Why don't you express the figures as a percentage

[Darkdeap]

Why don't you express the hours of discharge as a % of operating hrs?

[top-poop]

Thanks for the suggestion. Yes, it might be good to find more understandable ways of expressing these numbers. % might work.

[Darkdeap]

The sensible expression of the numbers would be to present them as a % of total operating hours. So all treatment works and the majority of pumping stations plus CSO’s all have to operate 24hrs a day 7 days a week. Therefore for example Kenilworth and Southam show some 18,000 hrs. So if for example if there where 10 treatment works and 20 monitored dischargeable pumping stations and CSO’s ( a conservative number I suspect in fact the number would be larger than that ) in the Kenilworth and Southam area, that gives a total of 262,800 operating hrs , that would equate to a 93% non discharging operating level, with the actual numbers I suspect its closer to 98-99% non discharging time , with discharges . Of course this does not include EDM’s that have failed but that has to be offset by EDM’s that alarm but are false ( very common , most EDMs are located close to the water course, when the water course floods detritus blocks the EDM, add weeds , cobwebs (very very common problem) all produce loads of false logs which can be for many many hours until somebody clears the obstruction. Darkdeep

…

On 27 Feb 2023, at 21:53, Top Poop ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks for the suggestion. Yes, it might be good to find more understandable ways of expressing these numbers. % might work. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftop-poop%2Ftop-of-the-poops%2Fissues%2F11%23issuecomment-1447160248&data=05%7C01%7C%7C5f6403f12d504f20cb2608db190d1caf%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638131316324799297%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FqPe3uwiAHwCPCcJeDqYKmyDhzC33Iw2hamZ2S10mjk%3D&reserved=0>, or unsubscribe <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FA6FITRATAFK6DYYOCGFDBQDWZUO65ANCNFSM6AAAAAAVJ4OVYY&data=05%7C01%7C%7C5f6403f12d504f20cb2608db190d1caf%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638131316324799297%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ddKS%2BGjhpJepS7uTn%2F5483qimXI2K1cneZkJ%2FcAltcU%3D&reserved=0>. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.

[top-poop]

It is a possible measure. For things that are not supposed to happen though, expressing in this way can significantly under-represent the issue.

In the general case, you might see something working "99%" of the time - but this means in a year it spent 3.65 days not working - and this isn't obvious to the general public, unless they worked in Highly Available Systems

It sounds as if you know a bit about these. Do you work for the water industry? It would probably aid transparency if you declared that if so.

Thanks for the suggestion.