stoneytemps update...

CAS wrote:

> On the full year page I reckon you want to see...
>
> - Full year max
> - Full year min
> - Full year mean
> - Full year median

Not sure how much use the mean and median over a year are - unless you
want to be able to say that a certain site is colder than another.

> and for each month
>
> - month max
> - month min
> - month mean
> - month median
> - month stdev
> - month variance?

I would guess that the relevant ones here are max, min, mead and std
dev. Variance = std^2, not a massivly useful number in this case. Really
I would want to know what the most probable temperature is (mean) and
possibly what the daily deviation is likely to be (std dev). I would
guess though that your std dev will be dominated by instrument noise
(two dive computers reading different temps) rather than the day to day
change.

> - day stdev

This would give you a pretty good estimate of the errors between
computers, except in the surface layer where you may have some idea of
how much the water heats up over the day.

Ben

--
Ben Panter, Edinburgh
My name (no spaces)@bigfoot which is a com.

Keith S. wrote:
> Zak wrote:
>
>> There seems to be a big variance in recorded temps. Howsabout
>> recording the
>> brand of device used (sunnto, aladin etc). This might let you iron out
>> the
>> peaks and troughs.
>
>
> I'd hazard a guess that the big variance is caused by the depth the
> measurement was taken at.
>

One bit of functionality of the original ascii version hasn't been
included yet which is the ability to see the number of individual
submissions of each temperature within a single day.

It appears that the graphs include data from all submissions
irrespective of year. The temperature variations could be because the
graphs are using data from a number of years. I think the graphs are
very useful even as they stand but it might be useful to be able to
filter the data by year also.

Simon

"Simon Dakin" <simon@REMOVETHISdakin80.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c107pc$r6q$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> Keith S. wrote:
> > Zak wrote:
> >
> >> There seems to be a big variance in recorded temps. Howsabout
> >> recording the
> >> brand of device used (sunnto, aladin etc). This might let you iron out
> >> the
> >> peaks and troughs.
> >
> >
> > I'd hazard a guess that the big variance is caused by the depth the
> > measurement was taken at.
> >
>
> One bit of functionality of the original ascii version hasn't been
> included yet which is the ability to see the number of individual
> submissions of each temperature within a single day.
>
> It appears that the graphs include data from all submissions
> irrespective of year. The temperature variations could be because the
> graphs are using data from a number of years. I think the graphs are
> very useful even as they stand but it might be useful to be able to
> filter the data by year also.
>
> Simon
>

Hactually...

The ASCII version never had the ability to filter on year, and if you look
closely at the both the year and month graphs you will see how many
submissions there has been for the month or day in parentheses at the bottom
of the bar...

Filtering by year is pretty irrelevant at the moment given that the number
of readings is quite small. So out with the logbooks...

CAS

CAS wrote:
> "Simon Dakin" <simon@REMOVETHISdakin80.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c107pc$r6q$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>
>>Keith S. wrote:
>>
>>>Zak wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There seems to be a big variance in recorded temps. Howsabout
>>>>recording the
>>>>brand of device used (sunnto, aladin etc). This might let you iron out
>>>>the
>>>>peaks and troughs.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'd hazard a guess that the big variance is caused by the depth the
>>>measurement was taken at.
>>>
>>
>>One bit of functionality of the original ascii version hasn't been
>>included yet which is the ability to see the number of individual
>>submissions of each temperature within a single day.
>>
>>It appears that the graphs include data from all submissions
>>irrespective of year. The temperature variations could be because the
>>graphs are using data from a number of years. I think the graphs are
>>very useful even as they stand but it might be useful to be able to
>>filter the data by year also.
>>
>>Simon
>>
>
>
> Hactually...
>
> The ASCII version never had the ability to filter on year, and if you look
> closely at the both the year and month graphs you will see how many
> submissions there has been for the month or day in parentheses at the bottom
> of the bar...
>
> Filtering by year is pretty irrelevant at the moment given that the number
> of readings is quite small. So out with the logbooks...
>

All I said was that the original ascii version had the ability to show
the number of each temperature value for each day. I never said you
could filter by year. So you might see that there were 4 readings of 10C
and 1 reading of 15C for a particular date. That single different
reading might be a rogue value or it could be correct but from a
different year - we just can't tell from the graphs (ascii or otherwise)
available.

I was responding to someone else's point that there was a large variance
in temperatures that might be due to different makes of temperature
gauges. I was pointing out that the difference in temperature might
actually be because the different values are from different years.
Without the ability to filter on years it's not possible to tell at present.

I've submitted all my dives at Stoney, about half a dozen, so I'd like
to think I'm doing my bit to make the database useful.

Simon

"Simon Dakin" <simon@REMOVETHISdakin80.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c15hf8$kal$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> CAS wrote:
> > "Simon Dakin" <simon@REMOVETHISdakin80.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:c107pc$r6q$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >>
> >>Keith S. wrote:
> >>
> >>>Zak wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>There seems to be a big variance in recorded temps. Howsabout
> >>>>recording the
> >>>>brand of device used (sunnto, aladin etc). This might let you iron out
> >>>>the
> >>>>peaks and troughs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I'd hazard a guess that the big variance is caused by the depth the
> >>>measurement was taken at.
> >>>
> >>
> >>One bit of functionality of the original ascii version hasn't been
> >>included yet which is the ability to see the number of individual
> >>submissions of each temperature within a single day.
> >>
> >>It appears that the graphs include data from all submissions
> >>irrespective of year. The temperature variations could be because the
> >>graphs are using data from a number of years. I think the graphs are
> >>very useful even as they stand but it might be useful to be able to
> >>filter the data by year also.
> >>
> >>Simon
> >>
> >
> >
> > Hactually...
> >
> > The ASCII version never had the ability to filter on year, and if you
look
> > closely at the both the year and month graphs you will see how many
> > submissions there has been for the month or day in parentheses at the
bottom
> > of the bar...
> >
> > Filtering by year is pretty irrelevant at the moment given that the
number
> > of readings is quite small. So out with the logbooks...
> >
>
> All I said was that the original ascii version had the ability to show
> the number of each temperature value for each day. I never said you
> could filter by year. So you might see that there were 4 readings of 10C
> and 1 reading of 15C for a particular date. That single different
> reading might be a rogue value or it could be correct but from a
> different year - we just can't tell from the graphs (ascii or otherwise)
> available.

Ah! Got you now - I'll do that next time I'm bored at work!

> I was responding to someone else's point that there was a large variance
> in temperatures that might be due to different makes of temperature
> gauges. I was pointing out that the difference in temperature might
> actually be because the different values are from different years.
> Without the ability to filter on years it's not possible to tell at
present.

I'm going to have to do some thinking around the year thing, and a whole
pile of other things too, including statistical info, depth info, device
info...

> I've submitted all my dives at Stoney, about half a dozen, so I'd like
> to think I'm doing my bit to make the database useful.

You are one of our more prolific contributors - thank you very much. Where
are the majority of the rest of your dives?

> Simon
>

CAS

"CAS" <calumscottREMOVETHISBIT@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c15k7l$pge$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Simon Dakin" <simon@REMOVETHISdakin80.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c15hf8$kal$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > CAS wrote:
> > > "Simon Dakin" <simon@REMOVETHISdakin80.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message
> > > news:c107pc$r6q$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > >>
> > >>Keith S. wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Zak wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>There seems to be a big variance in recorded temps. Howsabout
> > >>>>recording the
> > >>>>brand of device used (sunnto, aladin etc). This might let you iron
out
> > >>>>the
> > >>>>peaks and troughs.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>I'd hazard a guess that the big variance is caused by the depth the
> > >>>measurement was taken at.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>One bit of functionality of the original ascii version hasn't been
> > >>included yet which is the ability to see the number of individual
> > >>submissions of each temperature within a single day.
> > >>
> > >>It appears that the graphs include data from all submissions
> > >>irrespective of year. The temperature variations could be because the
> > >>graphs are using data from a number of years. I think the graphs are
> > >>very useful even as they stand but it might be useful to be able to
> > >>filter the data by year also.
> > >>
> > >>Simon
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Hactually...
> > >
> > > The ASCII version never had the ability to filter on year, and if you
> look
> > > closely at the both the year and month graphs you will see how many
> > > submissions there has been for the month or day in parentheses at the
> bottom
> > > of the bar...
> > >
> > > Filtering by year is pretty irrelevant at the moment given that the
> number
> > > of readings is quite small. So out with the logbooks...
> > >
> >
> > All I said was that the original ascii version had the ability to show
> > the number of each temperature value for each day. I never said you
> > could filter by year. So you might see that there were 4 readings of 10C
> > and 1 reading of 15C for a particular date. That single different
> > reading might be a rogue value or it could be correct but from a
> > different year - we just can't tell from the graphs (ascii or otherwise)
> > available.
>
> Ah! Got you now - I'll do that next time I'm bored at work!
>
> > I was responding to someone else's point that there was a large variance
> > in temperatures that might be due to different makes of temperature
> > gauges. I was pointing out that the difference in temperature might
> > actually be because the different values are from different years.
> > Without the ability to filter on years it's not possible to tell at
> present.
>
> I'm going to have to do some thinking around the year thing, and a whole
> pile of other things too, including statistical info, depth info, device
> info...
>
> > I've submitted all my dives at Stoney, about half a dozen, so I'd like
> > to think I'm doing my bit to make the database useful.
>
> You are one of our more prolific contributors - thank you very much.
Where
> are the majority of the rest of your dives?
>
> > Simon
> >
>
> CAS
>
>

We're trying!

CAS wrote:
> "Simon Dakin" <simon@REMOVETHISdakin80.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>I've submitted all my dives at Stoney, about half a dozen, so I'd like
>>to think I'm doing my bit to make the database useful.
>
>
> You are one of our more prolific contributors - thank you very much. Where
> are the majority of the rest of your dives?

Sydney, Australia. Temperature readings of limited use to this newsgroup!

Simon

Righto,

I've been buggering about again, to expand this out to temperatures for
other areas...

Now apart from the obvious (the other inland sites), I've come up with the
following areas just of the top of my head...

Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh
Kyle of Lochalsh to Carlisle
Carlisle to Liverpool
Liverpool to Aberyswyth
Aberystwyth to Bristol
Bristol to Penzance
Penzance to Southampton
Southampton to Margate
Margate to King's Lynn
King's Lynn to Middlesborough
Middlesborough to Edinburgh
Edinburgh to Aberdeen
Aberdeen to Inverness
Outer Hebrides
Northern Isles
Northern Ireland

....this gives me what I feel to be the "right" number of areas, not too many
so I can attract plenty of data for each one but not too long stretches to
keep the readings useful, I hope!

Anyone want to comment or move the points around?

CAS

PS. don't ask where the demo site is - cos it isn't! I've still got to put
in the depth field and test that first!
--
Temperature @ Stoney? Find it or share it @
http://stoneytemps.calumscott.me.uk/
"The measure of a man's wealth is the fewness of his wants" - Jack
Mullholand