Solar Energy Conversion II: Selected Lectures from the 1980 International Symposium on Solar Energy Utilization, London, Ontario, Canada August 10-24, 1980

SPEAKERS

M.N. Bahadori,     Shiraz University, Solar Energy Centre, Shiraz, Iran

Robert Bertram,     Ontario Research Foundation, Sheridan Park, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

E. Bilgen,     Genie mechanique, Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

James R. Bolton,     Department of Chemistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

Arthur Bowen,     School of Engineering and Architecture, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, U.S.A.

Gordon Bragg,     Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Eugene Carter,     Kenneth E. Johnson Environmental and Energy Centre, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.

Ray Chan,     38 Gretna Green, London, Ontario, Canada

M. Chandrashekar,     University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Ted Dixon,     Department of Physics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

John Duffie,     Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

Bill Fauconnier,     Confederation College, Box 398, Postal Station F, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada

Terry Hollands,     Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Frank Hooper,     Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

A. Fred Janzen,     Photochemical Research Associates, 45 Meg Drive, London, Ontario, Canada

Jake Klassen,     Chief Energy Secretariat, Public Works Canada, Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Frank Kreith,     Solar Energy Research Institute, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado, U.S.A.

Tom Lawand,     Brace Research Institute, MacDonald College of McGill University, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada

Steven Lien,     Solar Energy Research Institute, Golden, Colorado, U.S.A.

Deborah Lyons,     Energy, Mines and Resources, 580 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

John Page,     Department of Building Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England

Barry Paton,     Department of Physics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Allan Quackenbush,     Confederation College, Box 398, Postal Station F, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada

Ernie Robertson,     Biomass Institute, 870 Cambridge Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Diane Saxe,     Ministry of Energy, 56 Wellesley Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Ali Sayigh,     College of Engineering, Box 800 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Ted Schrecker,     NDP Research Office, Parliament Buildings, Government of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Bernie Seraphin,     Optical Sciences Centre, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.

Bob Swartman,     Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

Layton Wittenberg,     Supervisor, Energy Science Group, Monsanto Research Corporation, Miamisburg, Ohio, U.S.A.

Gordon Yaciuk,     International Development Research Centre, 304-10454 Whyte Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

PANELISTS

Rick Airey,     Ontario Ministry of Industry and Tourism Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Ed Anderson,     Techno-Economic Research Institute 55 University Avenue Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Angela Armitt,     1055 The Parkway London, Ontario, Canada

Mehdi Bahadori,     Shiraz University Shiraz, Iran

James Balfour,     M.M. Dillon Ltd., Consulting Engineers Box 219, Station K Toronto, Ontario, Canada

James Bolton,     Department of Chemistry University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada

Art Bowen,     School of Engineering and Architecture University of Miami Coral Gables, Florida, U.S.A.

Jim Cameron,     Imperial Oil, 111 St. Clair Avenue Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Robert Daudlin,     1297 Highway 18 East Kingsville, Ontario, Canada

Ted Dixon,     Department of Physics University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Biswa N. Ghosh,     c/o UNDP Office, 42 Brickdam Georgetown, Guyana

Anwar Hossain,     Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology 26/2 Engineering Staff Quarters Dacca, Bangladesh

A. Fred Janzen,     Photochemical Research Associates 45 Meg Drive London, Ontario, Canada

Wilf Lamb,     305–215 Piccadilly Street London, Ontario, Canada

Tom Lanczi,     Con-Serve Group Limited 18 Gradwell Drive Scarborough, Ontario, Canada

Charles Lemmon,     School of Business Administration University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada

Doug Lorriman,     Department of Energy, Mines and Resources 580 Booth Street Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Silas Lwakabamba,     University of Dar es Salaam P.O. Box 35131 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Richard Metcalfe,     National University P.O. Roma Lesotho

John Page,     Department of Building Science University of Sheffield Sheffield, England

E.G. Pleva,     Geography Department University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada

Greg Ross,     Enerplan, 334 King Street East Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Ali Sayigh,     College of Engineering Box 800, Riyadh Saudi Arabia

Anne Schrecker,     P.O. Box 46 Arva, Ontario, Canada

Don G. Senadhipathy,     Ceylon Electricity Board P.O. Box 540 Columbo, Sri Lanka

Peter Shaw,     429 Piccadilly Street London, Ontario, Canada

S.K. Shil,     Central Electronics Limited 4 Industrial Area Sahibabad, India

R.K. Swartman,     Faculty of Engineering Science University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada

Simon Wauchop,     Union Gas, 50 Keil Street North Chatham, Ontario, Canada

B. Yang,     Ontario Ministry of Energy 56 Wellesley Street West Toronto, Ontario, Canada

PARTICIPANTS

Jacob Adetunji,     Department of Physics Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Nigeria

George Agius,     Blue Gardenia, VanBrockdroff Street Msida, Malta

Richard Airey,     Ontario Ministry of Industry and Tourism Toronto, Ontario, Canada

John Ayres,     Faculty of Engineering Science University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada

Johnson Bandele Aladekomo,     Department of Physics, University of Ife Ile-Ife, Nigeria

Hatem Mohammed Ali,     National Research Centre, Dokki, Cairo Egypt

Edward Anderson,     Techno-Economic Research Institute 55 University Avenue Toronto, Ontario, Canada

George Anderson,     645 Riverside Drive London, Ontario, Canada

Hugh Anderson,     271 Windermere Road London, Ontario, Canada

Angela Armitt,     1005 The Parkway, London, Ontario, Canada

Mohamed Baddi,     Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Rm. 135098 Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Mehdi Bahadori,     Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Ian Baird,     Canadian Renewable Energy News P.O. Box 4869, Station E Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

James Balfour,     M.M. Dillon Limited, Consulting Engineers Box 219, Station K Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Michael Wilson Bassey,     Department of Mechanical Engineering Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone Freetown, Sierra Leone

R.W. Bertram,     Ontario Research Foundation, Sheridan Park Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

E. Bilgen,     Genie mechanique, Ecole Polytechnique Montreal, Quebec, Canada

James Bolton,     Department of Chemistry University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada

P. Boon-Long,     Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai Thailand

Sompong Boonthumjinda,     Asian Institute of Technology P.O. Box 2754, Bangkok, Thailand

Charles Bondurant,     162 Virginia Avenue Salem, Virginia, U.S.A.

Arthur Bowen,     School of Engineering and Architecture University of Miami, Box 248294 Coral Gables, Florida, U.S.A.

Charles Bowman,     440 East Randolph #2224 Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.

Gordon Bragg,     Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Christopher Brown,     The London Tribune London, Ontario, Canada

Lynn Burgess,     192 Central Avenue, Apt. 8 London, Ontario, Canada

David Bushnell,     Physics Department Northern Illinois University De Kalb, Illinois, U.S.A.

Jim Cameron,     Imperial Oil, 111 St. Clair Avenue Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Eugene Carter,     Kenneth E. Johnson Environmental and Energy Centre, University of Alabama Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.

Alfredo Castrejon,     Copilco 300 Edif. 5-103 Mexico 20 D.F., Mexico

R.K. Chan,     38 Gretna Green, London, Ontario, Canada

M. Chandrashekar,     University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Dih Jing Chen,     19 Cheyene Avenue, London, Ontario, Canada

D. Clement,     Kleinfeld Consultants, 551 Exmouth Street Sarnia, Ontario, Canada

Bruno Finzi Contini,     Director, Instituto Fisica Tecnica-Facolta Ingeneria-Universita, Trieste, Italy

Robert Daudlin, M.P.,     1297 Highway 18 East Kingsville, Ontario, Canada

Jeffrey Dellimore,     #7 The Mount, St. George, Barbados

A.E. Dixon,     Department of Physics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Lee Dougan,     558 Woodrowe Avenue, Sarnia, Ontario, Canada

J.A. Duffie,     Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

Ehab M. Abd El-Salam,     83 Abd El-Aziz Fahmy Street, Apt. 3 Heliopolise, Cairo, Egypt

J.W. English,     Thermo Electric Company, 12 Rutherford Road S, Brampton, Ontario, Canada

P. Ethirajulu,     Electrical Engineering Department Osmainia University, Hyderabad 500 768, India

Bill Fauconnier,     Confederation College, Box 398, Station F Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada

Biswa Nath Ghosh,     c/o UNDP Office, 42 Brickdam Georgetown, Guyana

Ashok K. GoyaT,     McMaster University, Department of Chemistry 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

S.R.K. Parama Hamsa,     Department of Electrical Engineering Andhra University, Waltair Viakhapatnam 530 003, India

Mahmoud Hamdi,     Groupe de Recherce Physico-Chimie des Interfaces, B.P. 50501 34 033 Montpellier Cedex, France

Lee Myong Ho,     ka-208 Dung-Ang, Apt. Bang-Bae Dong Kang-Nam Ku, Seoul, Korea

Terry Hollands,     Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Chong Joon Hong,     Korea Energy Research Institute Daeduk Science Town, P.O. Box 339 Daejeon Chungnam, Korea

Frank Hooper,     Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Anwar Hossain,     Bangladesh University of Engineering Technology 26/2 Engineering Staff Quarters Dacca, Bangladesh

Sieberen Idzenga,     University College of Botswana P. Bag 0022, Gaborone, Botswana

Joseph C. Igbeka,     University of Ibadan, Department of Agriculture Engineering Faculty of Technology, Ibadan, Nigeria

Mohamad Salleh Ismail,     Department of Food Science and Technology University Pertanian Malaysia Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Kannappa Iynkaran,     University of Waterloo, Mechanical Engineering Department Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

A. Frederick Janzen,     Photochemical Research Associates 45 Meg Drive, London, Ontario, Canada

Helen Elizabeth Jagessar,     University of West Indies Faculty of Mechanical Engineering St. Augustine, Trinidad, West Indies

Brian Jenkins,     11791 General Giraud Montreal, Quebec, Canada

S.S. Jois,     Quarter No. 117, Gauhati University Gauhati 781 014

Jonathan B. Jung,     1 Berlin 47, Mowenweg 39, Germany

Hynn Chai Jung,     Kyung Hee University Solar Energy Institute, Seoul, Korea

A.F. Kaddouri Kaddou,     University of Baghdad College of Engineering, P.O. Box 14038 Baghdad

Victor Kasathko,     9021 S.W. 103 Avenue, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.

Vijay Kawatra,     Energy, Mines and Resources 580 Booth Street, 6th Floor Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Godwin Edward Kayondo,     University of Nairobi Department of Electrical Engineering Box 30197, Nairobi, Kenya

Kerr Solar Systems,     R.R. #1, Chatham, Ontario, Canada

Kwadwo Ohemen Kessey,     Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Science and Technology Kumasi, Ghana

Jee Dong Kim,     Division of Energy Conversion Korean Research Institute, Box 339 Daejeon, Chungnam, Korea

Jake Klassen,     Public Works Canada, Riverside Drive Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Daniel Koff,     18 Demar Road, Lexington, Massachusetts U.S.A.

Frank Kreith,     Solar Energy Research Institute 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado, U.S.A.

Santosh Kumari,     National Physical Laboratory Division of Material New Delhi 110 012, India

Tom Lanczi,     Con-Serve Group Limited, 18 Gradwell Drive Scarborough, Ontario, Canada

T.A. Lawand,     Brace Research Institute MacDonald College of McGill University Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada

Charles Lemmon,     School of Business Administration London, Ontario, Canada

T.C. Leung,     University of Hong Kong Mechanical Engineering 79 Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong

Wilfred Lamb,     305–215 Piccadilly Street London, Ontario, Canada

Steven Lien,     Solar Energy Research Institute Golden, Colorado, U.S.A.

Douglas Lorriman,     Department of Energy, Mines and Resources 580 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Deborah Lyons,     Energy, Mines and Resources 580 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Silas Lwakabamba,     University of Dar es Salaam Faculty of Engineering, P.O. Box 35131 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Ahmud Yousuf Maudarbocus,     School of Industrial Technology University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius

Robert McKenzie,     3921 Beaver Creek Road Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Richard Metcalfe,     National University, P.O. Roma Lesotho

John Michaelides,     Higher Technical Institute, P.O. Box 2432 Nicosia, Republic of Cyprus

Joseph Michener,     755 Avenue Road, Apt. 209 Toronto, Ontario, Canada

H.E. Milling,     15 Cree Place, London, Ontario, Canada

Harry Moses,     R.R.#1, Thedford, Ontario, Canada

John Mukwamataba,     Zambia Electricity Supply Corp., Zambia

Vivian Neal,     c/o Integrated Studies, PAS 1055, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Shyam S. Nandwani,     Depto. De Fisica, Universidad Nacional Heredia, Costa Rica

A.R. Nowshervi,     Chemistry Department, Peshawar University Pakistan

J. O’Connor,     T-Drill Company Limited 793 Airport Boulevard Ann Arbour, Michigan, U.S.A.

P.A. Okelo,     Kitololo & Partners, 3rd Floor, Uniafric House, Koinange Street, P.O. Box 47437 Nairobi, Kenya

Johnson Olufemi Olowolafe,     Department of Physics, University of Ife Ile-Ife, Nigeria

Eric Ossai,     Department of Food Technology Faculty of Technology University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

J.K. Page,     Department of Building Science University of Sheffield Sheffield, England

Barry Paton,     Department of Physics, Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

John Oliver Paquette,     509 Hibiscus Avenue London, Ontario, Canada

E.G. Pleva,     University of Western Ontario Geography Department London, Ontario, Canada

Rakesh K. Popli,     India Development Service 60/12 Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi, India

Allan Quackenbush,     Confederation College, Box 398, Station F Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada

M.R. Raje-Bhonsale,     Department of Physics Shivaji University Kolhapur Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India

E. Ramos,     Instituto De Investigaciones en Usteriales Apdo. Postal 70–361, Mexico 20, D.F. Mexico

Robert H. Rayfield,     Dunlop Research Centre Sheridan Park Community, Mississauga Ontario, Canada

P.J. Reddy,     Department of Physics Sir Venkateswara University, Tirupati, India Gerhard Riesch Commission of European Communities Ispra Establishment, I 21020 ISPRA/VARESE Italy

E. Robertson,     Biomass Institute, 870 Cambridge Street Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Gregory Ross,     Enerplan, 334 King Street East, Suite 505 Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Basu Roy,     Kleinfeldt Consultants Limited 4 Melanie Drive, Suite 12 Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Nick Saidi,     Engineering Department, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

D. Samanao,     Solar Energy Department, Inst. for Mat. Res. Apdo. Postal 70–360, Mexico, 20 D. F. Mexico

Diane Saxe,     Ministry of Energy, 56 Wellesley Street West Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Ali Sayigh,     College of Engineering, Box 800 Riyadh Saudi Arabia

Anne Schrecker,     P.O. Box 46, Arva, Ontario, Canada

Ted Schrecker,     NDP Research Office, Parliament Buildings Government of Ontario Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Don Gunapala Senadhipathy,     Ceylon Electricity Board, P.O. Box 540 Columbo, Sri Lanka

Michel J. Sequin,     Clare Brothers Ltd., 223 King Street West Cambridge, Ontario, Canada

A. Sen,     Department of Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

B.O. Seraphin,     Optical Sciences Centre, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.

Peter Shaw,     429 Piccadilly Street, London, Ontario Canada

Anita Sherin,     448 Berkshire Drive, London, Ontario, Canada

U.S. Premananda Shet,     Department of Mechanical Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Madras 600 036, India

S.K. Shil,     Central Electronics Limited, 4 Industrial Area, Sahibabad − 201010, India

Randolph A. Smith,     417 Edgeboro Drive, Newtown, PA 18940, U.S.A.

F. Skinner,     Welders Service (Erie-Huron) Limited 1910 Oxford Street East, P.O. Box 5184 London, Ontario, Canada

Solar Plast Limited,     1045 Hargrieve Road London, Ontario, Canada

Solartech Limited,     21 Prince Andrew Place Don Mills, Ontario, Canada

Solcan Limited,     R.R.3, London, Ontario, Canada

Solestial Solar Panels Inc.,     44 Bartlett Road Beamsville, Ontario, Canada

M.M. Sorour,     Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University Alexandria, Egypt

Colin Stanger,     Apt. 3806, Place Pier, 2054 Lakeshore Boulevard West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

John Stark,     Construction Division, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, 240 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Werner Steinmetz,     Sankey Partnership Architects, 172 King Street East, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Sun Ray Solar Systems Ltd.,     2429 Seminole Street Windsor, Ontario, Canada

R.K. Swartman,     Faculty of Engineering Science University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada

The Computer Circuit Ltd.,     733 Richmond Street, London, Ontario, Canada

Jean Tryphonopoulos,     Quebec Street, London, Ontario, Canada

Douwe Van Der Baaren,     Box 965 Acadia University, Department of Physics, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada

W.M. Vannatter,     Solar Supply and Insulation, 119 John Street Ingersoll, Ontario, Canada

Adnan M. Waked,     Kuwait University, Mechanical Engineering P.O. Box 5969, Safat, Kuwait

Simon Wauchop,     Union Gas, 50 Keil Street North Chatham, Ontario, Canada

Dean Webber,     478 Glen Crescent, London, Ontario, Canada

Leslie Williams,     38 Aponi Crescent, London, Ontario, Canada

Layton Wittenberg,     Supervisor, Energy Science Group Monsanto Research Corporation Miamisburg, Ohio, U.S.A.

Rob Wylie,     134 Waterloo Street, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Gordon Yaciuk,     International Development Research Centre 304–10454 Whyte Avenue, Edmonton Alberta, Canada

Bunli Yang,     Ontario Ministry of Energy 56 Wellesley Street West, Toronto Ontario, Canada

Chang Soon Yim,     #6–8 Dogok-Dong, Gang Nam-Ku, Seoul, Korea

Mohamed I. Youssef,     Physics Department, Mansoura University Mansoura, Egypt

Nicholas Zavolas,     P.O. Box 251, Peacedale, Rhode Island, U.S.A.

Bernard Wilson Zingano,     c/o Professor A.K. Som, Chancellor College Physics Department, P.O. Box 280 Zomba, Malawi

Jake Zwart,     R.R.1, Putnam, Ontario, Canada

SOLAR RADIATION

1

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOLAR RADIATION

A.A.M. Sayigh,     College of Engineering, University of Riyadh, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Publisher Summary

This chapter discusses the characteristics of solar radiation. The earth receives from the sun approximately 5.4 × 10²⁴ J per year. This is equivalent to about 30,000 times the energy used in the world at present. The most important parameter in solar radiation measurement is the energy received outside the earth’s atmosphere called the solar constant. It is defined as the energy received from the sun on a unit area exposed normally to the sun’s rays at the average sun–earth distance in the absence of the earth’s atmosphere. The variability of solar energy incident on a collector surface on the ground is considerably greater than that of the extraterrestrial solar energy. On a clear sunny day, the energy increases from zero at sunrise to a maximum at solar noon and decreases to zero at sunset. At any moment, clouds may cover the sun and decrease the energy because of diffuse radiation.

INTRODUCTION

The earth receives from the sun approximately 5.4 × 10²⁴ J/year. This is equivalent to about 30,000 times the energy used in the world at present. Harnessing this energy requires a knowledge of the nature of solar insolation and the factors which influence its intensity. For example, in building applications, the total solar radiation (global radiation) is the source of energy and the intensity depends on how much of the radiation is direct and how much is diffuse.

The most important parameter in solar radiation measurement is the energy received outside the earth’s atmosphere, called the solar constant. It is defined as the energy received from the sun on a unit area exposed normally to the sun’s rays at the average sun-earth distance in the absence of the earth’s atmosphere. The 1970 ISES Congress in Melbourne accepted the value of 1353 W/m² for the solar constant, with an error of about ± 1.5%. This value is an average for ten series of measurements, all made from high altitude platforms (Convair 990, balloons, X-15 aircraft, and Mariner Mars probe) during the period 1967–1970, which are represented in Fig. 1. More recent work suggests the value of the solar constant to be between 1368 and 1377 W/m² (1). The extraterrestrial solar spectrum is shown in Fig. 2. The spectrum consists of the ultra-violet region up to 0.4 microns, which represents 9.2% of the total energy; the visible region from 0.4 to 0.75 microns, which represents 41.5%; and the infrared region beyond 0.75 microns, which represents 49.2% of the total energy from the sun. The percentage of energy in the infrared region from 0.75 to 5.00 microns is 48.7% of the total.

Fig. 1 Various valves of extraterrestrial solar radiation.

Fig. 2 Solar spectrum irradiance, standard curve, solar constant 1353 W m−2.

TOTAL AND SPECTRAL SOLAR IRRADIANCE AT GROUND LEVEL

The variability of solar energy incident on a collector surface on the ground is considerably greater than that of the extraterrestrial solar energy. On a clear sunshine day, the energy increases from zero at sunrise to a maximum at solar noon and decreases to zero at sunset. At any moment, clouds may intercept the sun and decrease the energy to a low value due to the diffuse radiation. The air mass is the ratio of the path length of the radiation through the atmosphere at any given angle to the sea level straight through the atmosphere (vertically). Air mass zero refers to the absence of atmospheric attenuation at one astronomical unit from the sun. For simplicity, it can be assumed that the zenith angle is small and, therefore, the air mass (m) can be expressed as:

(1)

where Z is the zenith angle.

The solar radiation falling on an inclined surface, Hi, can be predicted from the radiation on a horizontal surface (2, 3) as measured in most parts of the world. The solar flux, Hi, falling on a surface inclined at an angle b to the horizontal can be expressed by the radiation component normal to the surface, Hn, using the following equations:

(2)

and:

, where p is the azimuth of the plane, and Z is the sun azimuth from the south. α and Z can be determined from the following equations:

(3)

(4)

where L is the northern latitude of the place, is the sun’s declination, and h is the hour angle (zero at noon time, positive in the afternoon and negative before noon). Therefore, using the previous equations, equation (2) can be written as:

(5)

For a plane facing south:

(6)

and at noon, when h = 0 :

(7)

Further information is provided in reference (4).

For clear sky, solar radiation depends mostly on the air mass and atmospheric turbidity, water vapour, dust content and aerosols. If the distribution of diffuse radiation is uniform over the whole of the visible sky hemisphere, then the diffuse radiation falling on an inclined plane is:

(8)

For further work regarding diffuse radiation on inclined surfaces, see K. Ya. Kondratyev and M.P. Fedorova (5).

ESTIMATION OF TOTAL SOLAR RADIATION

The Use of Sunshine Hours

Masson (1966) plotted the total solar radiation, H, on a horizontal plane in langleys per day against the hours of sunshine per day, S, and fitted a hyperbolic segment to the result. The segment tends to be a straight line if the hours of sunshine are equal to or greater than seven hours. The results were expressed in mathematical form as:

(9)

The Use of Sunshine Hours Compared to Length of Day

One of the earliest expressions was Angstrom’s regression (1924), which is:

(10)

where A and B are arbitrary constants, S is the hours of sunshine, Z is the length of the day, and HO is the monthly average horizontal solar radiation in W.m−2.

Variations of Angstrom’s equation have been developed. Bennett (6) introduced the station elevation, h, in feet, and re-defined S as the monthly mean daily percentage of possible sunshine, and obtained the following equation:

(11)

where, for the United States, A varies from 188 in April to 291 in August, B varies from 3.768 in August to 5.574 in April, and C varies from 0.00130 in July to 0.0226 in December. Swartman and Ogunlade (7) used the relative humidity in a correlation. Sayigh (8) used latitude, declinations, days after the spring equinox as well as relative humidity in a correlation for total solar radiation.

CONCLUSION

It is essential to know how much solar energy is available at a specific location in order to design a system to utilize it. It is important to understand the characteristics of solar radiation to predict its availability.

REFERENCES

1. Sayigh, A. A.M.Solar Energy Engineering. New York: Academic Press, 1977. Elterman, L.UV, Visible and IR attenuation for altitude to 50 km. US Air Force: Office of Aerospace Research, 1968. [AFCR-68–0153]. Gates, D. M., Harrop, W. J. Infrared Transmission of the Atmospheric to Solar Radiation. App. Optics. 1963; 2:887. Kondratyev, K. Ya.Radiation in the Atmosphere. New York: Academic Press, 1969.

2. Heywood, H. The Computation of Solar Radiation Intensities - Part I. Solar Energy. 9(4), 1965.

3. Heywood, H. The Computation of Solar Radiation Intensities - Part II. Solar Fnergy. 10(1), 1966.

4. Sayigh, A. A.M. Characteristics of Solar Radiation, 5th Course on Solar Energy Conversion. University of Waterloo. Pergamon Press, 1978

5. Unsworth, M. H., Monteith, J. L. Aerosol and Solar Radiation in Britain. Quart. J. R. Met. Soc.. 1972; 98.

6. Bennett, I. Monthly Maps of Mean Daily Insolation for United States. Solar Energy. 9(No. 3), 1965.

7. Swartman, R. K., Ogunlade, O. Solar Energy. 1967; 11:170.

8. Sayigh, A. A. M., (1977c). Estimation of Total Radiation Intensities - A Universal Formula, LAGA/AMAP Joint Assembly Conference, Seattle, USA, 22 August −3 September 1977.

2

RADIATION MEASUREMENTS

E.A. Carter,     The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.

Publisher Summary

This chapter focuses on the subject of radiation measurements, including solar radiation measurements, solar radiation scales, solar radiation units, types of solar radiation, and instruments and accuracy. It also discusses the Angstrom scale that was established in 1905. In 1913, Dr. Abbot, at the Smithsonian Institution, created what has been referred to as the Smithsonian scale. These scales were used throughout the world for many years, but, in several comparisons, it was found that there was as much as a 3–6% difference in measurements. Before the International Geophysical Year in 1958–59, it became necessary to establish a universal scale. Accordingly, an international agreement was reached in 1956 for a new scale, which has been referred to as the International Pyrheliometric Scale of 1956 or IPS 1956. In the 1960s, better instruments were developed, specifically the Kendall Absolute Cavity Radiometer, which indicated that the IPS 1956 Scale was not correct.

INTRODUCTION

I understand that you have only two sessions on radiation measurements. There is sufficient material for several sessions so I hope I do not duplicate other material, and I will leave time for questions to be sure to cover material of most interest to you. There are others here who have had similar experience as I in other parts of the world, and I hope they will add some comments. My subjects will cover: (1) the use of solar radiation measurements; (2) solar radiation scales; (3) solar radiation units; (4) types of solar radiation; (5) instruments and accuracy; (6) data acquisition; (7) data collection and accuracy in collecting data; (8) data processing; (9) data availability and how to locate the data; (10) applications of the data; and, finally, some calculations and techniques of estimating solar radiation.

USE OF SOLAR RADIATION MEASUREMENTS

The title of this meeting includes utilization so it is appropriate to start with the various uses of solar radiation measurements which are probably becoming too numerous to make a complete list. In teaching classes, I refer to the uses of solar radiation measurements as the three A’s – the mention of an A in class is mostly to get attention. First is agriculture, which includes both land and sea plants, and second is the atmosphere which the meteorologists study to find the effect of solar radiation on the atmosphere and its relation to the weather machine. The third A is architecture. We may think of architecture as a newcomer to solar radiation, but it really began with man’s civilization. It becomes sidetracked occasionally as we find other sources of energy, but in the past few years has become very important. Today I might add another A, aeronautics, because Dr. Paul MacCready built another Gossamer powered by solar cells and last week it flew two miles with a 95 1b. pilot. I might add a couple of B’s here: biology, which is generally growth measurements and is associated with agriculture and on the way here I read an article about butter-flies, which states their wings absorb heat from the sun as miniature solar collectors. That’s probably sufficient uses at this time, and the accuracy requirements for solar measurements vary depending on the use of the data. At this point, I will call your attention to a solar cell pyranometer and an integrator set up in the window, which will continue to collect solar radiation and totalize it during this session. It can be examined further at the end of the discussions.

SOLAR RADIATION SCALES

The Angström Scale was established in 1905. In 1913 Dr. Abbot, at the Smithsonian Institution, established what has been referred to as the Smithsonian Scale. These two scales have been used throughout the world for a great number of years, and it was realized that the two scales are not in agreement. In several comparisons there was as much as a 3–6% difference in the scales. With the approach of the International Geophysical Year scheduled for 1958–59, it became apparent that it was necessary to establish a universal scale to be used throughout the world. Accordingly, an international agreement was reached in 1956 for a new scale, which has been referred to as the International Pyrheliometric Scale of 1956, or IPS 1956.

In the 1960′s better instruments were developed, specifically the Kendall Absolute Cavity Radiometer, which indicated that the IPS 1956 Scale was not correct. A series of comparisons were made in the 1970′s which has resulted in a new scale called the World Radiometric Reference, or WRR. The WRR is specified in SI units, and represents the absolute value of irradiance with an estimated accuracy of better than ±0.3%. The effect of the change in the scales from IPS 1956 to WRR is to increase the values obtained from the IPS Scale by 2.2%. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has recommended use of the WRR from 1 January 1981. The Canadian data which never changed from the Smithsonian Scale, remains close to the WRR. The United States changed to a so called Absolute Scale in 1977, which is within the ±0.3% of the WRR, and the United Kingdom adopted the WRR on 1 January 1980. There may be other differences elsewhere in the world of which I am not aware. Normally, the back data will not be changed; however, the U.S. rehabilitated twenty years of data from twenty-six stations in the Absolute Scale, which is very close to the WRR.

SOLAR RADIATION UNITS

Although the nations have agreed on the System’s International or SI system of units for metric, there still are differences in the use of SI. Table I is a list of three significant and important metric definitions for solar radiation.

TABLE 1

Metric Energy, Force and Power Definitions and Units

The Joule (J) is the work (energy) done when the point of application of a force of one Newton is displaced a distance of one meter in the direction of the force. (units: N · m)

The Newton (N) is that force which when applied to a body having a mass of one kilogram gives it acceleration of 1 meter per second. (units: kg · m/s²)

The Watt (W) is the power which gives rise to the production of energy at the rate of one joule per second. (units: J/s = N · m/s)

Table II lists the units which result from these definitions. The WMO and international community have generally recognized the kilojoule as the basic unit for solar radiation measurements, although there are still text books, data, and other places you will find kilowatt hours per square meter, Btu’s per square foot, and langleys. The most common unit in historical records is the langley, which is 1 gram calorie per square centimeter. The following is a conversion from langleys to kilojoules per square meter: Ly × 41.868 = kJ/m².

TABLE 2

Metric Power (Watt) and Energy (Joule) Relation

The various types of solar radiation are depicted in Fig. 1. The global horizontal radiation, the most common measurement, consists of a direct component coming directly from the sun, and a diffuse component which is the sky radiation or that coming from other portions of the sky than the sun. The figure shows a small portion of circumsolar diffuse radiation in the area directly around the direct radiation. The sun disc itself gives only an angle of .5° and our pyrheliometer measurements subtend an angle of 5.5°, so the forward scattering of the direct radiation which causes the sun to look like a big blob rather than a disc, includes both the direct and the circumsolar diffuse. This must be kept in mind when using the direct radiation measurements. Some solar collectors respond to both the direct and circumsolar, while other collectors, which are strictly concentrators, respond only to the direct radiation. It is estimated that the circumsolar radiation is about 20% of the value measured as direct radiation. However, note that this can and will vary depending on the atmosphere through which the direct beam reaches the receiver. In this presentation, I will talk only about the global horizontal, the direct component, and the diffuse component, and will not get into the special instrument requirements for measuring the spectral range from the infrared to the ultraviolet, due to various complications and uncertainties in these types of measurements. Appended hereto is an address list of instrument manufacturers. This list is continually changing, and while it is quite complete throughout the world, there may be omissions, or some new companies.

Fig. 1 Types of solar radiation.

The two most respected pyranometers are the Kipp and Zonen, manufactured in The Netherlands, and used extensively throughout Europe and many other countries, including Canada, and the Eppley Precision Spectral Pyranometer, or more commonly, the Eppley PSP, Fig. 2. Both instruments have a double dome made of a crystal or quartz with as little interference in the transmission of the radiation as possible. Both instruments use the same concept, with a black center which absorbs the solar radiation surrounded by a white or silver ring which reflects the solar radiation. Each of these two surfaces will acquire a different temperature depending on the absorption and reflection of the sensors. The difference in these temperatures yields a small millivolt reading when the sensors are connected through a series of thermocouples, usually made with copper constantan into what is referred to as a thermopile, Fig. 3. Fig. 4 is a schematic of the Eppley pyranometer showing various components. Fig. 5 is a Spectrolab pyranometer which is very similar to the Eppley.

Fig. 2 Eppley precision spectral pyranometer

Fig. 3 Thermopile, consisting of a battery of thermocouples connected in a series.

Fig. 4 Schematic of Eppley pyranometer showing components.

Fig. 5 Spectrolab Pyranometer.

Fig. 6 shows a shadowband which is a method of blocking out the direct beam and having the sky radiation sensed by the pyranometer. There is a correction required for the amount of sky radiation blocked out by the band. This can be calculated, or, if you buy a shadowband instrument, the correction factors will be provided. Note the pyranometer under this shadowband is a Star Pyranometer, originally built in Austria but now available through many outlets. It is a very sensitive pyranometer, and rather than the circular black and white areas, there are six black points of a star and six corresponding white areas. This is a thermopile pyranometer, and operates similar to the Eppley and Kipp & Zonen.

Fig. 6 Shadowband.

There are some new experiments being made to replace a shadowband with a shadowdisc. This would be a ten centimeter disc which would rotate in front of the pyranometer at a distance of frac12; to one meters and shade only the pyranometer. This would reduce a great deal of the correction which is required due to the band. There are still some problems with this, the correct timing and so on. Fig. 7 shows a shadowband in the background and an Eppley pyrheliometer in the foreground. This pyrheliometer shows a disc at the front to hold four different filters which are easily changed in front of the pyrheliometer.

Fig. 7 Eppley Pyrheliometer (foreground) Shadowband (background).

Caution should be taken in placing two instruments too close together. From the perspective in this picture it may appear that the shadowband and pyrheliometer may interfere with each other; however, there is sufficient distance between these two. This should be considered for installations. Figure 8 is a diagram of a pyrheliometer and shows the various portions of the pyrheliometer including the timing or rotating mechanism, the sensors, and so on. Table 3 lists the characteristics of the pyrheliometer which are very similar to those normally accepted for thermopiles. Figure 9 is a picture of the Angström pyrheliometer, which is now being replaced by the Kendall Absolute Cavity Radiometer shown in Fig. 10.

TABLE 3

Characteristics of Eppley NIP

Fig. 8 Diagram of a Pyrheliometer.

Fig. 9 Angström Pyrheliometer.

Fig. 10 Kendall Absolute Cavity Radiometer.

Figure 11 shows a Campbell-Stokes sunshine recorder which has been used extensively throughout the world for many years. This instrument has a glass ball which focuses the sun onto a paper strip beneath the ball, no matter what position the sun is in. The focusing causes a burning on the paper when the sun is shining. This requires a manual reading of the paper and a new paper inserted for each day. Admittedly, this is not a modern or good way of measuring solar radiation, but in many parts of the world it is the only record available. In those instances it can be translated into hours of sunshine and then into an estimate of the solar radiation available. It is very tedious work and is done only if better data are not available. Figures 12 and 13 show several field sites with instrumentation.

Fig. 11 Campbell-Stokes Sunshine Recorder.

Fig. 12 Solar Powered Weather Station

Fig. 13 Woodbridge, Ontario, Canada (north of Toronto).

INSTRUMENT ACCURACY

With the best of instruments and data collection system, the hourly and daily values at a site should achieve an accuracy of 2–3%; but much better cannot be expected. Between two different sites with different maintenance, attention and data acquisition, one might expect the hourly or daily values to vary as much as 5%; but if the monthly averages are used between these sites, one could again expect agreement of at least 3%.

DATA ACQUISITION

In data acquisition one must decide how frequently data is required. Some data have been taken as frequently as 1-min and there are other systems of 5-min, 15-min, 20-min, 30-min, 1-hr or 1-day totals and, in some cases, a total for the month or a daily average for the month. The Dodge Products data acquisition system displayed here would cost about $425 for the data acquisition system. The solar cell attached to it is about $125. Figure 14, a LI-COR system, is about $635 at present day prices. These are both battery-operated field methods of acquiring, and totalizing the data. Recorders can be added to these in order to make permanent records.

Fig. 14 LI-COR LI-1776 Solar Monitor

Figure 15 is a picture of the data acquisition system which we use at UAH, and I will describe how it operates. The large computer-like portion is the data acquisition system. We sense the instruments–about 12 are located on the nearby tower–every ten seconds. We average the values over five minutes and record the average on the cassette on the right. It also reads out on the scope and is retained in the computer to print out hourly values on the TI-700 printer. We also record temperature, humidity, pressure, wind speed and velocity at each hour, which is retained on the cassette. At the end of the day, we can use the hourly values printed to determine the amount of solar radiation from the various sensors, i.e., the direct radiation, global horizontal, a diffuse component and a tilt at 35°, which is our latitude, as standard measurements. We have several other test channels which are also printed out. After about one week, the cassette on the right is filled and we transmit by means of a telephone hook-up from the TI-700 to the UNIVAC 1100/10 computer nearby. From the UNIVAC we then process monthly printouts and also store the data in various formats. There are many other acquisition methods or systems but this works yery well for our purposes. We have 5-min data for storage purposes and we have hourly data to disseminate to users as well as monthly data, which are used for means and comparisons.

Fig. 15 Data Acquisition System Used at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

DATA COLLECTION AND PROCESSING

The U.S. concept which was established several years ago was that there would be a basic National Weather Service station network. In the continental U.S. this consists of 22 stations with 4 stations outside the continental U.S. (Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and Puerto Rico). This data is collected by the NWS and processed into monthly reports. Each station is equipped for global horizontal measurements and a tracking pyrheliometer. The concept was that this network would not be sufficient to meet the requirements for the U.S. energy resource evaluation, therefore, stations not in the network were asked to record their data and cooperate with the network in order to make a more comprehensive solar data resource for the U.S. The first chart for January 1980 (Fig. 16) has just been prepared under this concept. There were 22 additional stations joining the NWS stations to comprise the data on this chart. We hope that within the next few months we will increase the total coverage from the 55 stations on this chart to close to 100 stations throughout the U.S. This chart has been found to be useful for engineering designs, simulations and evaluations. One of the immediate uses is to provide data for the demonstration programs throughout the U.S. to reduce the need for solar radiation measurements at the sites. The monthly value will enable a comparison of their performance according to the amount of solar radiation received.

Fig. 16 Mean Daily Global Solar Radiation - January 1980.

WORLDWIDE SOLAR RADIATION DATA

There are two prime sources of charts of worldwide solar radiation data. One of them is by Budyko in Leningrad, and the other is a report by Löf et al at the University of Wisconsin. In addition to this, the WMO has been collecting data for the past 15 years and they are publishing monthly reports of hourly solar radiation data. Every five years they publish a consolidated report of monthly averages of solar radiation data for about 600 locations throughout the world. The charts by Budyko and Löf were primarily derived from IGY data in 1959 and supplemented with a great deal of other data. Much of the data have been calculated from a percent of sunshine. We are in the process of collecting data such as WMO data and any other data which have been recorded over the past 15–20 years, to bring these charts up-to-date. If you know of any data which are not routinely collected by WMO, please notify me so that I can try to use it in our update. Fig. 17 shows some examples of world data; it is a chart of the average solar radiation in the summer season for Mexico. Figures 18 and 19 are for Japan. A chart showing the deviation over a thirty year period, which is valuable in order to determine the maximum or minimum that one might expect, is shown in Fig. 20. Fig. 21 is a tabulation of data done in Italy for several locations, which shows the global horizontal and tilt calculations at various angles, and the daily average hours of sunshine for that day.

Fig. 17 Average Solar Radiation for the Summer Season in Mexico

Fig. 18 Mean Daily Global Radiation - Japan, July.

Fig. 19 Monthly Global Radiation % Deviation from 30-year Mean - Japan, July.

Fig. 20 Solar Radiation Data by Months at Various Angles for Twelve Italian Stations.

The International Energy Agency Handbook, An Introduction to Meteorological Measurements and Data Handling for Solar Energy Applications, describes many uses of solar radiation data and methods to apply that data to actual engineering problems. The book is expected to be published by the U.S. Government Printing Office for the International Energy Agency by November 1980.

MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS OF SOLAR RADIATION MEASURING INSTRUMENTS

Australia

Herbert A. Groise & Co. Rear 1 Gordon Drive Malvern, Australia

± Middleton Instruments 75-79 Crockford Street Port Melbourne, Victoria 3207 Australia

Rauchfuss Instruments Division 352-368 Ferntree Gully Road Notting Hill Melbourne, Victoria Australia

± Solar Radiation Instruments 21-21A Rose Street Altona, Victoria 3018 Australia

Austria

* Philipp Schenk Ges. M.B.H. Wien & Co., KG Jedleseerstrasse 59 1212 Wien Austraia

Canada

± Enercorp Instruments Ltd. P.O. Box 20, Station U Toronto, Ontario M8Z 5M4 Canada

Denmark

* Siemen Ersking Instrument Maker Rørsangervej 7 Federikssund, DK 3600 Denmark

Finland

* VAISALA Cy PL 26 SF 00421 Helsinki 42 Finland

France

* Enertic Schlumberger 1 rue Nieuport Velizy-Villacoublay F-78140 Paris, France Tel. 1-946-9650 Telex SISVIL 698201

Germany

* Adolf Thiess GmbH & Co., KG Klima-, Mess- und Regeltechnik 3400 Gottingen-Geismar Hauptstrasse 76 Federal Republic of Germany

* Dr. Bruno Lange GmbH Königsweg 10 D-1000 Berlin 37 Federal Republic of Germany

Wilhelm-Lambrecht KG Friedländerweg 65 D-34 Gottingen Federal Republic of Germany

Wolters U. Möhring Lutzowstrasse 102-104 D-1000 Berlin 30 Federal Republic of Germany

Italy

* Assing Ingegneri Associati Via A. de Pretis, 70 00184 - Roma Italy

* Italglas S.P.A. Piazza Rossetti 4-18 16129 - Genova Italy

* Montedel - Laben Via E. Bassini, 15 20133 - Milano Italy

* Sielco S.R.L. Via Carlo Poma, 4 00195 - Roma Italy

* Soc. Salmoiraghi Piazzale Kennedy 16129 - Genova Italy

* Soc. Siap Via Massarenti 412-2° 40138 - Bologna Italy

* 3 G Electronics Via del Perugino, 9 20135 - Milano Italy

Japan

* EK0 Instrument Trading Co., Ltd. 21-8 Hatagaya 1-chome Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 151 Japan

± Ishikawa Trading Co., Ltd. 4-6-13 Shinkawa Mitaka, Tokyo 181 Japan

* Nekano Seisakusho Ltd. Higashi Mita 1525 Ueno-City Mie prefecture Japan (518)

The Netherlands

* Kipp and Zonen P.O. Box 507 Delft The Netherlands

Sweden

The Swedish Meteorological & Hydrological Inst. SMHI, Fack S-601 01 Nörrkoping Sweden

Switzerland

Dr. C. Frohlich Physico-Meteorological Observatory CH-7270 Davos-Platz Switzerland

Haenni and Company CH-3303 Jergenstorf b. Bern Switzerland

Swissteco Instruments Stegweg, Eichenwies CH-9463 Oberriet SG Switzerland

U.S.S.R.

* Mashpriborintorg Smolenskaya-Sennaya Square 32-34 Moscow U.S.S.R.

United Kingdom

* C.F. Casella and Co., Ltd. Regent House Britannia Walk London N1 7 ND England

United Kingdom (cont’d.)

* Lintronic Limited 54-58 Bartholomew Close London, ECIA 7 HB England

United States of America

* Belfort Instrument Co. 1600 South Clinton Street Baltimore, MD 21227, U.S.A.

* C.W. Thornthwaite Associates Route 1, Centerton Elmer, NJ 08318, U.S.A.

Devices and Services Co. 3501-A Milton Dallas, TX 75205, U.S.A.

* Eppley Laboratory, Inc. 12 Sheffield Avenue Newport, RI 02840, U.S.A.

* Gamma Scientific, Inc. 3777 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123, U.S.A.

* Hy-Cal Engineering 12105 Los Nietos Road Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670, U.S.A.

* Kahl Scientific Instruments Corp. P.O. Box 1166 El Cajon (San Diego), CA 92022, U.S.A.

* LI-COR, Inc. 4421 Superior Street P.O. Box 4425 Lincoln, NE 68504, U.S.A.

† Matrix, Inc. 537 South 31st Street Mesa, AZ 85204, U.S.A.

Molectron Corporation 177 N. Wolfe Road Sunnyvale, CA 94086, U.S.A.

U.S.A. (cont’d.)

* Rho Sigma 15150 Raymer Street Van Nuys, CA 91405, U.S.A.

† Science Associates, Inc. 230 Nassau Street P.O. Box 230 Princeton, NJ 08540, U.S.A.

* Spectran Instruments P.O. Box 891 La Habra, CA 90631, U.S.A.

* Spectrolab 12500 Gladstone Ave. Sylmar, CA 91342, U.S.A.

± Sun Systems Inc. P.O. Box 347 Milton, MA 02186, U.S.A.

† Technical Measurements, Inc. P.O. Box 838 La Canada, CA 91011, U.S.A.

† Teledyne Geotech 3401 Shiloh Road Garland, TX 75041, U.S.A.

† Weather Measure Corporation P.O. Box 41257 Sacramento, CA 95841, U.S.A.

† WEATHERtronics, Inc. 2777 Del Monte Street P. O. Box 1286 West Sacramento, CA 95691, U.S.A.

† Yellow Springs Instrument Co. Yellow Springs, OH 45387,