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.
_______________________________________________
subsurface mailing list
subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org
http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
