2017-10-26, 23:37
(This post was last modified: 2017-10-26, 23:40 by readbueno.
Edit Reason: Punctuation change.
)
Hi Egon, Stations should maybe be weighted as to how useful the signals are that they send to the server?
If there are only 20 stations that locate a stoke is that data more valuable than when 350 stations receive the same stroke?
Is a stroke recorded at 200 km as useful as one at 1200 km or 4500 km?
At present the effectivity of a station is heavily biased towards distance, Effectivity L. Would it be more efficient to base the stations position on their shorter and medium effectivity?
Could there be some explainable scientific basis for these measures?
Many stations appear to have a very poor signals sent to strokes recorded ratio.
I have noticed this as over 75,000:1 in some cases, these stations still appear higher in the lists than stations with more even ratios.
Should Detecting stations whose signals are actually used in the calculations for the location of the stroke be worth more than a station that detects the stroke, but is not one on which the calculation is based.
Should stations in less densely populated parts, Blitzortung wise, get a premium for detecting strokes in relation to the area that they are trying to cover, i.e Coastal stations or stations that by their position cover mainly underpopulated areas? The Pacific Ocean area, Asia, Africa and South America spring to mind and Micha's new station for India?
Looking at the archived data for stations participating in the detection of a stroke, there seems to be a large variability in the quality of the signals sent, not only between greens, reds, and blues, but even between stations of the same groups.
Should there be some measure of the "quality of signal" sent to the server? Signal to noise ratios? Index of Distortion?
I am sure that others may have better ideas, I shall sleep on this and maybe add more tomorrow.
Kindest regards,
Brian.
If there are only 20 stations that locate a stoke is that data more valuable than when 350 stations receive the same stroke?
Is a stroke recorded at 200 km as useful as one at 1200 km or 4500 km?
At present the effectivity of a station is heavily biased towards distance, Effectivity L. Would it be more efficient to base the stations position on their shorter and medium effectivity?
Could there be some explainable scientific basis for these measures?
Many stations appear to have a very poor signals sent to strokes recorded ratio.
I have noticed this as over 75,000:1 in some cases, these stations still appear higher in the lists than stations with more even ratios.
Should Detecting stations whose signals are actually used in the calculations for the location of the stroke be worth more than a station that detects the stroke, but is not one on which the calculation is based.
Should stations in less densely populated parts, Blitzortung wise, get a premium for detecting strokes in relation to the area that they are trying to cover, i.e Coastal stations or stations that by their position cover mainly underpopulated areas? The Pacific Ocean area, Asia, Africa and South America spring to mind and Micha's new station for India?
Looking at the archived data for stations participating in the detection of a stroke, there seems to be a large variability in the quality of the signals sent, not only between greens, reds, and blues, but even between stations of the same groups.
Should there be some measure of the "quality of signal" sent to the server? Signal to noise ratios? Index of Distortion?
I am sure that others may have better ideas, I shall sleep on this and maybe add more tomorrow.
Kindest regards,
Brian.
Stations: