O2 sensor values on CCR dives

[Davide DB]

On 7 December 2017 at 15:12, Jef Driesen <jef at libdivecomputer.org> wrote:
> So all three have and ADC offset of -1, although there are CCR dives
> present.
>
>> Regarding the question if sensor #2 was voted out. I don't think so. When
>> one or more sensors are voted out their pO2 value is clearly displayed in
>> yellow. I never saw something strange going on in water. I guess even the
>> SD software should report a similar event which is not.
>> From the Petrel manual I see that a sensor is voted out for a percentage
>> difference >= 20%. In the last part of my deco I see a max difference of
>> 10% I think.
>
>
> Well, what I see is the following. The patch I attached in my previous
> email, logs the millivolt (for each of the 3 sensors) and ppO2 values
> (respectively the stored average, the calculated average, the delta between
> the two, and also the 3 ppO2 after the conversion). To make it easier to
> filter on ppO2 values with a large delta between stored and average, those
> lines are marked with an extra "Voting" prefix. So you get something like
> this for each sample:
>
> Status 00: gasswitch=0 extppo2=0 setpoint=0 sc=0 oc=0
> mV: 54 55 54
> ppO2: 98 114.1 16.100 113.4 115.5 113.4
> Voting: 98 114.1 16.100 113.4 115.5 113.4
>
> (I've attached the full output for your dive.0001.bin file.)
>
> In this case there is a delta of 16.1 between the stored avgppO2 value (98)
> and the calculated value (114.1). But the values of the three sensors are
> reasonably close together. So that means this delta is clearly not due to a
> sensor being voted out. They all have the same amount of error from the
> stored avgppO2 value, and also every sample has this kind of large delta. So
> this is most likely an error in the conversion from millivolt to ppO2.
>
>
> If you compare this with the deltas I see in some of the other datasets
> where larger deltas occur, they look different:
>
> Status 00: gasswitch=0 extppo2=0 setpoint=0 sc=0 oc=0
> mV: 68 67 69
> ppO2: 123 132.2 9.213 121.9 149.3 125.4
> Voting: 123 132.2 9.213 121.9 149.3 125.4
>
> Again a large delta 9.213, but this time we have one ppO2 value (149.3) that
> is much larger than the other two (121.9 and 125.4). If we assume that
> sensor got voted out, and calculate the average over the remaining two, then
> we get an average value (123.65) that is close the the stored avgppo2 (123).
>
> This is a sample from the petrel.stevewilliams dataset. And there the voted
> bit for sensor 1 is indeed zero! I haven't checked all samples, but the few
> I checked were all similar.
>
>
> Now, the interesting part is that all three datasets show the same problem.
> What they have in common is not only that ADC offset of -1, but also the
> calibration value of 2100. Based on the other datasets, that appears to be
> some kind of factory default value. And the more I think about it, the more
> I believe that's the value we should be looking at. I assume you have
> calibrated your sensors at least once, right? In that case I would expect to
> see some different value from the default. None of the other datasets with
> CCR dives and extppo2 monitoring enabled have the default calibration value.
>
> If I do a simple linear regression (on your dive.0001.bin data) between the
> millivolt values and the stored avgppo2, then I find these calibration
> values for each sensor:
>
> Sensor 0: 1861
> Sensor 1: 1765
> Sensor 2: 1874
>
> On average that's a difference with a factor 0.873!
>
> Jef

I calibrate my two Petrels ALWAYS when I assemble my unit as part of
my checklist and ALWAYS the same day I dive and. No calibration No
party.
I made other dives and all of them show the same error. Shearwater
desktop tell me that everything is ok (like my Petrel underwater)
while Subsurface reports pO2 over 1.6.
Thank you for the detailed explanation.
Where do we go from here?

Bye

-- 
Davide
https://vimeo.com/bocio/videos