<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Willem,<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 10. Aug 2019, at 15:19, Robert Helling <<a href="mailto:helling@atdotde.de" class="">helling@atdotde.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span 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; text-decoration: none; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">PS: The original problem arose as the interpolated table value is used in the denominator of the cns += formula and would result in a pole when the extrapolated table value reaches 0. Maybe we should redo the whole thing and linearly interpolate the inverses of the table value rather than the table value. For those an extrapolation would be more sensible.</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">here is another idea: With the exception of the values above pO2 of 1.5bar, a power law is actually a pretty good fit to the table:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""></div></body></html>