Talk:Level 3 data (velocity profilers): Difference between revisions

From Atomix
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
[[User:Brian scannell|Brian scannell]] ([[User talk:Brian scannell|talk]]) 16:47, 29 December 2021 (CET) re. TIME dimension comments - the requirement to define time bounds for each segment looks rather complex and I’m not sure that it adds anything.  Presumably the requirement to specify bounds will not be mandatory?
[[User:Brian scannell|Brian scannell]] ([[User talk:Brian scannell|talk]]) 16:47, 29 December 2021 (CET) re. TIME dimension comments - the requirement to define time bounds for each segment looks rather complex and I’m not sure that it adds anything.  Presumably the requirement to specify bounds will not be mandatory?
Having introduced N_SEGMENT as a dimension at level 2, with TIME as a variable, we are now reverting to TIME as the dimension with N_SEGMENT as the variable. Given that TIME is now derived as the mean time for the observations in the segment, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to keep it as the variable?


[[User:Brian scannell|Brian scannell]] ([[User talk:Brian scannell|talk]]) 13:01, 30 December 2021 (CET) re. R_DEL / R_DEL5 dimension comments - R_DEL should be calculated as a function of R_DIST, which itself is a function of bin size and theta, but having defined R_DIST, it should now be the basis on which R_DEL is calculated.  So for example (assuming Matlab indexing), for a central difference scheme evaluated at bin 10 i.e. R_DIST(10), the two-bin separation R_DEL(2) = R_DIST(11) - R_DIST(9), whereas for a forward difference scheme evaluated at bin 10, R_DEL(2) would be R_DIST(12) - R_DIST(10).  The R_DEL(2) values will be identical, but the principle is that R_DEL is the separation distance distance the velocity observations being compared.
[[User:Brian scannell|Brian scannell]] ([[User talk:Brian scannell|talk]]) 13:01, 30 December 2021 (CET) re. R_DEL / R_DEL5 dimension comments - R_DEL should be calculated as a function of R_DIST, which itself is a function of bin size and theta, but having defined R_DIST, it should now be the basis on which R_DEL is calculated.  So for example (assuming Matlab indexing), for a central difference scheme evaluated at bin 10 i.e. R_DIST(10), the two-bin separation R_DEL(2) = R_DIST(11) - R_DIST(9), whereas for a forward difference scheme evaluated at bin 10, R_DEL(2) would be R_DIST(12) - R_DIST(10).  The R_DEL(2) values will be identical, but the principle is that R_DEL is the separation distance distance the velocity observations being compared.


Also note that R_DEL units should be specified as (in meters).
Also note that R_DEL units should be specified as (in meters).

Revision as of 13:51, 30 December 2021

Brian scannell (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2021 (CET) re. TIME dimension comments - the requirement to define time bounds for each segment looks rather complex and I’m not sure that it adds anything. Presumably the requirement to specify bounds will not be mandatory?

Having introduced N_SEGMENT as a dimension at level 2, with TIME as a variable, we are now reverting to TIME as the dimension with N_SEGMENT as the variable. Given that TIME is now derived as the mean time for the observations in the segment, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to keep it as the variable?

Brian scannell (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2021 (CET) re. R_DEL / R_DEL5 dimension comments - R_DEL should be calculated as a function of R_DIST, which itself is a function of bin size and theta, but having defined R_DIST, it should now be the basis on which R_DEL is calculated. So for example (assuming Matlab indexing), for a central difference scheme evaluated at bin 10 i.e. R_DIST(10), the two-bin separation R_DEL(2) = R_DIST(11) - R_DIST(9), whereas for a forward difference scheme evaluated at bin 10, R_DEL(2) would be R_DIST(12) - R_DIST(10). The R_DEL(2) values will be identical, but the principle is that R_DEL is the separation distance distance the velocity observations being compared.

Also note that R_DEL units should be specified as (in meters).