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
--
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.
_______________________________________________
subsurface mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
