You raise an excellent point regarding wind averages and the LaCrosse
turbine anemometer. There is no doubt that LaCrosse has numerous
inherent design flaws with their anemometer, yet these flaws can be
mitigated by using some of the WUHU tweaks. Its not like WUHU is
compiling weather data, disregarding it entirely and cooking up
better-looking data. Instead, it is gathering a group of relevant
(but somewhat disjointed) readings and making sense of them. In a
five minute span, a cabled 2310 will take about 38 readings. If 35
of them are representative of the true weather picture and 3 are
questionable results from LaCrosse's poor anemomter design -- why not
use an average to show "the bigger picture"? It makes little sense
to give equal consideration to a small group of data that is
If these tweaks provide more consistent and reliable output from the
weather station itself, I see that only as a positive for CWOP and
anyone who uses it.
--- In email@example.com
> I do agree that the tweaks should be used sparingly. If a user
> to abuse a tweak, that is there own responsibility as with anything
> in life. I give the users the rope, they choose what do to with it.
> Such was the case with the wind direction tweak. I disagree that it
> should be used for any other purpose than siting problems that you
> not address by physical adjustment (Say you made a mistake and can
> climb up on a snow covered roof to adjust it 30 degrees).
> As far as this WU tweak goes, I was planning on implementing this
> feature anyway. If you look at the data stored when using rapid
> is a snap-shot in time of the last rapid-fire reading that was sent
> WU decides to store the record. That being the case, the history is
> really representative of the real data over time. Averaging works
> better in this situation. Since wind is the most dynamic of the
> variables, I have chosen to average only the wind speed and wind
> direction at this time.
> As an example of rapid-fire storing wind direction data, if you
> your WU history for wind direction, it appears to be very random.
> might have 30 samples that point North but if the one Southerly
> sneaks in at just the right time, South is stored.
> Also, because of the somewhat lacking La Crosse turbine design used
> capture wind speeds, the readings frequently bounce between 0 and a
> non-zero value (depending on how fast the wind is moving). In areas
> high wind speed, this is not an issue, for the rest of us, it is a
> problem. I often see my wind speeds bouncing between 0 and say 10-15
> mph. It is not a noise issue, it is a wind turbine issue.
> If I did not have to drill another hole in the wall, I would have
> already purchased the Inspeed Vortex Wind Sensor
> <http://www.inspeed.com/anemometers/Vortex_Wind_Sensor.asp> to get
> more accurate windspeed data (with WUHU support of course). Before
> run any more wires through the exterior wall, I am hoping to build
> type of exterior access panel for cable Internet, RJ-11 wiring (for
> La Crosse units), USB, and perhaps other optional connections.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, CMOwen@ wrote:
> > Actually, you're right that that was a pretty loose term I used,
> you eloquently addressed exactly my point. Tweaks are not whim
> know you put a lot of work in this program. You have done a fine
> providing a product that reports by the established standards. It
> to the users to use them wisely.
> > I do not manage my personal weather station with quite the
> zeal (read: anal retentive) that I did running stations for AQM
> got paid before, now I do not), however I want a best that can be
> achieved weather network still. I want accuracy as a goal and not to
> make it what I think it should be.
> > I just pull out the soap-box when it seems that some people want
> tweak a bit so that their sky is just a shade of blue brighter or
> wind a little less from the north. I guess I just need to believe
> we all worry over our details like I do for the same end.
> > -------------- Original message from "wuhu_software"
> wuhu_software@: --------------
> > Carl,
> > "Weather standards" is a pretty loose term.
> > The 2 minute wind speed and direction reporting is a CWOP standard
> although I am guessing that the vast majority of "official" stations
> that report hourly are probably using a different method.
> > Here is a snippet from the Weather Station Siting, Performance,
> Data Quality Guide
> > Mean Wind Speed and Direction: 2-minute mean of speed and
> sampled before the observation valid time sampled from high-
> data (minimum: 5 second instrument polling).
> > --- In email@example.com, CMOwen@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Is that 2 min average a "weather standard"? I always worry about
> "tweaks" "to average their data a bit".
> > >
> > > Charles
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------- Original message from "wuhu_software"
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > I have added a new tweak that will average your wind speed and
> > > direction readings over the past 2 mins when reporting to WU
> > >
> > > Although this tweak is intended for those who are experiencing
> > > readings (NNW or N, at 0 mph) it can be used by anyone wanting
> > > average their data a bit before sending.
> > >
> > > Download page:
> > >
> > > http://home.comcast.net/~wuhu_software/
> > >