Author Topic: Balancing E-Field and H-field operation  (Read 917 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dfroula

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
Balancing E-Field and H-field operation
« on: June 16, 2014, 04:15:21 PM »
Observing my system operation for a few days, it seems clear that adding the e-field amp not only simultaneously triggers along with the h-field amp (providing additional information from its three filters), but also adds to the total number of strikes detected by the system. This means that some downward gain adjustments need to be made to the h-field gain/threshold settings in order to keep the system out of interference unless there are nearby storms.

I've been adjusting the system for roughly equal detection rates on the e-field and h-field amps, then adjusting both amps proportionately downward to keep the overall detection rate below the interference point. I have had to significantly reduce the gain on the h-field amp to achieve this.  The margin below the interference point I shoot for is sort of seat-of-the-pants, based upon my familiarity of what the detection rate with the h-field alone should be, given the overall nationwide lightning situation.

Does anyone have any thoughts as to how best to balance e-field and h-field operation?

Offline Cutty Sark Sailor

  • WxElement panel
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3393
    • Frankfort Weather - TwinHollies WeatherCenter
Re: Balancing E-Field and H-field operation
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2014, 04:25:39 PM »
Mine?  E field roughly half the gain numbers for whatever H is... This reflects proximity of the cells, and the electrical activity in cells, which E field is more sensitive to.
Thresholds H field my location is 120, and E field 90 - Yes, all three channels...
Right now gain is reduced because of noise and cell activity, however....
Typically with all cells >500miles, and no axle plant line 3 welders,  I run 10x10 and either 4x4 or 5x5 or 4x5... note that I believe the E field is 'smoother' with lesser gain on amp position 1.
 


Offline dfroula

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Balancing E-Field and H-field operation
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2014, 05:08:15 PM »
Mike, do those numbers reflect a reduction in the gain of your H-field amp since you added the E-field?

Don
WD9DMP

Offline Cutty Sark Sailor

  • WxElement panel
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3393
    • Frankfort Weather - TwinHollies WeatherCenter
Re: Balancing E-Field and H-field operation
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2014, 05:28:27 PM »
Mike, do those numbers reflect a reduction in the gain of your H-field amp since you added the E-field?

Don
WD9DMP
No... nothing's changed! Same basic 10*10 I generally run. It's neat to watch the bo signals/spectrum page as one or the other detects a signal... go stare awhile at it... although settings are way back right now because of cells <300miles: http://ourspecial.net/twinhollies/weathercenter/blitz/sigs/index.html
 


Offline dfroula

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Balancing E-Field and H-field operation
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2014, 05:35:16 PM »
Hmmm...I reduced my H-field gains wayyyyy back to get more or less equal rates on the e-field and h-field. I'll have to try your method.

If you already have the H-field set to be just under the interference threshold, don't you find the addition of the e-field forces you over into interference unless you back down on the h-field gains? That seemed to be the case here....

Don
WD9DMP

Offline Cutty Sark Sailor

  • WxElement panel
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3393
    • Frankfort Weather - TwinHollies WeatherCenter
Re: Balancing E-Field and H-field operation
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2014, 05:54:53 PM »
Hmmm...I reduced my H-field gains wayyyyy back to get more or less equal rates on the e-field and h-field. I'll have to try your method.

If you already have the H-field set to be just under the interference threshold, don't you find the addition of the e-field forces you over into interference unless you back down on the h-field gains? That seemed to be the case here....

Don
WD9DMP
No, not necessarily... I'm still finding my way around that... Generally, once I determine whether it's too many signals, or real interference... (always on H, very rarely on E, and then only 'burst') I almost immediately cut H field A back about half, since it's probably the old Axle factory... 90% of the time that's all I need do. Otherwise they get along very well...
Now, nearby cells,... I am becoming convinced that anything within 300miles, cut both back about half immediately... just too many signals... always had to do it, but most of the H fields were useless distortions... the E fields are pretty clean, even on very strong signals, and they'll present well even at a 1x2 gain.

I'm experimenting with sampling freq... got the (4-6 channels) running at 15 instead of default 28 just to see what might happen... Then I might mix in some 'number of samples before send" changes along the way, and see what effect it has.