I use their service ( https://www.lightningmaps.org/ ) often, it is perfect for getting an impression about the scale and distance of an incoming storm.
It's a bit of a shame, that their detector system project seems to be frozen/dead.
They just released a new detector so I don't think it is necessarily true that the detector system project is dead. I'm not sure how you get one of those boxes though: https://www.blitzortung.org/en/whats_new.php
I've been on waitlist for years (just checked my email - since 2014) and can't get one. I wish the whole project was more open and I could build my own from provided gerbers/BOM.
What I find the most annoying is that they don't give historic data to anyone who doesn't have a detector. But you only get a detector if you're in an area not already covered (not europe and north america for example) and even if you're in the middle of nowhere in Africa, there's years of waitlisting and the hardware costs. I gave up and built a scraper after an evening of looking into how to get a detector, but that means I only get future data of course, not a ten year history to do research on...
Yup absolutely. I don't like these open-but-not-really projects, though I can sympathize a bit. Some ADS-B exchanges and GPS RTK networks are the same way.
I've toyed with the idea of building my own (no huge network needed just send ~5 units to people around where I live). The RF stuff is bit out of my league though and I can't imagine how to test it, having to wait for thunderstorms.
First of all, Blitzortung is as far as I can tell independent, volunteer-based and thus open for everyone to use, support and feed with data. It is also real-time (or at least max 10-15 seconds of latency).
There are however drawbacks:
- The hardware is relatively expensive (relatively because when you compare it to ham or professional RF tech, it is in fact dirt cheap :(), so there's a barrier for entry into the network if you would like to cover your area. Add to that having an appropriate place for the antennas.
- There seem to be issues that make the default visualisation of lightning strikes as points on the map dubiously accurate. The example I notice most often is that whenever a lightning discharges in a cloud as opposed to the ground, it often gets detected as several lightning strikes. This may be as simple as adding the equivalent of error bars to each detection, but I am not any kind of authority on the matter.
GOES is not quite as spatially accurate as surface mounted detectors and IIRC fails to recognize certain types of flashes that are of interest to humans. It’s more of a general intensity meter than anything like a warning system.
Their technical documentation is extremely well written. They discuss most of their limitations in there (and you can get a SQS feed of it to poke around yourself)
It's a bit of a shame, that their detector system project seems to be frozen/dead.
Last version (2014, unavailable for orders): https://www.blitzortung.org/en/cover_your_area.php
Forum thread (last post 2019): https://www.blitzortung.org/en/forum.php?tid=1656