<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2019/08/10 17:04, Robert Helling
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:E2F5B1E5-6EC8-4FB0-880F-5109A8FA8927@atdotde.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Willem,<br class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 10. Aug 2019, at 16:10, Willem Ferguson <<a
href="mailto:willemferguson@zoology.up.ac.za" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">willemferguson@zoology.up.ac.za</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); text-decoration: none;" class="">An interesting
alternative, Robert. I am not happy with the deviation at
1.5 and 1.6. One would have to check what the effect of
these two points are on the power curve. What is the
effect on the overall fit of the power curve if one omits
those two points? What of a 3rd order polynomial that
could in principle accommodate the inflection at 1.4? I am
not averse to a mathematical solution because the linear
interpolation also causes some inaccuracy.</p>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">here is the same on a log scale:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I would not be happy to fit this with a line for all
points including the last two. Rather, I would use a new line
for the last three points (and extrapolate that) for values
above pO2=1.5bar.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Robert</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Robert, I think we are making good progress here. The only real
remaining question is what to do with pO2 values outside of the
domain(s) of the function(s) used. My feeling is that the approach
with the least error is to at least use a fixed value, e.g 1.65
for pO2 values outside the domain. The CNS toxicity above 1.65 is
highly unlikely to be less than that for 1.65. It is in fact
expected to be more. I am not sure that omitting it is
appropriate. I am worried about decompression at 6m which is right
on that limit and which (at least in my case) often varies between
1.45 and 1.7, especially in the sea.</p>
<p>I am quite please the way this discussion has gone.</p>
<p>Kind regards,</p>
<p>willem</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>
<br>
<div style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif">This message and attachments are subject to a disclaimer.<br>
Please refer to <a href="http://upnet.up.ac.za/services/it/documentation/docs/004167.pdf" target="_blank">http://upnet.up.ac.za/<wbr>services/it/documentation/<wbr>docs/004167.pdf</a> </span><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:105%;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">for
full details.</span></div>