Well thanks for the info
I did wonder that it's probably be different.
Thanks again
Not sure where that leaves me

On Thursday, 19 November 2020 at 18:20:36 UTC [email protected] wrote:

> From my knowledge, the answer is no.
>
> The Davis uses pulses to signal wind speed, and the Peet Bros does, too.
>
> The major difference is that the Davis uses the much more traditional 
> potentiometer to deliver a voltage and the ISS reads that to convert to a 
> wind direction.
>
> The Peet Brothers does something much more difficult and very different.  
> It times when one of the magnets makes or breaks and then depending upon 
> the time until it pulses again, determines the angle of rotation through 
> which the wind speed magnet has rotated, simplified explanation.  
> Therefore, if there is  no rotation of the wind speed magnet, there cannot 
> be a determination of which direction the vane is pointing, unlike a 
> no-wind condition for a Davis, which of course will give a voltage on the 
> wind direction sense line.
>
> Very odd, but seems to work for them.   If you go to Davis's web site, 
> there is a better explanation of how they designed their unit.  It 
> certainly gets rid of the potentiometer and it wearing out, but the timing 
> circuitry to measure the angle has to be a bit more complicated.
> Dale
>
>
> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 3:00:46 AM UTC-6 [email protected] 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Guys, anyone know if you can use a davis wind vane on a ultimeter 2100?
>> My wind vane has broken again, this one didn't last long (about 6 months, 
>> 1 year maybe)
>> It's difficult and expensive to get these in the UK, have to import etc.
>>
>> So would like to try something else instead.
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"weewx-user" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/9804ff37-c8ad-4318-b46b-16752124c57en%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to