Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- atmos:instruments:wcm:home [2025/05/07 19:11] – rickbeil
+++ atmos:instruments:wcm:home [2025/05/07 19:26] (current) – rickbeil
@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 ===== Problem (Spring 2025) =====
 ==== Introduction ====
-When water droplets go from being present to not being present over the probe head there is a noticeable decay in the data which causes a exponential decay of sorts to be present. This then results in an indication that water droplets are supposed to be present even though there are no droplets passing over the probe head during this decay period of time. Attached below are photos and graphs that better visualize the problem that is present while using the WCM probe.
+During the use of the WCM it was noticed that when compared to other instruments such as the Cloud Droplet Probe, RICE probe, and the hot wire boom probe there is a decay present after the water content should have gone to zero over the probe head. This is now something that is being lab tested to better understand what is going on with the probe and to try and correct this invalid data that is being collected. Below are references to where the data is located for this particular lab run.
   * Reference: /nas/und/NorthEast/2025/Lab/CH423/GroundData/20250416_165626/PostProcessing
@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 Each graph is marked at roughly where the video indicated no more water being present over the probe head.
-The way that I determined the delay interval was by determining that each tick on the graph is roughly one second of data and then counting the ticks it took to get to a baseline value. The way I determined this baseline was by observing where the data mostly stabilized at so this is mostly subjective in terms of determining this value. But I mostly settled on a value of at or below 2.2 on the x-axis. The corresponding values that I then found for each graph are as follows; 6 seconds for 17_02_00, 6 seconds for 17_04_00, 4 seconds for 17_06_00, and 7 seconds for 17_08_00. This then came out to be an average of 5.75 seconds of data present during this decay. Then after applying the 66.7% validity to this average I found that there is about 3.84 seconds of incorrect data during these runs.
+The way that I determined the delay interval was by determining that each tick on the graph is roughly one second of data and then counting the ticks it took to get to a baseline value. The way I determined this baseline was by observing where the data mostly stabilized at so this is mostly subjective in terms of determining this value. But I mostly settled on a value of at or below 2.2 on the x-axis. The corresponding values that I then found for each graph are as follows; 6 seconds for 17_02_00, 6 seconds for 17_04_00, 5 seconds for 17_06_00, and 7 seconds for 17_08_00. This then came out to be an average of 6 seconds of data present during this decay. Then after applying the 66.7% validity to this average I found that there is about 4.00 seconds of incorrect data during these runs.