Changing from Metric to Imperial ???

[MD3WSP]

I decided that it would be better if I displayed the rain level in inches as opposed to millimeters, I changed this on the main Watson unit, and then also in the Cumulus software, now thinking back to my logging problem that I had I disconnected the Watson USB lead, then shut down the software, reconnected the lead, and then started the software.

All OK, data is being read OK, but the webpages are still displaying metric values for the rainfall.

Is it posible to change these after it has been logging for a while?

James

[MD3WSP]

Please ignore this topic, it was my fault, I noticed that software had not updated the website since last night, this was down to me.

Sorry for the trouble.

James

[steve]

As it says in the help file, you can't change units once you've chosen them.

However, this shouldn't be causing the problem you're seeing. The problem it causes is that your stored data will have been recorded in mm and Cumulus will now assume it was stored in inches, so you'll have 25.4 times as much rain recorded for all the days before you switched units. If you want to switch units, you'll have to discard your old data, or edit your data files to correct them - I suspect that in your case this will not be such a great problem.

I can't explain why the web pages are still showing mm - is the actual Cumulus display showing mm or in? When you bring up the settings screen, is it showing inches or mm selected?

I'm curious at your decision to switch, I know the IOM isn't actually part of the UK, but do you really normally use inches over there for rainfall?

[TNETWeather]

As it says in the help file, you can't change units once you've chosen them.

However, this shouldn't be causing the problem you're seeing. The problem it causes is that your stored data will have been recorded in mm and Cumulus will now assume it was stored in inches, so you'll have 25.4 times as much rain recorded for all the days before you switched units. If you want to switch units, you'll have to discard your old data, or edit your data files to correct them - I suspect that in your case this will not be such a great problem.

In an ideal world, this should make no difference to the "stored" data used by the software and why I believe the "stored" data should be in a fixed format unchanged by the users selection of "Displayed" value format.

Using a fixed format means that what the user chooses for "Display" format makes no difference. They could flip back and forth at will with no effected on the valuable "stored" weather data.

It certainly makes it easier for the software to keep track of data without having to know which value is stored as which value format.

As for displaying the values contained in the stored data, A truly international site will display the information in both formats so that the visitors from outside the locale can easily understand the values. Instead of "displaying" just the temp in Fahrenheit (110°F), they would represent the data in both formats 110°F (43.3°C). Barometric values can easily be represented by all three common display formats as well.

Conversion between formats is fairly easy once you know what the raw data is stored as. And the importance of the stored data, accurately and reliably is one of the primary aspects of why you would want to hook a computer up to a weather station in the first place.

[steve]

Yes, we've had this discussion, and I explained why it is like it is. With hindsight, I wouldn't have done it like this. The first version of Cumulus didn't even have an option for selecting the units, it used the units I wanted to use, and that was it!

But I think if someone wants true accuracy and reliability, they need to be spending a great deal more than most of us here have spent on our equipment, they need to be siting their sensors to Met Office (or whatever) standards, and they certainly need to be spending more than £0.00 on their software!

[TNETWeather]

The first version of Cumulus didn't even have an option for selecting the units, it used the units I wanted to use, and that was it!

I would think that most of the software available today, started out with similar circumstances. Whole corporations exist today based on products that started out as something someone did in their garage as a hobby. A couple the come to mind.. Apple, Google, MySQL, etc... A lot of great ideas start out that way.

But I think if someone wants true accuracy and reliability, they need to be spending a great deal more than most of us here have spent on our equipment, they need to be siting their sensors to Met Office (or whatever) standards, and they certainly need to be spending more than £0.00 on their software!

Why do you have to spend a lot of money to get accurate data. And as for siting, I think you might be surprised at where and how a lot of US "Official" weather stations are located. Many amateur weather stations have as good or in some cases better siting.

As for spending money on a weather station.... I think people spend more than they realize.. The last time someone asked me how much I spent, I came up with a figure of close to $4000US. The cost of the station itself is one thing, but the dedicated computer, the internet connection, electricity, additional sensors (Lightning Detector) and of course the amount of time that I've spend designing the pages, writing the scripts etc... added up to a sum that was a bit surprising... It is a lot more now.

Its quite common for a project to start out and run into issues that require a restart and rebuild to continue on as a more flexible, stable and better project than first anticipated as a result.

[steve]

Regarding the poor siting of official sites, I understand that some of the UK Met Office are "dubiously" situated too.

I've started putting some thought into switching to storing data with fixed units...

[dc1500]

[quote The last time someone asked me how much I spent, I came up with a figure of close to $4000US. ]

That'll be about £20 now then

Dave