1,738
edits
AirLink: Difference between revisions
m
→Operation
m (→GraphView) |
m (→Operation) |
||
|
and:
''utils/bin/cumulusutils.exe [[UserAskedData]]'' => this command produces the Airlink datafiles with only those data required for the user wanted display.
=== Country settings ===
''CumulusMX'' knows the following country settings:
US, GB, CA, EUAQI, EUCAQI, AU, NL, BE
The type indicator has been left out except for the EU so USA-EPA becomes simply US in this example.
''CumulusUtils'' knows the following countries:
US, GB, CA, EU, AU, NL, BE
These match one to one which is easy to understand except for the EU. Both EU settings from CumulusMX are projected on EU in CumulusUtils.
These country systems are explained in [https://cumulus.hosiene.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=148658#p148658 this post here].
As you can see in that forum post linked above, the values for the two EU AQI standards do not differ that much so I merged them into EU-CAQI. The choice of these AQI calculations leads in CUtils to the reference lines. CUtils does chart the concentrations only, not the AQI.
The Canadian system is the only one which uses a formula and not a table. That is why it only accepts 3 hr averages.
To program the exact AQI representation at certain concentrations for specific particle size is - according to me, i.e. [https://cumulus.hosiene.co.uk/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=9016 HansR] - an incorrect presentation of the danger levels involved (apart from the complexity in doing so). Danger levels involved must be uniform and the same everywhere in the world, as they are to be projected on humans and not dependent on politics of a country (compare e.g. the danger levels of the US to those of the EU). So CumulusUtils deviates here from CMX and it may in future even remove the AQI per country completely and replace that with the WHO reference which recently has become available (see my link to the forum post above).
== Output ==
| |||