On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:15:26 +0100, Vidcapper wrote:

Personally, I've found that the quoted accuracy of +/- 1°C is about
right. Close enough for enthusiastic amateurs like myself (though I
don't use one for the monthly records I post here).

Do bear in mind that the Met Office accurracy is only 0.5C, how ever
last time I looked on the Met O site it didn't say if that was:

a) +/- 0.5C
b) + 0.5C, - 0.0C
c) + 0.0C, - 0.5C
d) +/- 0.25C

The last slightly contradicts the resolution of 0.1C as the
specification for the accuracy requires higher resolution than
required resolution...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
. 1...
Do bear in mind that the Met Office accurracy is only 0.5C, how ever
last time I looked on the Met O site it didn't say if that was:

a) +/- 0.5C
b) + 0.5C, - 0.0C
c) + 0.0C, - 0.5C
d) +/- 0.25C

The last slightly contradicts the resolution of 0.1C as the
specification for the accuracy requires higher resolution than
required resolution...


Dave,

Met Office liquid in glass thermometers are accurate to 0.2C (+/- 0.1C)

ATB,

--
Ken Cook, Copley (5miles north of Barnard Castle), County Durham.
830ft
http://mysite.freeserve.com/copley
(MO climat. site updated before 10Z and 19Z daily)
kencookATcopleydurham.freeserve.co.uk


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/03

In uk.sci.weather on Thu, 23 Oct 2003 at 09:40:39, wrote :

And horribly inaccurate.

Personally, I've found that the quoted accuracy of +/- 1°C is about
right. Close enough for enthusiastic amateurs like myself (though I
don't use one for the monthly records I post here).

Personally I've found that any two of these units can disagree by 2 degrees
so I concur with you about the high level of inaccuracy

It's like the parable of the man with two watches...

'A man with one watch knows the time, a man with two is never sure.'
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Email to pahyett[AT]activist[DOT]demon[DOT]co[DOT]uk

In article ,
Vidcapper wrote:

In uk.sci.weather on Thu, 23 Oct 2003 at 09:40:39, wrote :

And horribly inaccurate.

Personally, I've found that the quoted accuracy of +/- 1°C is about
right. Close enough for enthusiastic amateurs like myself (though I
don't use one for the monthly records I post here).

Personally I've found that any two of these units can disagree by 2 degrees
so I concur with you about the high level of inaccuracy

It's like the parable of the man with two watches...

'A man with one watch knows the time, a man with two is never sure.'

I am quite sure that with one of these Oregon devices, you never know the
temperature. With two, you don't know the temperature twice.

In uk.sci.weather on Fri, 24 Oct 2003 at 09:45:41, wrote :

'A man with one watch knows the time, a man with two is never sure.'

I am quite sure that with one of these Oregon devices, you never know the
temperature. With two, you don't know the temperature twice.

Maybe I was just lucky with my remote sensor then?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Email to pahyett[AT]activist[DOT]demon[DOT]co[DOT]uk

In article ,
Vidcapper wrote:

In uk.sci.weather on Fri, 24 Oct 2003 at 09:45:41, wrote :

'A man with one watch knows the time, a man with two is never sure.'

I am quite sure that with one of these Oregon devices, you never know the
temperature. With two, you don't know the temperature twice.

Maybe I was just lucky with my remote sensor then?

Given the huge variation in accuracy of these Oregon devices, there's bound
to be the odd one that is acceptably accurate. Trouble is, which one?

In article , Vidcapper
writes
In uk.sci.weather on Tue, 21 Oct 2003 at 12:59:47, JPG wrote :

If you just need temperature I would recommend the Oregon MTR102 - no cables
required and only £20.

Yes, I have one of those, but if you want additional sensors, you might
just as well buy a couple more of the original units. You'd think the
sensors would be cheaper than they are.

I've had occasional problems with the receiver not picking up the
sensors signal though.

They're about 15 yards apart with nothing more substantial than a wooden
shed wall & a window between them. It's not the batteries, as changing
them doesn't often help. It generally corrects itself, but not for some
hours.

Any hints on why this happens, and the best way to cure it?

I can think of two causes of this. 1) They are designated as unprotected
radio devices and operate in a radio band which has several licensed
user (MoD, amateurs, etc.) permitted to use hundreds of watts and lawful
transmissions by these users causes it. 2) If the receiver is close to a
PC then RFI from it could be raising the noise level and making the
wanted signal harder to detect. If it's due to a PC then moving the
three items should solve the problem; if it is due to other licensed
higher power transmissions moving the two thermometer parts might
improve the performance, if not then there is not much you can do other
then moving.
--
Ian G8ILZ
- to reply directly use ian (at) newbrain (dot) demon (dot) co (dot) uk

In uk.sci.weather on Sat, 1 Nov 2003 at 20:32:39, Junque wrote :

Any hints on why this happens, and the best way to cure it?

I can think of two causes of this. 1) They are designated as unprotected
radio devices and operate in a radio band which has several licensed
user (MoD, amateurs, etc.) permitted to use hundreds of watts and lawful
transmissions by these users causes it. 2) If the receiver is close to a
PC

About 5ft, but it's always this close and the problem is sporadic not
continuous.

then RFI from it could be raising the noise level and making the
wanted signal harder to detect. If it's due to a PC then moving the
three items should solve the problem; if it is due to other licensed
higher power transmissions moving the two thermometer parts might
improve the performance, if not then there is not much you can do other
then moving.

I think I'll just have to put up with it.

Thanks anyway.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Email to pahyett[AT]activist[DOT]demon[DOT]co[DOT]uk