Author Topic: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor  (Read 2042 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Aircub

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
    • Twinfirs Broadstone
WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« on: June 04, 2022, 05:03:04 PM »
I purchased a WH57 from Ecowitt, initially is did not work because the dip switches were in the wrong place from the factory. I am now thinking that May be I was supplied with an open box unit because its reliability is under question.

Tonight had a particular active storm and it started showing readings so I was happy, it got to 107 count and stopped, I noticed that the time stamp for the strikes was also wrong about 2 hours out. We had heavy rain during the period nothing was recorded

So I would like to know what other people think of this sensor, as my lightning detectors on my Tempest have been giving me pretty good readings tonight.

« Last Edit: June 04, 2022, 05:04:36 PM by Aircub »

Offline Gyvate

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3326
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2022, 05:59:53 PM »
Mine works to my satisfaction.
I had some reasonable counts the other day.
 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
WS2350 1.6.7, GW1000(3) 1.7.7,WH2650 WiFi (2) 1.7.7 (test/backup), GW1100 2.3.1, GW2000(3) 3.1.1, HP2551 1.9.5,5.1.5;HP3500 1.7.2,WS3800 1.2.8, WN1910 1.2.3,WN1980 1.2.3;
Ecowitt WS90(2)1.3.5/1.4.0, WS80(2)1.2.5, WS68, WS69, WH40, WH31, WH31-EP, WN30, WN34L, WN35, WH32, WH32-EP, WH32B, WH57 [Lightning], WH41 [PM2.5], WH51, WH45, WH55
MeteobridgePro(2)[test,prod] 5.8 Mar 01 2024, 15185 - Blake-Larsen Sun Recorder - RPi4/weewx 4.8.0/4.10.2/CumulusMX 3283/Meteobridge RPi4B-2GB(3169)
Barani Meteoshield Pro, MetSpec Rad02 - Ecowitt 5763,34418;WU ISAARB3(WH4000SE),ISAARB22(HP2553), http://meshka.eu

Offline kheller2

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2022, 07:23:44 AM »
My Ambient branded 57 works very well.   Is your sensor exposed to the rain? And where do you see the clock being off for the strikes: console, WSView, ecowitt.net?   Make sure your console code and app are up to date. 
Ambient Consoles: WS-2000, WS-1900, WS-1200, WS-2902C, WS-3000-X3, WS-0900-IP(observerIP), WS-1001-WIFI
Ambient Arrays: WH65B
Ambient Sensors: WH31E(3), WH31B(2), WH32B, WH31SM(2), WH31PGW, AQIN, WH31LA(3)
Ambient Spares: WH24B(2), WH25B.
Ecowitt: HP2551BU, GW1000B(dead), GW1100B(2), GW2000B
Ecowitt Sensors: WH51, WN34BL, WN34(2), WH31, WH41, WH40

Offline solartempest

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2022, 08:57:25 AM »
Mine has been pretty good since I resolved my EMI/RFI interference issues. Don't seem to have any timing issues:
 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Ecowitt GW1000, HP2553BC, WS80, WH51x4, WH41, WH45, WH40, WH32, WH31x2, WH57x2.

Offline Daali

  • weather n00b
  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 223
    • The weather in Jefferson, GA
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2022, 12:43:51 PM »
I found mine is very particular to battery types for false positives.  nicad work without issues, but alkaline feeds back false positives like crazy.

Offline 1davidbrock

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2022, 04:25:06 PM »
No complaints here. 
WS-2902A | Ecowitt GW1000 | Meteobridge (D-Link DIR-505)
WU: KTXSUGAR156  |  PWSweather: KTXSUGAR156
CWOP: FW5473  |  Meteomap:  FW473
AWEKAS: 15930

Offline Aircub

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
    • Twinfirs Broadstone
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2022, 06:01:35 PM »
I found mine is very particular to battery types for false positives.  nicad work without issues, but alkaline feeds back false positives like crazy.

That is strange.

Offline Platokidd

  • top side land of Lincoln
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 647
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2022, 10:43:22 PM »
Mine works okay. Busy evening as storms blow-thru.
254
 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
« Last Edit: June 06, 2022, 10:45:08 PM by Platokidd »
Ambient
1-WS-5000 1-WS-2902A 2-WS40/RAIN 1-WH31L 
1-METEOBRIDGE 1-PM2.5 (WH41B) 3-WH31 1-SRX100LX

ECOWITT
2-HP2550 2-HP2560 2-GW2000 2-GW1100
2-WS68 1-WS80 1-WH32EP 10-WH31 1-WH40
1-HP10 2-WH45 4-WH55 5-WH51
1-WN30 1-WH41

1-DAVIS 7714
1-STRATUS
1-Fisher Barometer 1436R-22
PWS at 2 locations.
1- Storm Sensor-Zelda the dog ;)

Offline horseflesh

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2022, 05:48:09 PM »
We never have lightning here and despite reducing sensitivity as much as possible, I still get about one false positive per day. It's the only Ecowitt sensor I am unhappy with.

Offline hiljo

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 257
    • Weerstation Hattem
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2022, 04:44:16 PM »
We never have lightning here and despite reducing sensitivity as much as possible, I still get about one false positive per day.

I have this too. I noticed that in the winter there are no false positives, but during the summer period, there are 1 or two a day at exactly the same time.
I found out that it was my automatic time clock for switching on my waterfall in my pond (5 meters away and even underwater).

So if you have false positives, there is always a source which causes a spark or an electric discharge. Finding it is more difficult though.
Ecowitt HP2550C v1.9.3
2x GW2000 v3.1.1
WittBoy WS90 v1.3.8
Smart Sensors (WFC01 & AC1100) beta tester
3x WH31, WH32, WH40, WH41, WH57
WN34L, 2x WH51, WN35, WN34D

Dutch translator for Ecowitt.

https://www.weerstationhattem.nl/
  |
  |
  |
  | 
  |
  |
  |

Offline horseflesh

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2022, 07:02:06 PM »
In my case the time is not consistent. I am sure there is a reasonable explanation but so far it eludes me.

Offline Patt21

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2022, 05:41:43 PM »
Hello everyone, I give my opinion on the wh57 now that we have had periods of thunderstorms, I took the opportunity to make the adjustments with the dips, because since January I have not recorded any lightning. But since the settings of the wh57, I have increased the sensitivity to the maximum, it detects thunderstorms very well, there are no lags with the real activity and false lights. It is installed outside in the shield recommended by Ecowitt at a height of 2 meters in the center of the garden.
wh40/wh41/wh45/wn32p/wh31(3/wh51(3)/wh35/wn30(4)/wn34s/ws68/hp10/hp2550.
WH32ep barani shield (8m)
wh31ep 7714 davis (2m)
wh57 +shelter
wn30 (soil T° -50cm)
wn 30 (soil T° -10cm)
ws68 (8 m)
wh31 (+10cm)
wh31 (unshielded 1m80)
https://app.weathercloud.net/d0885729038#profile
https://www.awekas.at/fr/instrument.php?id=23272
https://smartmixin.io/app/stations/42866

Offline zoomx

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2022, 04:42:33 AM »
In my case the time is not consistent. I am sure there is a reasonable explanation but so far it eludes me.

Maybe a pump that is activated when a tank is empty or similar reason, an elevator, a washing machine....

Offline DelChard

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2022, 06:54:15 AM »
Prior to purchasing my WH57, I had read the problems associated with single sensor lightning detection, particularly the difficulty of differentiating between strong signal at great distance and weak signal at closer distance.
I ended up purchasing out of curiosity, rather than the expectation of receiving a trouble free detector.
I have to admit, that I personally, have been pleasantly surprised.
My only issue, was that I had to wait over 3 months before I had any lightning to detect.

Anallysis of my weewx data dump (taken before my most recent strikes)

Count   Distance(Miles)   Distance (Km)   Step
55           24.85484768   40   
32           22.9907341   37                   3
61           21.12662053   34                   3
39           19.26250695   31                   3
44           16.77702218   27                   4
40           14.91290861   24                   3
14           12.42742384   20                   4
30           10.56331026   17                   3
8           8.699196688   14                   3
7           7.456454304   12                   2
1           6.21371192   10                   2
1           3.728227152   6                   4
1           3.10685596   5                   1

Now, in the UK the met office publishes an observation map, where lightning stikes can be selected.
The position is based on triangulation from multiple sensors.
I've found that the distance is surprisingly accurate.
Further, the detector has recorded a strike at nearly 50 miles (recorded at the max distance of 25 miles).

My GSD detection system has proved terribly inefficient, their limit appears to be 7 miles.
Perhaps I need to get the vet to tune their antenna :lol:

I have posted that I now use weewx to log and graph "signal reliability".
Further I've noticed a strange behaviour.

The WH57, WH32, and WH31/WN30 sensors all share the same body, and presumably the same transmission module, but maybe not the same aerial.

2 of my WH31 are located in my 2 greenhouses, 1 of these sensors is at the furthest reach of my property.
They also get cold at night. They only ever drop to the equivalent of 3 bars on the signal graphic.
 
My WH57 and WH32EP have proved more of a problem despite being much closer to my gateway
My WH57 is located in my conservatory approx 12 feet from the back wall of the house (my only false strikes were my mobile phone and my laptop).
I found that both of these sensors lose signal during the night when the temperature drops to about 10C/50F.
They both have fresh energiser lithiums.
The WH57 was effectively offline for several hours.
In each case, rotating the sensor body around its vertical axis, such that the left hand side of the body (viewed from the front) is facing the gateway, has improved the issue. Both sensors still drop to the equivalent of 2 bars.
For reference, all my soil moisture sensors have the coiled wire fix (and behave themselves), my WS80 rarely dips and my WH40 occasionally dips to 3 bars. Both of these are also located about 80 feet from the gateway.

This post comes with no guarantees, but if like Aircub, you have not recorded strikes, it might be worth trying a slight relocation and/or re-orientation.


Offline horseflesh

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2022, 12:10:52 PM »
Quote
... all my soil moisture sensors have the coiled wire fix ...

What is this? I can't find any other posts.

Offline DelChard

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2022, 03:09:00 PM »
Quote
... all my soil moisture sensors have the coiled wire fix ...

What is this? I can't find any other posts.
Try this one https://www.wxforum.net/index.php?topic=43431.msg443037#msg443037

Offline thunder.ky

  • Weathering all the things!
  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • GW2000B, WS90, WeeWX, FOSHKplugin
    • thunder.ky
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2022, 03:09:24 PM »
Some great detail there @DelChard. Very interesting summarizing the lightning strike data like that. Made me dig into my data also.

Code: [Select]
select SUM("lightning_strike_count"), ROUND("lightning_distance",2) from archive WHERE lightning_strike_count >= 1 GROUP BY lightning_distance

8 3.11
1 3.73
1 4.97
1 6.21
2 7.46
63 8.7
2 10.56
26 12.43
41 14.91
5 16.78
6 19.26
4 21.13
2 22.99


I have posted that I now use weewx to log and graph "signal reliability".

I find the above fascinating, especially as I've been digging into the WeeWX database. How are you doing the logging and graphing of signal reliability? What variables/columns are you using for signal? I only have null values in signal1 - signal8.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2022, 03:12:03 PM by thunder.ky »
Ecowitt GW2000B v3.0.5 (Previous v2.2.4.8 )
Ecowitt WS90 v1.3.3
WeeWX v4.9.1
FOSHKplugin v0.10
https://wx.thunder.ky
  |  
  |  
  |  
  |  
  |  

Offline DelChard

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #17 on: June 29, 2022, 04:25:29 PM »
Some great detail there @DelChard. Very interesting summarizing the lightning strike data like that. Made me dig into my data also.

Code: [Select]
select SUM("lightning_strike_count"), ROUND("lightning_distance",2) from archive WHERE lightning_strike_count >= 1 GROUP BY lightning_distance

8 3.11
1 3.73
1 4.97
1 6.21
2 7.46
63 8.7
2 10.56
26 12.43
41 14.91
5 16.78
6 19.26
4 21.13
2 22.99


I have posted that I now use weewx to log and graph "signal reliability".

I find the above fascinating, especially as I've been digging into the WeeWX database. How are you doing the logging and graphing of signal reliability? What variables/columns are you using for signal? I only have null values in signal1 - signal8.

I think I put all the detail in this post.
https://www.wxforum.net/index.php?topic=43944.msg447324#msg447324
I've found the charts most useful in reducing the chance of "drop outs".

Edit.
I didn't originally include the WH57.
Subsequently I have added a column wh57_sig and added   wh57_sig = wh57_sig to my list under  [[field_map_extensions]]


« Last Edit: June 29, 2022, 04:38:50 PM by DelChard »

Offline thunder.ky

  • Weathering all the things!
  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • GW2000B, WS90, WeeWX, FOSHKplugin
    • thunder.ky
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #18 on: June 29, 2022, 05:18:03 PM »

I think I put all the detail in this post.
https://www.wxforum.net/index.php?topic=43944.msg447324#msg447324
I've found the charts most useful in reducing the chance of "drop outs".

Edit.
I didn't originally include the WH57.
Subsequently I have added a column wh57_sig and added   wh57_sig = wh57_sig to my list under  [[field_map_extensions]]

Awesome, thanks for the pointer. It's giving me a lot of good ideas for visualizing additional information. Indeed, throwing data into a graph can make intermittent issues so much easier to track down.
Ecowitt GW2000B v3.0.5 (Previous v2.2.4.8 )
Ecowitt WS90 v1.3.3
WeeWX v4.9.1
FOSHKplugin v0.10
https://wx.thunder.ky
  |  
  |  
  |  
  |  
  |  

Offline Donnn

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #19 on: July 01, 2022, 07:41:30 AM »
I gave up on the WH57. Ecowitt did not respond to multiple emails about the device, which was disappointing.

I'm now using Blitzortung in home assistant.

https://www.blitzortung.org/en/live_lightning_maps.php


Offline miraculon

  • Sunrise Side Weather
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 4108
  • KE8DAF
    • Sunrise Side Weather in Rogers City MI USA
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2022, 08:32:49 AM »
I have two Blitzortung stations, a "RED" and a "Blue". The RED has an interface to an AS3935 evaluation board. This is the same device used in the WH57. (as far as I know).

I have owned and used several single point lightning detectors over the years including Boltek. ALL of them pick up false noise signals from time to time, but some are better than others at rejecting noise. My WH57 behaves about the same as others including the eval board sensor. (inside my garage vs. the WH57 being outdoors).

I see plenty of noise signals being picked up by the Blitzortung stations. The filtering algorithms both local and server-based are quite good, but the key is that Blitzortung is TOA based and requires agreement with other stations in the network.

I regard any single-point detector as more as an interesting "toy".  I especially regard the distance estimates with a grain of salt for any non-TOA based system.

I don't think that there are any detectors that are totally immune to false lightning noise signals. For what it is, the WH57 works acceptably and compares well with my earlier eval board unit. I also have an AcuRite detector which also uses the AS3935.

Greg H.


Blitzortung Stations #706 and #1682
CoCoRaHS: MI-PI-1
CWOP: CW4114 and KE8DAF-13
WU: KMIROGER7
Amateur Radio Callsign: KE8DAF

Offline Cutty Sark Sailor

  • WxElement panel
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3394
    • Frankfort Weather - TwinHollies WeatherCenter
Re: WH57 - Lightning Is it a Poor Sensor
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2022, 06:28:36 AM »
By it's very nature, a lightning impulse's energy is concentrated in the 'noisiest' part of the energy spectrum. We Blitzortung folks spent a lot of time optimizing our systems, and many of us dropped the AS3935 interface on the system REDS as it was little more than an irritating curiosity, and contributed nothing to the actual location of strokes. Early on we posted a 'noise' thread here on WxForum: https://www.wxforum.net/index.php?topic=20439.0

If you'd like a quick overview of what my Blitzortung systems are seeing and processing, and the 'environment' an AS3935 at the same location would be living in, try this: https://frankfortweather.us/fwxBLPublic/index.html
 


 

anything