2015-05-23, 15:17
I think of this system being, in a way, superior to radar. That of course sees rain and all, but you don't HAVE to have a 'local' BO station to get good plots of the strikes that the system sees.
There of course have been personal observations and other discussions about the fact that a cloud to ground strike just happened near me and it never showed up on the plot.
But if there is a good scattering of stations, even within 500 miles, all with good geometry the strike map will be very nicely populated. And as a matter of fact, most of us last year or so were a bit disappointed when a storm got really close and our systems were in interference mode. No contributions from the station, but the system still was plotting away with data from other stations not interferred with.
Perhaps someone with more math and knowledge of the algorithms than me can comment on how much better a station closer to a strike is for a data point than a somewhat further away station's data is for accuracy. I know there are a multitude of factors, including too far away and the signal is (simplistically) spread out and some of the most telling portions of the signal are not able to be teased out of the wave.
But is there an optimal distance?
Is it only a teensy weensy bit better to have a station at the optimal distance (whatever that is, and even if there is one) compared to say a station with the same angle on the strike, but a few hundred miles further away?
I wonder if the E field antennas data are preferred by the system when a storm is closer?
And of course throw in local noise that confuses things and the variables get crazy.
But thinking about such things is fun and helps make this a worthwhile hobby, as Mike still sort of thinks it is for some and is way beyond for others!
Dale
There of course have been personal observations and other discussions about the fact that a cloud to ground strike just happened near me and it never showed up on the plot.
But if there is a good scattering of stations, even within 500 miles, all with good geometry the strike map will be very nicely populated. And as a matter of fact, most of us last year or so were a bit disappointed when a storm got really close and our systems were in interference mode. No contributions from the station, but the system still was plotting away with data from other stations not interferred with.
Perhaps someone with more math and knowledge of the algorithms than me can comment on how much better a station closer to a strike is for a data point than a somewhat further away station's data is for accuracy. I know there are a multitude of factors, including too far away and the signal is (simplistically) spread out and some of the most telling portions of the signal are not able to be teased out of the wave.
But is there an optimal distance?
Is it only a teensy weensy bit better to have a station at the optimal distance (whatever that is, and even if there is one) compared to say a station with the same angle on the strike, but a few hundred miles further away?
I wonder if the E field antennas data are preferred by the system when a storm is closer?
And of course throw in local noise that confuses things and the variables get crazy.
But thinking about such things is fun and helps make this a worthwhile hobby, as Mike still sort of thinks it is for some and is way beyond for others!
Dale