Two more rebreather patches

[Robert Helling]

On 27.10.2014, at 12:10, Rodrigo Severo <rodrigo at fabricadeideias.com> wrote:

Rodrigo,

> AFAICT the consensus about diluent consumption  is that it should be
> calculated as if spend only during descends.
> 
> In other words, use the same method to calculate for OC, but consider
> that during ascends and when maintaining depth the consumption is
> zero. Distribute all consumption on descends taking in consideration
> depths.


what I meant was: I did not yet have time to code it. You are more than welcome to send a patch. Let me mention a few thoughts:

Not diving rebreathers myself, I can only guess how that would be computed. I would think that when descending from depth d1 to d2 with associated ambient pressures depth_tp_mbar(d1) and depth_to_mbar(d2) and the total loop volume (the actual rebreather loop plus your lung volume) is V than we need a total volume of

(depth_to_mbar(d2) / depth_to_mbar(d1) - 1) * V

of dillutant. This means that at least V is another parameter from the preferences (actually per dive) that the user needs to supply. If we track O2 consumption as well, we need the metabolism rate for that as well (but we have that for PSCR anyway). This needs UI and we should be a bit careful not having too many options/parameters.

What I am more worried about is that “dillutant is consumed on descent” only considers significant descents. So we should not just compare the current depth with that of the previous sample as otherwise we would pick up all the noise from the depth sensor. Just as an example: The depth resolution of my Vytec is one foot (or 30cm). This means that even when I think I am at constant depth the reading in the samples tends to oscillate by that amount due to sensor noise. That mean that on average on every other sample (i.e. every 20s) I am descending by 30cm. Over a one hour dive this sums up 54m of completely bogus descent (which if taken into account would completely ruin any dillutant consumption calculation as this is likely the order of magnitude of the total descent. To avoid this amplification of noise we have to take into account only “real” descends that are big enough in magnitude to make the CCR actually add dillutant which it does not when you hover around one depth and only oscillate slightly.

What do you think?

Best
Robert


-- 
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oO
Robert C. Helling     Elite Master Course Theoretical and Mathematical Physics
                      Scientific Coordinator
                      Ludwig Maximilians Universitaet Muenchen, Dept. Physik
                      Phone: +49 89 2180-4523  Theresienstr. 39, rm. B339
                      http://www.atdotde.de

Enhance your privacy, use cryptography! My PGP keys have fingerprints
A9D1 A01D 13A5 31FA 6515  BB44 0820 367C 36BC 0C1D    and
DCED 37B6 251C 7861 270D  5613 95C7 9D32 9A8D 9B8F




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20141027/c72922df/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20141027/c72922df/attachment.sig>