GW2001 aka WittBoy

[philpugh]

I’ve just installed one of these all in one sensors. It’s Ecowitt’s answer to the Weatherflow.

https://www.ecowitt.com/shop/goodsDetail/245

Works out of the box with CumulusMX and was very quick to set up. I had it logging data to my internal website, Ecowitt and database in about 20 minutes. I am letting it burn in for a few days before I release the website to public view.

It shipped from China in 9 days.

We will see how it turns out!

[Mapantz]

My brother bought one for my birthday. Unfortunately, it's being sent back.

The rainfall sensor is terrible! Nothing has moved on since the weatherflow introduced theirs back in 2017/18. If anything, the Ecowitt one is worse.

[broadstairs]

Just for a bit of balance I think people should make up their own mind after reading the thread at https://www.wxforum.net/index.php?topic=43139.0 as there is a lot of work going on to try to improve the haptic rain sensor.

Stuart

[Mapantz]

A lot of it should have been dealt with before putting it in to production and selling it.

I read the posts in that thread from day one, and I actually thought that the haptic sensor on it looked promising. In the real world, it does not substitute any other type of rain gauge, and never will.

[philpugh]

I have one of the original weatherflow (NON Tempest) field test units. It's still running very well being handled by Meteobridge s/w. Yes many of the sensors were poor to start with but their 'on-line' updates to the sensors seemed to work well and the rain sensor over reads my other two weather stations by about 5% a year. It's the horrible 'misty' rain that confuses it. All the other sensors are within 1% of the other weather stations - including my sadly recently defunct Vantage Vue - I can't get a replacement temp/humidity sensor for it - it's quite old (2009?)

As I said on the original post I am currently in 'burn-in' mode and not publishing the website yet.

Will keep people posted

[HansR]

Comparing all those ecowitt devices and using CUtils to show it.
I am curious

[philpugh]

Hans

I have two Ecowitt stations on CUtils. Station 1 is my original WH 65 with added lightning and internal CO2 monitor. From that page you can access station 2 - the WS68 which I installed primarily to gather wind speed at above 6metres. The GW2001 will appear as station 3 after I have the required 31 days of data! I have also just written a bit of Python to get the data from my original weatherflow Sky/Air unit into CumulusMX via the Ecowitt HTTP interface and the Meteobridge data interface, so this could be station 4 perhaps?

All 4 are installed in open air with no obstructions for 25 metres although there are a couple of bushes about 15metres to the east that can affect surface wind from that direction. Fortunately that is not a common direction here.

[Mapantz]

Don't update to the latest firmware if you own a GW2000. The update has crocked mine!

[HansR]

I have two Ecowitt stations on CUtils. Station 1 is my original WH 65 with added lightning and internal CO2 monitor. From that page you can access station 2 - the WS68 which I installed primarily to gather wind speed at above 6metres. The GW2001 will appear as station 3 after I have the required 31 days of data! I have also just written a bit of Python to get the data from my original weatherflow Sky/Air unit into CumulusMX via the Ecowitt HTTP interface and the Meteobridge data interface, so this could be station 4 perhaps?

All 4 are installed in open air with no obstructions for 25 metres although there are a couple of bushes about 15metres to the east that can affect surface wind from that direction. Fortunately that is not a common direction here.

Hi Phil,

I suddenly don't see your site anymore because my chrome browser refuses to see your Https URL (your certificate ?)
The URL on the map used to be OK.

[freddie]

Certificate looks okay to me. It was renewed on the 24th. Using Chrome and Firefox.

[HansR]

The http call from phil's signature works fine. But in the url on the CUtils map there is an https call. That does not work. Not on my pc and not on my tablet.

[freddie]

The http call from phil's signature works fine. But in the url on the CUtils map there is an https call. That does not work. Not on my pc and not on my tablet.

I was using https. I don't know what the URL on the map is - is it different to https://goosegate.uk/ ?

[HansR]

No, but his signature url is

[sfws]

I was using https. I don't know what the URL on the map is - is it different to https://goosegate.uk/ ?

No,

https://goosegate.uk/ may have valid certificate, but the URL on the CUtils map is actually "https:www.goosegate.uk" (which translates to "http://goosegate.uk/" so is not secure)

[freddie]

I was using https. I don't know what the URL on the map is - is it different to https://goosegate.uk/ ?

No,

https://goosegate.uk/ may have valid certificate, but the URL on the CUtils map is actually "https:www.goosegate.uk" (which translates to "http://goosegate.uk/" so is not secure)

I couldn't see the URL on the map, as I don't know where the map is. The certificate used on www.goosegate.uk ihas common name gw2001.goosegate.uk, so that's why validation fails. The certificate used on goosegate.uk has common name goosegate.uk, so validates. It's easier to have a wildcard certificate if you use more than one hostname, as it can be used on multiple hosts. This site is an example of that - same certificate as for my www site.