CME04: radiation Messages: 6 Entries..

I knew this could be a problem when we set up the radiometers, but I still am
surprised by the amount.  We'll have to think about whether to move the top
radiometer booms.

See attached plot for a good example of shading -- note no shading at willow
(green trace), whereas both pine (red) and aspen (black) show lots of shading
(even down to diffuse radiation levels) over a 3-hour period.  This plot is
of incoming PAR.

Even with the correct calibration coefficients, I need to subtract a bias of
90 W/m2 from Rnet and 2.9mmole/m^2 s to get Rnet and PAR to agree with the
other towers.  This must be coming in through the T/RH A/D, so we plan to change
these sensors on willow to a CR10x like pine and aspen.

Just changed PAR gain in the CR10x from 0.25869 to 0.22930 (which is what it
should be for Q89084: 138.5/604 = 0.22930.

Using prep, I've gotten crude agreement between Rnet from w with p&a by 
multiplying by the gain of 8.57 (justified), but then subtracting 120W/m2
(not justified).  Presumably, this means that there is a voltage offset in
the TRH A/D at willow.

Similarly, I get crude agreement with PAR using a gain of 0.259, but an
offset of -3.3.  I note that there still is a lot of small noise in PAR.w
and it is not 0 at night (unlike p&w that are 0), but instead varies [though
not exactly like Rnet].

In addition, both w signals have huge spikes, but only during the day.

Clearly, we need to check out the data system on this T/RH.
  

	Rnet	Gain+	Gain-	PAR	Gain	Tcoef
Willow: 91096	[8.57	-10.53]	Q30629  -131.58 0.0036	
Pine:	[99259]	9.07	-11.17	Q9018	-156.99	0.0036
Aspen:  97034	9.21	-11.37	89084	-138.50	0.0036

[deduced -- not read from sensor]

Coefs in logger:
Pine: 		9.07	11.17		0.25991
Aspen:		9.21	11.37		0.25869

Willow is simply reporting in mV (COEFS = 0,1000,0,0)?

Found that the AD coefs in the willow Tsfc were wrong.  Set by:
PM
AD
COFL 2 1 1e3
COFL 3 1 1e3
PC
CD

This done about 11:15 today.