Let me bring the general 'Cutty' suggestion back into focus, since it was generally outlined in two posts buried up above....
"
(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
Just brainstorming:
Suppose we explore this, for each unique station, as opposed to, or in addition to, station's relative "Network / Region" performance. This suggestion is for 'Typical" installations. It's my belief that a second group might be considered, for example, those stat1ons that are 'purposefully' employed across regions or oceans. However they, I believe, should be
"qualified" on Efficiency and Effectivity overall before being placed into that group. And 'disqualified' if performance degrades. If makes little sense to me to have a station with a noisy environment attempting to serve 'cross region' or ocean, for example.
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
examples:
Station: 200 strokes with 1000 signals sent:
Efficiency = 200/1000=
20%
Effectivity = 200 /
(1000-200) 800 =
25%
Station: 200 stokes with 500 signals sent:
Efficiency = 200/500=
40%
Effectivity = 200 /
(500-200) 300=
67%
Station: 800 stokes with 2500 signals sent:
Efficiency = 800/2500=
32%
Effectivity = 800 /
(2500-800) 1700=
47%
That is, a station which sends a lot of signals, but few strikes is not very efficient.
For Effectivity; some of the 'signals' sent ARE strikes, and they are removed from the Total Signals, then strikes compared to 'remaining' (unused" signals.
The thought experiment runs sort of like this:
Briefly, divide the stations according to 'intent'... say,
for example, three groups.
Group ONE > operators who haven't bothered to define or optimize well. Anything 'in'.,.. Anything 'Out'.
Group TWO > Stations that have established a 'relatively' quiet operational invironment, normally function with a 'High" "Strokes to signals", and have optimized for 'distance'... would include many of the 'dual' region / fringe stations perhaps. Since they already operate with 'low' 'excess' signals. They can operate for example as the 'group greater than 1200 km'. Their signals would also include the signals of a nearby 'group three', of course.
Group THREE> Stations optimized for <1200 km... those that run many excess signals when using high gains and / or low thresholds, or with frequent 'sporadics' that could be eliminated, or minimized with lower gains / and or higher thresholds. They now optimize for reduced distance. Optimizing in this fashon also lessens the typical "excess signals' relative to 'detections within 1200 km'.
And you could have perhaps a smaller group, perhaps operating E field only, or C Horizontal only, operating at distances <600km or any other subdivision similar...
The decrease in 'out of distance' signals, with an optimizing within distance should allow the same similar formulas too be used... though a group 2 station might show a 'higher effieciency' or 'lower efficiency' than a station in group 3, or vice versa, the rules are the same, and the 'comparisons' similar, within the group. not necessarily outside the group.
Both groups should be much more efficient and effective than MOST of the 'group ones'... and my 'gut feeling' is that watching numbers between groups TWO and THREE would actually show similar efficiency / effectivity numbers...
IF the group TWOs had strokes <1200 km subtracted from both signals and strokes ,,,
Again, an operator shouldn't compare 'outside his Group" , ...
But... Especially on group TWOs... a station should establish, over time, that it BELONGS in group TWO ! To do so, they'd have to operate as a GROUP one until the "Higher Effeciency / Effectivity" numbers qualified them as a 'group TWO'... if a station degrades over some time frame, than they should be 'demoted' to group ONE, unless they opted to go for Group 3.
All stations would begin as group ONE, and then optimize for, and qualify for group TWO or THREE. Actually, I think the server can do that automatically, since it already is capable of breaking strokes down by distance.d A 'quiet' group TWO station might not have as many 'signals' at high latitudes seasonally, but the 'noise signals' may remain essentially the same.... for a Group THREE, some adjustmen might need to be made seasonally, since 'theoretically' their 'local noise' soruces would remain at similar levels year round, while signal numbers rise and fall.
In those cases a comparison with 'degradation' over time of total 'signals' might be applied.
.... and here's what happens when you have 33 strokes >500 km but a sporadic noise maker active,
ARGH!