The math behind the “Effectivity L” - Printable Version +- Blitzortung.org Forum ( https://forum.blitzortung.org)+-- Forum: Public Forums ( https://forum.blitzortung.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=29)+--- Forum: Website, Maps and Applications ( https://forum.blitzortung.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)+--- Thread: The math behind the “Effectivity L” ( /showthread.php?tid=1613) |

The math behind the “Effectivity L” - ArvinLar - 2016-01-06
Hi I been trying to figure out the math behind the “Effectivity L”. Unfortunately, I must admit that I don’t understand the logic. Please take to look at my attached image of the danish Station list. I got two stations “Vejle l” and “Vejle ll”. In my logic the effectivity of “Vejle l” is better than the effectivity of “Vejle ll”. Also, the top station shows the right percentage calculation while the percentages indicated for both the Vejle stations apparently showing incorrect values. Top station: strikes/signals x 100 will in real calculation be equal to: 275/839 x 100 = 32 % Vejle ll: strikes/signals x 100 will in real calculation be equal to: 170/493 x 100 = 34 % Vejle l: strikes/signals x 100 will in real calculation be equal to: 166/360 x 100 = 46 % Does anyone have the mathematical understanding to explain the logic behind the percentage values listed in the attached station list? And if so, would you please explain the math and show a full example? Best regards, Arvin RE: The math behind the “Effectivity L” - cutty - 2016-01-06
You are missing at least one additional factor involved in the math... min (Strikes / Signals(s), Signals(s) / Strikes) ...but please note: These calculations for the Stations listing on both the Blitzortung website and Lightningmaps.org are discussed and debated (extensively) at http://forum.blitzortung.org/showthread.php?tid=1261 Note also that the 'effectivity' figures on the Stations pages use a different 'computation' than the 'efficiency' number on the stations network efficiency table at Lightningmaps.org.... Cheers! Mike RE: The math behind the “Effectivity L” - ArvinLar - 2016-01-06
(2016-01-06, 22:46)Cutty Wrote: You are missing at least one additional factor involved in the math... Hi Mike Your reply added the missing part of the math. Thank you very much Best regards, Arvin |