function of S.
* Setting up this array may require about 2 days of effort,
but the support structure can perhaps be set up while
arrays 2&3 are collecting data.
* It's possible that we might run out to time before using this array,
depending on how quickly we complete data collection with previous
arrays. Note also that the wind climatology may not be as favorable
toward the end of September.
# Uses four (two steel, two Al) 5.5m ASTER tower sections.
- 7: Planning, Site , Wed 19-Jan-2000 13:30:16 MST, eddy decay time scale
Tom,
Sorry I didn't get over yesterday. Below are my thoughts on the time scale.
I propose to use what we had in the footprint paper (1992):
\tau = (2/C_0) \sigma_w^2/\epsilon
although there are some uncertainties in C_0 (3 to 5) and whether or not
one uses \sigma_w for the u and v velocity components. Use of \sigma_w
would result in the smallest time scale and perhaps that is what should
be used for estimation purposes, i.e., to see if Taylor's hypothesis holds.
If you use \sigma_w = 1.3 u_\ast and \epsilon = u_\ast^3/(k z), then the
\tau = (1.35/C_0) z/u_\ast.
For C_0 = 3, 4, and 5, the coeficient c_1 = 1.35/C_0 = 0.45, 0.34, and 0.27,
respectively. I would probably just choose 0.34 for now and see what you
get. We can talk about this when you wish. But I guess, you probably need
to make some estimates soon about the validity of Taylor's hypothesis.
(Sorry I didn't get this to you much earlier. I have been tied up in getting
a talk ready for the AMS Air Pollution Conference in Long Beach, CA last week,
going to and chairing the Conference. Everything went well.)
Jeff
- 6: Planning, Site , Wed 19-Jan-2000 13:29:14 MST, Non-normal wind direction
If the wind deviates from normal to the array by D degrees, then
we will need to lag the data by a time up to 4S sin(D)/U. Here S
is sonic spacing and I assume a 5 sonic resolved-scale filter.
Jeff estimates the time scale for decay of an eddy to be 0.34 z/u*.
Thus we want
4S sin(D)/U << 0.34 z/u* or
sin(D) << 0.34 z/W U/u*
where W=4S is the width of the spatial filter.
We have been considering 0.13 < z/W < 0.6. In the worst case,
sind(D) << 0.34*0.13/0.1 = 0.44
or sin(D) ~ 0.04 => D ~ 2.5 degrees!
In the best case,
sind(D) << 0.34*0.6/0.1 = 2
or sin(D) ~ 0.2 => D ~ 12 degrees
This is not too encouraging.
- 5: Planning, Site none, Fri 17-Dec-1999 12:19:45 MST, PAM mast packing
How closely can we "pack" PAM tripods for SGS?
The PAM tripods have an equilateral triangle footprint, L=115" on each
side. Thus if we place them side-by-side in the same orientation, the
spacing of the masts would be L = 2.92m.
/\ /\ /\ /\ /\
/__\/__\/__\/__\/__\
However the mast itself is only a distance of L/3 from one side of the
tripod footprint, so alternating the orientations of the tripods by
180 degrees allows a spacing of the masts equal to 2/3 L = 1.95m.
/\ __ /\ __ /\
/__\\ //__\\ //__\
\/ \/
Note that the tripods are also staggered in order to line up the masts
in a straight line. The tripods could perhaps be nested even a little
closer, since the only structure on the outer edges of the footprint is
the three legs themselves.
The PAM tripod structure without the electronics box (recall that we
will be using ADAMs to ingest the sonic data) are actually very open,
so I don't expect the flow distortion with PAM masts to be any worse
than with some sort of horizontal beam to support the sonics.
- 4: Planning, Site none, Fri 17-Dec-1999 09:00:13 MST, calculating spatial averages
How to calculate 2D spatial averages ala Tong et al?
The devil is in the details!
Let
w = arbitrary flow variable, e.g u,v,w, etc,
number of sensors in single crosswind filter = 2n+1,
sensor spacing = S,
mean wind speed = U,
mean wind direction (relative to array normal) = D,
with D defined positive for wind blowing from x_{-n} to x_n
Then effective sensor spacing = S' = S cos(D)
Crosswind average =
= Sum_{j=-n}^{j=n} C_j w(x_j,t+jdt)
where dt = S sin(D)/u with u the instantaneous wind speed.
Does Taylor's hypothesis need to hold over the time +/-n dt required
for a single filter operation (or is it 2n dt?) or the time +/-2n dt
required for a second order filter (or is it 4n dt?)? I have my own
opinion, but would like some independent assessments.
Streamwise average =
w~(t) = 1/(2T) Int_{-T}^T C(t') w(t+t') dt'
where T = nS cos(D)/U gives a streamwise filter with the same
width, 2UT = 2nS', as the crosswind filter.
C_j and C(t') are weighting functions used to define filter shape:
Sum_{j=-n}^{j=n} C_j = 1
1/(2T) Int_{-T}^T C(t') dt' = 1
Then the resolved and sgs flow variables are
w^r = ~
w' = w - w^r
Note that both w^r and w' remain time-dependent, stochastic variables.
It would appear to be straightforward to apply this process again to
obtain second moments such as
~ = < ~ (w - ~) >~
This is all fine for a stationary flow field. But how do we define U
and D for a non-stationary flow as will be the case for much of the
data? We need to define or simply choose a procedure for our real-time
data analysis in the field. Do we just pick an arbitrary averaging
time, such as 5, 15, 30, or 60 minutes? There is perhaps some logic to
make this averaging time on the order of T = nS'/U. But note the
difficulty of calculating the latter if U=f(T).
- 3: Planning, Site none, Fri 03-Dec-1999 14:35:32 MST, sonic spacing
12/3/99
I have looked briefly at the issue of sonic spacing:
For a height of z=6m and a filter width of W=12m=(4*3m), Tong et al
calculate a filter cut-off at a wavelength lc = 2*pi*z/1.67.
Thus lc = 2*pi*(6m)/1.67 = 22.6m = 1.88*W,
where W = width of spatial filter (of Tong design)
We want lc to match lw, the wavelength at the peak in the vertical
velocity power spectrum.
From Kaimal and Finnigan, Fig. 2.9, this peak occurs
at:
z/L z/lw W(z=6m)
--- ---- -------
-1 0.2 16m
-0.5 0.3 11m
0 0.6 5.3m
0.5 1 3.2m
1 1.5 2.1m
Note that the peak wavelength of the u spectrum is 5-10 times larger
than that for the w spectrum.
Combining these two, W = z/(1.88*z/lw), which is in the 3rd column
above.
Thus it would appear that we might choose perhaps 12m (Tong's spacing),
6m and 3m for the filter width (sonic spacing of 3m, 1.5m and 0.75m!)
in three different arrays that cover the range of stability. Note
that the closer spacings would require wind directions very close to
normal to the array in order to minimize flow distortion of one sonic
by another. The spacing is proportional to z, so the higher we can
place the array, the better.
Comments? I infer that practical LES simulations do not use filter
widths as small as 3m, so perhaps we do not want to use lw as the
criterion for stable conditions? I recall that Chin-Hoh and Peter
wanted to use perhaps 12m and 24m as two filter widths. Obviously this
is not compatible with the lw criterion, which was not apparent to me
at our meeting.
12/17/99
Peter suggests that we investigate two cases,
Kc = z/lc = 0.067 and 0.333.
Kc = z/(1.88*W) = z/(7.5*S) , where S = sonic spacing
Thus for Kc = 0.067: S/z = 2 and a height of 5m implies S = 10m
Kc = 0.333: S/z = 0.4 and a height of 5m implies S = 2m
Could we keep the spacing the same and just change the height?
Let S=4m, then for Kc = 0.067: z = S/2 = 2m
for Kc = 0.333: z = 2.5S = 10m
It's almost doable!
We could get Kc as high as z/(7.5*S) = 9m/(7.5*2m) = 0.6
- 2: Planning, Site none, Fri 03-Dec-1999 14:32:20 MST, Taylor's hypothesis
As Don noted during our meeting, the validity of Taylor's hypothesis
depends on sigw/U << 1 and sigu/U << 1.
sigw/U = sigw/u* x u*/U = sigw/u* x k/[ln(z/zo - psi(z/L)]
sigu/U = sigu/u* x u*/U = sigu/u* x k/[ln(z/zo - psi(z/L)]
sigw/u* ~ 1.3, sigu/u* ~2, so the validity of Taylor's hypothesis
depends more critically on sigu/u*. Note that there is no explicit
dependence on wind speed and only a weak dependence on stability.
For neutral stability, z=6m and zo=3cm,
sigu/U = 2*0.4/ln(6/0.03) = 0.15
I have plotted sigma_u/U versus U for the SJVAQS field program, held in
the San Joaquin valley of CA in 1991. For 5m wind speeds above 3 m/s,
sigma_u/U ~ 0.2. At lower wind speeds, the range of sigma_u/U
increases with decreasing wind speed, from values as small as 0.05
around 2 m/s up to values approaching 1 below 1 m/s.
Although the possible values for sigma_u/U increase at low wind speeds,
there is still plenty of data at low wind speeds with values equal to
or below 0.2. The values below 0.2 are associated with low values of
u*/U. These occur during the stably-stratified conditions (at night)
when the drag coefficient is low. Thus I anticipate no problem with
satisfying Taylor's hypothesis if sigma_u/U < 0.2 is satisfactory.
- 1: LOG, Site none, Wed 01-Dec-1999 10:24:19 MST, Logbook created
initial log file /net/aster/projects/SGS00/logbook/tklog.log created by USER maclean