(2018-08-27, 17:41)dgoadby Wrote: [ -> ]Hi,
Thanks for the offer but it is really a system red I want. One of my colleagues has one and he thinks that system red is working better than system blue at this time. System red technology is easy to fix too. IMHO system blue is a step too far. I have been waiting for over 18 months and nothing...
I did not find the system on ebay either.
Again hanks for the offer.
t
Under certain conditions, under present operating parameters, and server algorithms, RED can 'out-perform' system BLUE... that is due to several factors... one, BLUE's potential is NOT being fully utilized.
Now, I operate TWO Reds, and one BLUE... one of the first REDs in North America, since 2013, a later production RED, and an initial "test production" release BLUE--2016---with more manufacturing issues than you can shake a soldering iron at... arrrggghhh... but that experience, and the other 39 "originals' "' experience resulted in the superfine system BLUE has become. The 'second RED', I sort of experiment with, but most of the time it is 'production' mode.
Much of the different response has to do with Earth/Ionosphere wave guide conditions, and impulse energy bandwidth of the signals. And Solar activity influencing GPS signals at higher latitudes, and incident atmospheric discharges. Also this
"performance difference" depends highly on what parameters the 'operator' is observing. If the operator is ONLY looking at the so called 'effectivity' on the main Blitzortung Stations page, he's only seeing
received Signals of the last hour that have been used in calculations of strike positions . That is, signals and percents where the station was a 'locator', not simply a detector.
That figure is HIGHLY dependent on the location of cells, rather than the 'quality' or performance, of any given system.
Sometimes we forget that Blitzortung is a WorldWide NETWORK for LOCATING sferics...
not a "stand alone" sferics detector ....specifically, it is NOT currently mandated to process signals closer than about 20KM... too much data!... ANY given station's performance depends directly upon the performance of at least ±11 or so other stations!. The servers will 'look for' and select the BEST CHANNEL data from ALL the "Signals" sent by "ALL" stations, and will select the 'single' best Channel from EACH" of (Example) 8-17 stations.... the best '17' channels from the thousands sent.
It is NOT possible for me to "Sync" all three systems to "respond" identically... it just will NOT happen.... Even the two REDS although it's Possible to get them close.... All three systems vary slightly in H antenna design and E Probe size.
The 'sensitivity' and 'gain' of the two systems is virtually identical... up to approx 70db. the major difference being the
bandwidth capability... Blue is better. much better...
Blue has a MUCH wider bandwidth, in excess of 300KHz, which is NOT fully utilized presently, in fact is limited by server control to approx 220 KHz presently. RED cannot achieve this. Blue has the potential to detect Horizontally polarized impulses, again not utilized efficiently mostly because of operator station configuration, and incomplete development of server algorithms required. RED utilizes three E channels, only because it was an attempt to help with some interference types, and it's maximum high end is about 50KHz... BLUE, again, can exceed 300kHz, but is currently limited to about 220. The optional filtering on BLUE, not available on RED, is designed to eliminate some spurious higher freq signals.
Currently, a RED system
MAY be a bit more likely to be used as a 'locator' for a very distant 'skywave' sferic signal than a BLUE --- 'locator' (as opposed to 'detector')
Example: A 'Sombrero' signal from an impulse at distance may appear of 'better data' quality on system RED, because of it's lower bandwidth, than it does on BLUE, ... and be chosen over Blue because of better 'matching'... that does NOT mean the BLUE signal was 'bad'... just that's it's higher frequency components did NOT match the signal from 'better timed', lower Bandwidth, 'other' stations, which circumstantially be either RED, or BLUE operating with reduced BW, for speculation purposes... any number of environmental, geographical, etc... variables....
CURRENTLY, A BLUE
may be a bit more 'eager' to enter interference mode with nearby activity, depending on its BW settings. with other factors being similar... the higher frequencies are NOT detected by REDS, but may drive a BLUE into I mode... this is totally within the NETWORK design, is no "malfunction', designed to work that way for many reasons, and simply means that BLUE is actually outperforming RED in terms sending spurious, unusable signals, for example.. Down the Road, these Higher Frequency, higher energy nearby signals WILL be of use, Server parameters may change, and the Higher Freq data onvly available from BLUE will add to DATA and better network performance... and stroke characteristic as 'polarity', etc, estimated power, other 'higher freq' dependent data can be implemented.
While RED may be "Easier" to repair because of more 'discrete' component technology, it is also 'Obsolete" technology...
RED is a Proven Concept, and will be extremely valuable for years to come...
But System BLUE is constantly developed, improved, and has MUCH more capability down the ROAD than RED can have. once the number of BLUE stations approaches the coverage in an area of RED stations, those additional capabilities may be phased in, iff enough BLUE operators configure to utilize them.... in addition to the always valuable RED data.. Additionally RED utilizes Discovery board processing, ATMEGA chips on the H and E amplifier chains, both of which require different firmware headaches if they must be replaced,.,,
Blue utilizes one firmware with its on-board microprocessor, and NO ATMEGAs.
BLUE has optional test signal outputs, a built in Main amplifier sweep generator for testing, channel amp chains, and filters, optional filters, latest GPS GNSS, etc technology, higher bandwidth, more potential parameter data, a much smaller 'system' physical footprint, (three boards instead of 4, with all 'amplifier' chains on the controller) a much more 'convenient' connector arrangement, uses a totally different signal processing and preamp input than RED...
My experience has shown me, that unless I simply wanted a RED to 'experiment' with, ... fine... but since I'm in this for 'the long haul', I'd sure be trying to get my hands on a NEW Blue...
