2017-10-28, 16:23
Well. My overall belief is 'one stroke' located accurately with 1001 signals is better than zero strokes "detected" per 1000 signals sent... in order to have detected that 'one stroke' the station sent 1001 signals... but became the final 'locator' required to register a stroke...while the other 'locators' only sent 500 signals ---while its 'efficiency' / 'effectivity was nil, especially if compared to the other locators, the benefit to the network was 'effective'... it enable the network to achieve the network goal, with a whole lot of effort on the stations part, and that critical station show's lousy efficiency / effectivity 'uniquely' . Conversely, network 'effectivity' / 'efficiency' is not necessarily related to a stations capability or performance as a unique station.
Also consider that some percentage of virtually any stations' signals ARE skywave reflected strokes, but timing and distortion of signals, and lack of reception by enough other stations, does not result in it being 'recognized' and is scores as a signal, but not a stroke... thus lowering any efficiency / effectivity.
If I choose to operate at a short range only, I can be highly effective, and efficient, as far as my "Goal".. see my above post... my goal being most efficient and effective at <500km for example. But related to 'network' I will almost always not contribute as many strikes... especially if compared to 'network' totals. If considered 'uniquely', in other words, 'how am I doing for my environment, established goal, etc'... my 'long term', seasonally, situationally, geographically, has a better chance of contributing better 'quality' data to the network, rather than a high 'quantity'.
I send a LOT more useless signals than I'd prefer.... it's an environment issue. I can back those down by decreasing range, except when a couple of near disturbers flare up that are very strong, and the burst repetition timing does not trigger 'burst mode' interference... I'd prefer to go interference, not send signals, as the design intent... these disturbers don't make critera for interference modes . Therefore my network contributions on either system are nothing like their potential. But, having establishing both 'normal' and 'situational' operating goals, I consider my two stations quire effective and efficient, all things considered. Its NOT the equipment... its the situation and my established paradigms.
For me to compare my stations with stations in a super quiet environment, such as Brian and Mike encounter, is absurd. I can 'never' match them, except in rare situations. Now Three years ago, before the environment degraded, I'd go 'head to head' with anyone...
And I believe that stations that attempt to 'match' other stations 'performance', be 'on top' of the 'effectivity' tables may well be chasing a dream, which is fine... after some time, I think a lot of us come to realize that this is a "Team" effort, and we put our stations in a position of performing as well as possible, with maximum 'unique' efficiency...
BRIAN, the 'communication' between server and controller is NOT a 'triggered signal'.
PASENSE, I totally agree with you.
Also consider that some percentage of virtually any stations' signals ARE skywave reflected strokes, but timing and distortion of signals, and lack of reception by enough other stations, does not result in it being 'recognized' and is scores as a signal, but not a stroke... thus lowering any efficiency / effectivity.
If I choose to operate at a short range only, I can be highly effective, and efficient, as far as my "Goal".. see my above post... my goal being most efficient and effective at <500km for example. But related to 'network' I will almost always not contribute as many strikes... especially if compared to 'network' totals. If considered 'uniquely', in other words, 'how am I doing for my environment, established goal, etc'... my 'long term', seasonally, situationally, geographically, has a better chance of contributing better 'quality' data to the network, rather than a high 'quantity'.
I send a LOT more useless signals than I'd prefer.... it's an environment issue. I can back those down by decreasing range, except when a couple of near disturbers flare up that are very strong, and the burst repetition timing does not trigger 'burst mode' interference... I'd prefer to go interference, not send signals, as the design intent... these disturbers don't make critera for interference modes . Therefore my network contributions on either system are nothing like their potential. But, having establishing both 'normal' and 'situational' operating goals, I consider my two stations quire effective and efficient, all things considered. Its NOT the equipment... its the situation and my established paradigms.
For me to compare my stations with stations in a super quiet environment, such as Brian and Mike encounter, is absurd. I can 'never' match them, except in rare situations. Now Three years ago, before the environment degraded, I'd go 'head to head' with anyone...
And I believe that stations that attempt to 'match' other stations 'performance', be 'on top' of the 'effectivity' tables may well be chasing a dream, which is fine... after some time, I think a lot of us come to realize that this is a "Team" effort, and we put our stations in a position of performing as well as possible, with maximum 'unique' efficiency...
BRIAN, the 'communication' between server and controller is NOT a 'triggered signal'.
PASENSE, I totally agree with you.
