2017-11-03, 18:20
@Cutty:
first problem with the proposed figures is that they do not discriminate between real sferics and noise. The signal sent category contains both and we would first like to reduce noise
second problem is what mwaters wrote: the position of storms both affects the signals sent and the strokes detected, but in different ways. For my station at the moment very often the storms are in a favorable position and I get sometimes very high participation in the detected strokes, so the stations performance looks good. When the storms are in a less favorable position relative to my station, the performance looks lousy. So you could judge the station either as "excellent" or as "lousy", depending where the storms are.
Third problem is that many, many stations send signals of real sferics that are much distorted by noise. That their signal can be used anyway looks like a miracle to me.
Another serious problem has been spelled out clearly by Alanpenwith: we need tools that show us quickly how a station is performing without looking at lots and lots of actual signals from our and other stations. I do not think that this can be achieved with only these two numbers proposed.
I propose to make a list of examples for good sferic signals and also for interference noise, and for clean signals and noisy signals, together with hints how to improve the situation. People could then browse this catalog and check how their station is performing.
In addition waterfall plots would help, histograms of signal strength of sent and used signal, etc.
first problem with the proposed figures is that they do not discriminate between real sferics and noise. The signal sent category contains both and we would first like to reduce noise
second problem is what mwaters wrote: the position of storms both affects the signals sent and the strokes detected, but in different ways. For my station at the moment very often the storms are in a favorable position and I get sometimes very high participation in the detected strokes, so the stations performance looks good. When the storms are in a less favorable position relative to my station, the performance looks lousy. So you could judge the station either as "excellent" or as "lousy", depending where the storms are.
Third problem is that many, many stations send signals of real sferics that are much distorted by noise. That their signal can be used anyway looks like a miracle to me.
Another serious problem has been spelled out clearly by Alanpenwith: we need tools that show us quickly how a station is performing without looking at lots and lots of actual signals from our and other stations. I do not think that this can be achieved with only these two numbers proposed.
I propose to make a list of examples for good sferic signals and also for interference noise, and for clean signals and noisy signals, together with hints how to improve the situation. People could then browse this catalog and check how their station is performing.
In addition waterfall plots would help, histograms of signal strength of sent and used signal, etc.
Stations: 1836