Good stuff Bashy, let us know how you get on (maybe a test pour with a jug?)
You really are the king of diy!
Good stuff Bashy, let us know how you get on (maybe a test pour with a jug?)
You really are the king of diy!
Thanks lol, you aint seen the image yet, attached below :oops:
A test pour never works out, i always end up doing too fast
But i will report the findings thats for sure…
Please dont laff, at least the top looks pretty :lol:
Looking at it i can see it getting blown off either Friday or Sunday :? :roll:
That calulator’s no good for thoughs of us with La Crosse raingauges, they’re square!! :lol:
Oh, I haven’t seen that model, they used to be rectangular :lol:
HI Niko, thanks for the link but witt me being as thick as i am
i aint got a clue what goes in the old tip and new tip :oops:
It’s the weather here, it alters their shape. :oops:
Thats better for me thanks Niko, but i still need to find what the original tip size is, is it 1.0mm?
Actually i went from my last modification
old mod 200mm new mod 310 new tip 0.16129032258065 does this sound about right?
I thought it would have been closer to the 0.1mm than that though.
cause the 200mm was @ 0.25
You need a known start point. And that is the original Oregon resolution. A tip based on a 10 cm diameter area (78.53 cm2) is 1 mm. Use these data as your “old” data with the second Niko’s calculator. The first one is not valid.
Actually all those calculators are wrong, back to the drawing board :oops:
At the risk of causing more confusion…
In going from a 100mm diameter to a 200mm diameter you doubled the diameter.
If you multiply the diameter by 2 you change the collecting area by 2 x 2 = 4. So with 4 times the area each tip will be caused by 1/4 = 0.25 as much rain as with no modification.
If you increase the original 100mm to 310mm, you have increased the collecting area by 3.1 x 3.1 = 9.61. With 9.61 times the area each tip will be caused by 1/9.61 = 0.104 as much rain as with no modification.
Does that make sense?
Oh dear Niko pmsl… not to worry…
Hi skyewright, thanks for joining in
To answer your question “Does that make sense?” not really cause my original is 113.5 :?
skyewright that’s exactly right The calculators agree now too, sorry about that, never did a php calculator before :lol:
Couldn’t resist.
Are you sure? I thought the inside diameter of an unmodified WMR928 rain gauge was 100mm.
Are you using something else?
I was going by what the book says, so that must be the outside diameter then?
That’s what that figure it sounds like to me.
Maybe you could do a rough check by holding a ruler against your gauge?
Not precise, but it should at least indicate which figure is more likely.
Not possible to measure it anymore the modifications prevent that
I will go by your measurement of 0.104 that certainly sounds about right to me
Thanks for your help, you to Niko and you three Breitling, appreciated guys
Yes, that’s exactly the math to do.
Thanks for the confirmation Breitling
At least i now have this bookmarked for future reference