Efficiency
(2017-11-07, 02:07)allsorts Wrote: Alerts: Not looked into them very much, ...

See https://forum.blitzortung.org/showthread...7#pid15767 and watch the Youtube video. That is about the only information concerning alerts/alarms that I have ever found. But this is off-topic, sorry. Better to ask there and not here. ;-)
Regards,
Mike
Station information
Stations: 1977
Reply
Yeah... thread is beginning to wander a bit, and is here in public forum....
what do you folks think?  Have we about wrestled 'efficiency' around enough to 'close the thread'.. getting quite long,
and start another with what we've brainstormed over in the Internal Boards????

It's your thread, Kerri... what do you think?

Mike
                   TwinHollies WeatherCenter  Frankfort KY, USA
  Americas Operators at Sferics.us
        Stations: 689, 1439
Reply
Well, let me bring up another way of looking at the problem. I'm used to discuss requirements and possible solutions in my business. In here we have a lot of requirements, or wishes, partly nice to haves.
I brought up the idea to categorize the signals into real sferics, something close to a sferic (e.g. with too high time shift due to reflections or filters), signals from sferics where too few stations participated (e.g. in regions with few stations), sporadic noise, repeated noise, maybe more. I still think that info (for every single signal or as statistics) helps to tune the station. My question now is: is the one implementing the changes (is that Egon by the way?) able to distinguish these kind of signals? Do I have to / Should I add more details about the way to do it (not sure if I can) or should I stop asking for it?
PLEASE: we need (in general, not only regarding this idea) some feedback. What is possible? For which money / effort? What needs more input? What needs even completely new technology/solutions?
First station in India 1974
Stations:
Reply
Since efficiency is a moving target and affected by so many variables, yes please close.  Smile
Kevin McCormick KB0UOI
Macomb, IL USA
Stations: 1539
Reply
So far, classification of signal has to be done by "hand". There is no automatic signal classifier and I doubt that it will be possible with the limited amount of manpower available to do it. But you can use what is available, for example in the controller panel on life signal, you can tick the box at the right hand lower corner labelled "noise floor". This will give you the untriggered signals, i.e. noise (with an occasional real signal thrown in) and you can form your opinion on what to do to eliminate it. 
Stations: 1836
Reply
(2017-11-10, 09:51)pasense Wrote:
So far, classification of signal has to be done by "hand". There is no automatic signal classifier and I doubt that it will be possible with the limited amount of manpower available to do it.

I can get the stroke data from the server, but from where can I get all the signal data to be able to develop something (not sure if I can Angel ). Side condition: "my station" gets shipped to India next week, so I do not even have raw data locally anymore.
First station in India 1974
Stations:
Reply
(2017-11-11, 21:38)micha.d Wrote: I can get the stroke data from the server, but from where can I get all the signal data to be able to develop something (not sure if I can Angel ). Side condition: "my station" gets shipped to India next week, so I do not even have raw data locally anymore.
Michaud ... you should post this inquiry on the INTERNAL forums... such information should not be on public, and if a response is given here it may be edited or deleted depending on its content..
Thanks! 

Cheers! Mike
                   TwinHollies WeatherCenter  Frankfort KY, USA
  Americas Operators at Sferics.us
        Stations: 689, 1439
Reply
(2017-11-03, 12:55)Cutty Wrote: We define:
Goal: detect maximum number of strokes accurately with minimum number of signals

Efficiency
: Ability to accomplish something with the least amount of time and effort.

Effectivity
: Actual production of the intended result.


Efficiency = Strokes Detected / Signals Sent
Effectivity = Strokes Detected / Signals Sent - Strokes Detected

As you know I've been evaluating the above and have found it useful in tweaking my station to get the number of signals used high and the number sent low. This was proving quite succesfull. Today there is no lighting activity in Europe to speak of (the Europe static map had a count of 7 (seven) a moment ago). My station sample produced this:

   

As there is no lilghtining all the measures are zero, yet stations are still sending 1000's of signals/hour. This can really only be local noise. We  could rename "Effciency" to "Waste" and invert the calculation trapping the divide by zero problem to return 100%. Trouble is everyone above is 100% wasteful which, while technically correct, isn't useful. Is there some way to have a meaningful "Waste" value when the Used count is zero?

Maybe an "allowable noise" number? (<Sent> - <allowance>)/<sent>  trouble is if your under allowance you end up with a negative "waste".

Ideas?
Cheers
Dave.

Stations: 1627
Reply
(2017-11-24, 02:52)allsorts Wrote:  Today there is no lighting activity in Europe to speak of (the Europe static map had a count of 7 (seven) a moment ago). My station sample produced this:

As there is no lilghtining all the measures are zero, yet stations are still sending 1000's of signals/hour. This can really only be local noise. We  could rename "Effciency" to "Waste" and invert the calculation trapping the divide by zero problem to return 100%. Trouble is everyone above is 100% wasteful which, while technically correct, isn't useful. Is there some way to have a meaningful "Waste" value when the Used count is zero?

Maybe an "allowable noise" number? (<Sent> - <allowance>)/<sent>  trouble is if your under allowance you end up with a negative "waste".

Ideas?

This is not true! Who are you going to believe?

There is Lightning activity in Europe. All these stations are sending all these signals to the server? Therefore there must be lightning in Europe!
(I think therefore I am!)

http://en.blitzortung.org/station_list.p...t_rows=100

There must be a problem with the server?

   

   

Since Ten o'clock yesterday?

Having said that! Even if there is lightning in Europe it is probably not at a very high level. So, one has to ask:-
WHY are all these stations sending all these signals to the server? Confused (I am! Therefore, it must be so!) 

http://en.blitzortung.org/station_list.p...t_rows=100

Kindest regards,

Brian. Sad
Stations: 1856
Reply
allsorts claims that there are many stations in region 1 are sending only noise.
To put this to a test, I have checked a sample of the stations which send the highest number of signals and the answer is: yes, most of them, BUT NOT ALL, are suffering from interference. I used the last signal sent display to judge this. Unfortunately, just looking at the raw number cannot discriminate between real sferic signal and noise, so any number calculated from signals sent etc. will be misleading in some cases.
One has to look at the signal shapes in order to see if there is any interference for a certain station, and so far we have no way to detect that automatically.
Stations: 1836
Reply
Hi All, After I received a certain amount of ridicule and denial in emails, PMs and to a certain extent even in the forums, Egon has confirmed that there was indeed a malfunction on the European server and as of 07.00 this morning it is now working correctly again.
Thanks to all concerned.

Brian. Smile
Stations: 1856
Reply
(2017-11-24, 07:57)pasense Wrote: allsorts claims that there are  many stations in region 1 are sending only noise.

A claim for yesterday only when there really was very little activity in Europe that I could find on other live lighting sites using other data sources. I looked at, and variations where offered :

https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/...uro/DL.htm
https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/lightning
http://en.allmetsat.com/images/lightning-europe.php

Egon has since said there was a server fault, fair enough, but lets not get distracted from trying to sort out better measures for station performance. The underlying reason for  zero used signals isn't overly relevant what is relevant is that zero used signals highlighted a weakness in the current proposed "Effciency" measure.

An "allowance" doesn't really work, partly because of the possible negative percentage but also, and probably more importantly, the enviroment of stations varies greatly so a "one size fits all" allowance isn't really practical. Anything that involves averaging a stations sent count would mask the problem that we are trying to eliminate.

Do we need the "Effciency" measure at all? I'm finding the proposed "Effectivity" a pretty good guide as I make small tweaks here. How ever I do look at the "Effciency" as well.
Cheers
Dave.

Stations: 1627
Reply
(2017-10-26, 21:03)Egon Wrote: Hi Folks,

I would like to change the measure for the efficiency of the stations. It may not be appropriate to calculate only one numerical value, but rather to introduce different possibly even competing measures for the efficiency of the systems.

The first value could indicate how many of the transmitted signals are involved in the calculated strikes. The second value would be distance dependent and indicates how many impacts with a certain distance to the own detector the station was involved.

The current combination of these values (thate what we are doing now) seems to be not usefull for adjusting a detektor.

Any ideas for further efficiency measures?

/Egon

As I said earlier at https://forum.blitzortung.org/showthread...3#pid16663 , it seems to me that the efficiency algorithm has been improved. :-)
Regards,
Mike
Station information
Stations: 1977
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)