Overthinking on sensor accuracy

Davide DB dbdavide at gmail.com
Fri May 12 08:29:52 PDT 2017


Hi,

While thinking to the work on oxygen sensor data you are doing, I had
a couple of somewhat foolish thinking.

In eccr mode the unit is working at a given setpoint for part of the
dive. The set of ppO2 values from the three sensors will follow the
setpoint.  the set can be said to be precise if the values are close
to the average value of the quantity being measured, while the set can
be said to be accurate if the values are close to the true value of
the quantity being measured, aka the setpoint.

So my question is. Do you think will be possible to analyze those data
set (each data set is one sensor) to understand if there is one sensor
which show a different behaviour while measuring the ppO2?
Formerly, from my ancient college studies, I was thinking to the
variance but it express variation respect the dataset average value. I
think it's really a question of "accuracy".
I wonder if we can have a sort of accuracy of each sensor respect the
setpoint for each dive and maybe during the time I can spot an aged
sensor...

I'm realizing that the above doens't fit in mCCR mode where you do not
have precise setpoint. So I had another foolish thinking.

Perhaps more simply we could just correlate sensor readings trying to
spot if there is always a sensor value which distances from the
others. Maybe after several dives I could find that the same behaviour
comes from the same sensor. Again I could spot an aged sensor.
Something similar to the controller's voting logic but applied after
the dive to the entire dataset which we have.

Maybe it's something so obvious that already other people tried to do
something like this proving it wrong.

l go dive.

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


More information about the subsurface mailing list