Howard Neil wrote:

I would agree that accuracy better than +10% is important. My earlier
comment was a little short for what I was trying to say. It was
suggested that several gauges be used and the amounts averaged out. All
that would achieve is an average of inaccurate readings. However, there
will still be natural differences in actual rainfall within a locality
and I don't see extreme precision as being necessary. What I think is
more important is consistency along with reasonable accuracy (say + or -
1%?)

I would suggest that accuracy is less important than being able to
compare readings between different sites. In this case, using a standard
exposure would take preference over a slight drop in accuracy. Obviously
the standard exposure would be selected such that any decrease in
accuracy caused by the exposure is minimised.

--
Jonathan Stott
Canterbury Weather: http://www.canterburyweather.co.uk/
Reverse my e-mail address to reply by e-mail