Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Esat, you misunderstand. If I am diving and I see that two sensors are off and one is on (by my belief system), then I am comfortable diving that one sensor shallow forever or deep as I move shallow. In other words, I wouldn't bail out of a shallow dive if I have a 1.0 setpoint and sensor one = 1.0; sensor 2=0; sensor 3=0. If I was deep, I would move to shallow. Same as if sensor 1=1.0, sensor 2=5 and sensor 3=4. If you lose faith in the ability of buffers to buffer, then you'd best give up lab science and do computer dive simulations. Same for my sensors. Rod On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, EE Atikkan wrote: > [Much rebreather philosophy snipped] > , I would turn > >off electronics and manually dive it for whatever time was appropriate > for > >the depth- shallow forever, deep until I got shallow. For > non-rebreather > >divers and for non-diving-scientist-rebreather experts, this is a hard > >concept to swallow. A physiologist/biochemist must know and trust > buffers; > >a CC rebreather diver must know and trust sensors. > > Though knowledge of suitability of buffers is essential to run an > experiment, trusting them is another matter. > > The buffer capacity of a given sol'n is conc. dependent, which is > checked using elecronics & primary standards. Thus it is not trusting > the buffer as much as trusting the parameters that are measured vis a > vis that buffer. I would proffer that the same would apply to sensors > & if one, by gut feeling, is deemed accurate & used, while the other > two R rejected, some re-evaluation of the method should be considered. > > Regards > > Esat Atikkan > > -- > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@terra.net'. > Send subscription/archive requests to `techdiver-request@terra.net'. >
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]