Branches
Comments
[»]
Good
by Ice07 - Mar 11th 2007 10:16:36
Thanks, I like it very much.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
version info
by Bill Poser - Dec 14th 2005 00:19:18
There doesn't seem to be any way to find out what version of
frink a particular copy is, e.g. a -v command line option.
Is there? If not, how come?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: version info
by Alan Eliasen - Dec 14th 2005 02:21:35
> There doesn't seem to be any way to find
> out what version of
> frink a particular copy is, e.g. a -v
> command line option.
> Is there? If not, how come?
>
Because ye 'ave never asked, Bill, me laddie! I've had some version code
floating around, but I never checked it in. You'll note that the current
version of Frink (2005-12-14) does have a -v or --version
command-line switch to display the version number and exit. Please see
the Command-Line Options section of the documentation. Hope this
helps! I may add a feature to access this programmatically later.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Frink missing Saybolt seconds?
by John Deters - Mar 1st 2004 22:04:07
Hi Alan,
As a fan of conversion utilities (you might take comfort in the fact that
you're not alone,) I was just blown away by Frink. So, I've been reading
units.txt (very humorous in spots, btw :-) and passed by viscosity without
seeing Saybolt seconds, the measure of which is how motor oil is marketed
in the U.S.
A quick google turned up a somewhat inadequate conversion chart on pump.net
I found a much better explanation here.
I don't know if you want to include any conversions (as according to Mr.
Longhurst the viscosity conversion appears to be empirically derived
rather than calculated.) But, I thought I'd drop you this note.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Frink missing Saybolt seconds?
by Alan Eliasen - Mar 18th 2004 08:11:57
Thanks for the references on the viscosity measurements! I looked a bit
further and, as you mentioned, these numbers seem to be empirically
measured at only a couple of very specific temperatures, so a conversion
to a single viscosity value may be pretty questionable. I'll do some
further research to see if this can be turned into a more continuous
function for a reasonable temperature range.
There are lots of similar physical-chemical measurements that I'd like to
put into Frink, but to do it right, there are usually many parameters that
need to be specified. For example, if you want to know the density of
carbon, you'd also need to specify at what temperature and pressure, and
what phase (e.g. graphite or diamond or buckyballs?) It's all feasible,
but the number of parameters that one needs to specify (or implicitly
accept defaults for) may be large.
Thanks for the suggestions! If you can suggest an interpolating function,
let me know!
[reply]
[top]
|
