Welcome to the Cumulus Support forum.

Latest Cumulus MX V4 release 4.4.2 (build 4085) - 12 March 2025

Latest Cumulus MX V3 release 3.28.6 (build 3283) - 21 March 2024

Legacy Cumulus 1 release 1.9.4 (build 1099) - 28 November 2014
(a patch is available for 1.9.4 build 1099 that extends the date range of drop-down menus to 2030)

Download the Software (Cumulus MX / Cumulus 1 and other related items) from the Wiki

If you are posting a new Topic about an error or if you need help PLEASE read this first viewtopic.php?p=164080#p164080

Rainfall Rate Calculation

Discussion specific to Fine Offset and similar rebadged weather stations
Post Reply
User avatar
mcrossley
Posts: 14388
Joined: Thu 07 Jan 2010 9:44 pm
Weather Station: Davis VP2/WLL
Operating System: Bullseye Lite rPi
Location: Wilmslow, Cheshire, UK
Contact:

Rainfall Rate Calculation

Post by mcrossley »

A question for Steve on his return I guess...

How does Cumulus calculate the rainfall rate for FO stations?

I see it goes up in 0.9mm/h 'jumps', but the size of these jumps has remained at 0.9mm/h even though I have added a 0.25x multiplier into Cumulus to compensate for my 4x larger collection area. I would have naïvely expected the resolution in rate to increase by 4x too?
User avatar
steve
Cumulus Author
Posts: 26672
Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008 6:49 pm
Weather Station: None
Operating System: None
Location: Vienne, France
Contact:

Re: Rainfall Rate Calculation

Post by steve »

I should put this in the FAQ, I guess, as it does keep getting asked. It just uses the amount of rain that fell in the last 5 minutes (approximately) and scales this up to an hour. So one 0.3 mm tip in a 5 minute period equates to a rate of 3.6 mm/hr. So it would normally be a multiple of 3.6, but with your 0.25 multiplier, it will be a multiple of 0.9.
Steve
User avatar
mcrossley
Posts: 14388
Joined: Thu 07 Jan 2010 9:44 pm
Weather Station: Davis VP2/WLL
Operating System: Bullseye Lite rPi
Location: Wilmslow, Cheshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Rainfall Rate Calculation

Post by mcrossley »

Thanks Steve, my bad memory, I could have sworn the multiple stayed the same :oops:
Post Reply