Re: [PATCH] Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

Good morning, On 3 March 2016 at 08:24, Robert Helling wrote: > Good evening, > > > On 02.03.2016, at 18:44, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Dirk Hohndel wrote: > >> > >> So since Robert's

Re: [PATCH] Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 09:12:43AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Lubomir I. Ivanov wrote: > > > > hmm, that looks quite off to me considering the scale (the level of > > precision) of the ordinate. > > Hmm. Yes. I don't know how much we

Re: [PATCH] Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Lubomir I. Ivanov wrote: > > hmm, that looks quite off to me considering the scale (the level of > precision) of the ordinate. Hmm. Yes. I don't know how much we really care in the end, but especially now that we actually show it in the

Re: [PATCH] Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On 2 March 2016 at 14:58, Robert Helling wrote: > Hi, > > On 29.02.2016, at 17:10, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > Of course, I didn't actually check that the fancy math gives mostly the same > results for air, but I assume Robert did. > > > > this

Re: [PATCH] Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

Hi,On 29.02.2016, at 17:10, Linus Torvalds wrote:Of course, I didn't actually check that the fancy math gives mostly the same results for air, but I assume Robert did.this is what I spent some time on. As I said, the van der Waals equation (which is what one learns

Re: [PATCH] Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Feb 29, 2016 7:42 AM, "Dirk Hohndel" wrote: > > Linus, > > I'd love an ACK from you for this one :-) I see no problems with this one. Much cleaner than the table lookup, and does different gasses too. Of course, I didn't actually check that the fancy math gives mostly the

Re: [PATCH] Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

Linus, I'd love an ACK from you for this one :-) /D On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 08:46:03AM +0100, Robert Helling wrote: > Hi, > > > On 26.02.2016, at 18:45, Robert C. Helling > > wrote: > > > > I just checked in to a ski resort for the weekend. And I did not bring a

Re: [PATCH] Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

Hi,On 26.02.2016, at 18:45, Robert C. Helling wrote:I just checked in to a ski resort for the weekend. And I did not bring a computer besides the phone. So no updated patch before Monday. this is Monday.From 1541b7f2113fd6d26a8674ea3aeac9014bce4903 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00

Re: [PATCH] Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

Linus, > Am 26.02.2016 um 17:41 schrieb Linus Torvalds : > > I actually think this patch is horribly and fundamentally broken. > > If you take the temperature into account in calculating the Z factor, > you *also* need to take the temperature into account in

Re: [PATCH] Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Robert Helling wrote: > > After spending some hours with this and mathematica, I realized that this is > in fact a waste of time since it gets the difference of the factor from 1 > significantly wrong in the parameter range we are interested

Re: [PATCH] Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On 26 February 2016 at 09:30, Robert Helling wrote: > Hi, > > On 24.02.2016, at 21:26, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Robert Helling > wrote: > > > and in fact, Robert is looking into this

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On 26 February 2016 at 06:59, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > > > And this time, if you actually put in 15.3 liter, with subsurface you > > get a nominal size of 127 cuft, and a

[PATCH] Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

Hi,On 24.02.2016, at 21:26, Linus Torvalds wrote:On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Robert Helling wrote:and in fact, Robert is looking into this issue. He decided to get thephysics (somewhat) right by using a van der Waals (or related)

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > And this time, if you actually put in 15.3 liter, with subsurface you > get a nominal size of 127 cuft, and a "actual" size of 119.6. So this > time the "120" in the "HP120" is the actual size. > > But it's

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 03:46:44 PM Linus Torvalds wrote: > So even if there was 80 cuft of air in the cylinder, you won't > get all out of *out* of the cylinder, there will be that 11.1L > (roughly 0.4 cuft) remaining in the bottle. Should that not be the intermediate pressure, i.e.

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Richard Houser wrote: > When you are looking into the tank editing, would you please try a couple > tanks completely from the imperial specs we get from the manufacturers spec > sheets? I don't think that's reasonable, outside of some

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

When you are looking into the tank editing, would you please try a couple tanks completely from the imperial specs we get from the manufacturers spec sheets? When I'm shopping for this stuff, I don't typically see water volume measurements. Examples: Luxfer AL80 77.4cuft 3000psi (from

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > So you can add your *specific* cylinder type by editing the tank info > details completely. You should be able to (for example), specify your > cylinder by editing the cylinder information to be (take a

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Robert Helling wrote: > > and in fact, Robert is looking into this issue. He decided to get the > physics (somewhat) right by using a van der Waals (or related) equation > rather than a random fit function but still has to do a bit of math

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

Hi, > On 24.02.2016, at 08:28, Dirk Hohndel wrote: > > Robert is the usual suspect for stuff like this :-) and in fact, Robert is looking into this issue. He decided to get the physics (somewhat) right by using a van der Waals (or related) equation rather than a random fit

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Richard Houser wrote: > > As an imperial tank user, it's just really confusing to have Subsurface > reporting different cuft values than the tanks I'm using, even if the > underlying conversion calculations are correct. I don't

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On 24 February 2016 at 16:56, Lubomir I. Ivanov wrote: > On 24 February 2016 at 09:18, Linus Torvalds > > for the given data set i found the following polynomial regressions, > which should be OK interpolants due to the fact the data set exhibits > hyperbolic behaviour.

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On 24 February 2016 at 09:18, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Feb 23, 2016 15:46, "Linus Torvalds" wrote: >> > >> (b) air is not actually entirely compressible. >> >> This is a fairly small factor at 3000psi, but it's a factor. >>

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

Thank you for the prompt investigation. I would be happy to test this whenever you are ready (or you could use my subsurface div XML), but I've had some trouble trying to build 4.5.3. I might need an AppImage to do so. On February 24, 2016 8:49:31 AM EST, Miika Turkia

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

I think I see the bug in XSLT transform, naturally hidden in common templates and not on the actual file doing the conversion to divelogs.de format. Looks like using only one decimal has been there from the beginning. Makes me wonder if Richard has just been lucky with an earlier version of

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

OK, found the uploaded DLD file. This dive: https://en.divelogs.de/dive/1659944 has 9.1in the XML So converting this to lbs: Divide by 0.4536 gives me 20.06 lbs, which is diplayed as 20.1 lbs (I do round to one digit for displaying). So now the question is: At which point did the 9.1 get its

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

My id there is DiverMidMi, so feel free to look at the whole logbook. All my logs before this February display the values I see in Subsurface. Those were initially entered in 4.4.2. The new dives from this month show the excess weight. I can supply the actual Subsurface xml entries after I

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

I completely agree that the metric to imperial tank measurement conversions suck, but I think there may be more to it than just the compressibility and temperature aspects. The Luxfer cylinder site seems to have been down about two weeks, but the third-party references I can find in the online

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

Am 24.02.16 um 07:42 schrieb Dirk Hohndel: On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 08:10:04AM +0200, Miika Turkia wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Dirk Hohndel wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 01:55:28PM -0500, Richard Houser wrote: #4 Dives exported from subsurface to divelogs.de

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:18:42PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Feb 23, 2016 15:46, "Linus Torvalds" wrote: > > > > > (b) air is not actually entirely compressible. > > > > This is a fairly small factor at 3000psi, but it's a factor. > > HOWEVER. The

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Feb 23, 2016 15:46, "Linus Torvalds" wrote: > > (b) air is not actually entirely compressible. > > This is a fairly small factor at 3000psi, but it's a factor. > HOWEVER. The rule for cylinder sizing is that the stated cylinder size > is basically the

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 08:10:04AM +0200, Miika Turkia wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Dirk Hohndel wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 01:55:28PM -0500, Richard Houser wrote: > >> #4 Dives exported from subsurface to divelogs.de are now showing an > >> additional

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Dirk Hohndel wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 01:55:28PM -0500, Richard Houser wrote: >> #4 Dives exported from subsurface to divelogs.de are now showing an >> additional 0.1lb more than what they show in subsurface. > > Rounding error

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

Everything Linus said is of course correct... small number twister in that last paragraph: On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:53:49PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > But with high-pressure cylinders at 300 bar (~3400 psi) it's about 300 bar is ~4300psi (actually, 4351psi) /D

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > You can do an isothermal expansion of air, or let the captured air warm back > up to ambient temperature. Not that I expect people do it. So that theoretical calculation is exactly what we do to turn the imperial

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On terça-feira, 23 de fevereiro de 2016 15:46:44 PST Linus Torvalds wrote: > I don't have any hard data for this, but I think that what the > true capacity test does is let the air out and measure it. Which, > thanks to bernoulli's law will actually measure colder air than is in > the

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Richard Houser wrote: > In my classes back in Michigan, and during checkout dives I witnessed as a > bystander in Ohio and Florida, instructors with at least 5 different shops > (SSI/PADI/NAUI) have explicitly reminded students that when

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:18:52PM -0500, Richard Houser wrote: > > The weight of the metal changes at least for different manufacturers so > unless you weight your cylinder, which value are you going to use? The > weight of the gas is of course always the same. > > Well, the weight of the metal

Re: New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

Richard, thanks a lot for all your reports/suggestions. I believe I cannot help for many of these but here are some comments: > On 23.02.2016, at 19:55, Richard Houser wrote: > > First off, I'd just like to say I thin Subsurface is an amazing piece of > software and

New Bug Reports/Feature Requests

First off, I'd just like to say I thin Subsurface is an amazing piece of software and far superior to the proprietary crap manufacturers push out (kodos to you all), so please don't interpret this as a rant by any means. I would have submitted these tickets directly, but the email verification