CNS calculation headaches - follow-up

[Willem Ferguson]

On 2019/08/10 22:09, Willem Ferguson wrote:
> On 2019/08/10 20:30, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just looking at that graph, I'd be comfortable using the 4th-order 
>> approximation for the valid range (ie pO2 of 0.6-1.6, which is what 
>> we have data points for).
>>
>> I'd also think that the extensions _past_ that range look sane - BUT 
>> I think that if subsurface uses those extended areas, we should give 
>> a BIG BIG warning.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>>                  Linus
>>
>
> Your plan could work because when pO2 < 0.5 no CNS calculation is 
> made, so the part of the inaccuracy below 0.5 is irrelevant with 
> respect to the algorithm for calculating CNS toxicity. However, the 
> "bug report" we had about negative values highlights one issue: If 
> people plan or log dives with pO2>1.6, how should one handle these 
> badly-behaved data in terms of CNS so that a value as realistic as 
> possible is reflected?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> willem
>
>
Here is a part of the deco for a sea dive. Although most of the depths 
are a tiny bit shallower than 6m, there are regular occurrences of pO2 
1.7 and 1.75. Of course there are also many values lower than 1.6. But 
as a diver I would like as realistic an assessment of CNS as possible.

Kind regards,

willem




-- 
This message and attachments are subject to a disclaimer.

Please refer to 
http://upnet.up.ac.za/services/it/documentation/docs/004167.pdf 
<http://upnet.up.ac.za/services/it/documentation/docs/004167.pdf> for
full 
details.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: deco_section.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25414 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20190810/b8da8f47/attachment-0001.png>