Estimation equation implemented in function svapor
may be swaped for improved estimation
#43
Labels
Milestone
svapor
may be swaped for improved estimation
#43
Errors resulting from the current equation are up to -60% at -40˚C, close to 0% near 0˚C, and -10% at 50˚C when compared against tabulated values by Haynes 2017 (see attached figure ). It appears that the large errors at temperatures away from 0˚C arise because \Delta H_{vap}^{H_{2}O} is not incorporated as a function of temperature but instead used at a fixed temperature of 0˚C. I see two approaches to improve on this:
• Calculate the latent heat of water vaporization as a function of temperature.
• Replace e^{CC} and e^{ARM} with empirically derived equations by Alduchov & Eskridge 1996 (with deviations of < 0.38% between -40 and +50˚C) or by Buck 1981/2012
(with deviations < 0.01% within the temperature range of -80 to 50˚C).
Additionally: We could add the 'enhancement factor' to the calculation of e for humid air instead of some ideal air (i.e, gas mixture that corresponds to the ideal gas law).
Alduchov, O. A., and R. E. Eskridge. 1996. Improved Magnus Form Approximation of Saturation Vapor Pressure. Journal of Applied Meteorology 35:601–609.
Buck, A. L. 1981. New Equations for Computing Vapor Pressure and Enhancement Factor. Journal of Applied Meteorology 20:1527–1532.
Buck, A. L. 2012. MODEL CR-1A hygrometer with autofill: operating manual. Page 26. Buck Research Instruments L.L.C, Boulder, CO.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: