<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/11/2014 12:36, Robert Helling
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:C911C97C-188E-4796-8575-03559848EBFB@atdotde.de"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>So, what shall we do? I would keep the concept of one current
cylinder (and explicit_first_cylinder determines that lacking
previous gas change events as above) and in the CCR gas let that
be the diluent and not O2. This lets deco/ceiling calculations
work as for OC (assuming fill_pressures is used) as well as the
partial pressure graphs. I would only change the gas use
calculations to use the current cylinder as is only for OC and
do that differently (now with two gases and adopted
interpolation rules) for CCR.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What do you think?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best</div>
<div>Robert</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Robert,<br>
Thank you for your thoughts.<br>
You are talking absolute sense. One needs to keep the code with OC
as the default calculation and add as little as possible to
implement CCR. Essentially, in CCR mode, for overall management one
needs to ignore the oxygen cylinder. But this is (ignorantly)
opposite to what my frame of reference was when I started adapting
the code (using cyl 0 as a base reference because this is what OC
does and, momentarily, ignoring the dil cylinder) So, in many
places I have to do a reversal of logic. It works OK presently, just
the reversal of logic results in cumbersome code that I am currently
trying to simplify/shorten. I will be spending quite some time with
it over the weekend.<br>
Kind regards,<br>
willem<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>