I need this 2 paragraph reworded perfectly so that there is no co relation at all.
If we sum the values for 2013 we get an average 7.1 kWh/m2/day which is on the high end but still below the maximum recorded by NREL (Figure 5) which makes it seem that the day that this data was collected was a sunny day in the month. If we look at 2014 we can also see that we got a value of 5.9 which even for the year after is within the lower range of the official values. But there isn’t much discrepancy with the data as we are within range, even for being a year apart. The calculated values could be lower since the data collected was from sunrise to sundown and our data was from 9am till 5pm for the 2013 data, and from 9am to 3pm for the 2014 data meaning that some data could be missing.
By using the solar irradiance component equation and calculating the direct normal radiation with the global radiation, error calculations are created, and a large range of error can be seen that ranges between 0-97% error at some points. It must be considered that the diffuse radiation wasn’t included in the total radiation. But after closer look at the data there is a peak change in these values. Before 4:40 PM(25000sec) the percent difference between the calculated direct and the recorded direct is >20%. In a range of 20 minutes the percent difference spikes from 20% to a wide range of numbers of up to 80%, and even after this point it keeps increasing and fluctuating very strongly until the last data point. But this is only for the first set, in the second set the max difference seen in the whole data collected is 30%, and this larger error is closer to the end of the data.This could be due to the range of time of the data gathered which was before the sun started to set down. The last data point collected was at 3pm in Feb 19, and 5:20PM for Feb 18. There may be a relation between the error and the time of day at which converting the data would be effective and could probably replace the pyrheliometer. If it would be necessary to need direct beam data and no pyrheliometer is available, it would be OK to convert data until certain time, which in the case of Tallahassee would be up to 4:40 without daylight saving. This is because of the solar radiation that we are ignoring, the diffuse, is increasing as the sun goes down and the direct radiation is decreasing. And because we are slowly ignoring more of the radiation as time goes on the error gap increases and fluctuates increasingly. But while the sun is up clear before it sets, the data error is acceptable enough to convert to direct.
After calculating the diffuse radiation with data from the pyrheliometer and the pyranometer, it was found out that the average diffuse radiation was 20% of the data collected. This seems appropriate since for most of the day the pyranometer was collecting mostly direct sunlight and the experiment ended almost as soon as the sun was going down meaning that not much of the diffuse radiation was collected in the data. The day seems to have been mostly sunny due to the low diffuse radiation, and this is assuming that most of the diffuse radiation is coming from the later hours when the sun started to go down and during sunrise. By knowing how much diffuse and direct radiation we are receiving we can optimize where photovoltaic panels can be located, as well as locations for crop growth, city planning and more. By knowing where and how much direct sunlight an area will receive, many projects can be planned to prepare or optimize for this. A solar collector placed in an area with little direct radiation and high diffuse radiation wouldn’t be efficient. Or having a home angled in a specific way, such as the OGZEB, could impact how much light would go inside the home and on the solar panels.