On 2019/08/10 17:04, Robert Helling wrote:
Willem,
On 10. Aug 2019, at 16:10, Willem Ferguson
<willemfergu...@zoology.up.ac.za
<mailto:willemfergu...@zoology.up.ac.za>> wrote:
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.
here is the same on a log scale:
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.
Robert
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.
I am quite please the way this discussion has gone.
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
