I have no dog in this fight. That said, in all around performance, to think that the best passive shield in the world can compete with the best aspirated shield in the world is a fool's errand.
Very true, there are conditions in which only a screen with an intubated sensor and ventilation can significantly reduce the radiative error in a way that a passive one will never be able to do.
Likewise, it is crazy to think of entrusting air temperature detection to a screen which, in the event of operating problems, returns junk data
The installations are important because, I repeat, only conditions of lack of unwanted heat transfer can allow a reliable comparison.
if two screens are too close together and, purely by way of example, the wind blows in the same direction, the windward screen will provide better performance, which will vary with the rotation of the wind.
Any pole, structure or support present in the immediate vicinity will have the same effects, which will vary the mode and impact on the data an infinite number of times with each slight variation in conditions.
therefore, I don't have the truth in my hand, and none of you here do, so if we want to compare each other in a friendly manner and increase our knowledge, fine, otherwise there's no point in continuing, at least for me