<html><head></head><body><div class="ydp8a309d1byahoo-style-wrap" style="font-size: 16px; font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif;"><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif;"></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false" style=""><div style=""><div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal; background: white;"><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; color: black;"><font face="Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: inherit;">Good stuff, Sean, as
usual. I should not have used the word calibrate in regards to setting a
galvanic sensor according to the Luminox, for all the reasons you stated.</font></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal; background: white;"><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;"><font face="Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: inherit;"><br></font></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal; background: white;"><font face="Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;">Accurate calibration as
you have described is not without its own potential pitfalls. </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;">How accurate is the accuracy of the testing
instruments? That 100% O2 bottle you are going to use for calibration,
how pure is it, and how do you know? Did you flow enough gas over the
sensor for a long enough period to get it to stabilize?</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;">Did you calibrate that sensor in a
laboratory, your kitchen counter top, or the tailgate of your truck?</span></font></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal; background: white;"><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;"><font face="Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: inherit;"><br></font></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal; background: white;"><font face="Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;">In lieu of carrying around
extra bottles of testing gas, I think one way we can mitigate instrumentation
error is to simply not push our instruments to their limits whether analog or
digital, set conservative operational parameters, and purchase sensors with
full scale range near those chosen parameters. For example, does a 10% total
error on a 5000ppm CO2 sensor matter much if your operational requirement is to
surface when the gas level reaches 4000ppm?</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;">
</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;">Probably not.</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;">However, that same
10% error on a 100,000ppm CO2 sensor would make that sensor unusable for our
purposes.</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;">As well, there’s no need for a
0-100% O2 sensor if your operating parameters require surfacing at 25%.</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;">At actual 21% O2, the nominal +/-2% error of
a galvanic O2 sensor provides a potential reporting span of 19-23%.</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;">That would be outside my personal operating
parameters of 19.5 – 23.5.</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;">The same
nominal error on a 25% O2 sensor only results in a potential reporting span of
20.5-21.5 for the same 21% environment.</span></font></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal; background: white;"><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;"><font face="Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: inherit;"><br></font></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal; background: white;"><font face="Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;">Regardless of all these
variables, I think we have to approach instrumentation from the perspective of practicality
for a particular application.</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;">Would I
use a $99 O2 sensor if I were diving into the Marianas Trench? No, but
for an hour at 100-300 feet in a lake, yes, it's good enough. Is single
point in-air calibration of a CO2 or O2 sensor the best method of reducing the
sensor error band?</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;">No, but in my opinion
it’s a much better option than relying on your body to sense stale air or observing
changes of an analog pressure gauge and attributing those changes to PpO2.</span></font></div></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal; background: white;"><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;"><font face="Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: inherit;"><br></font></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal; background: white;" dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span style="font-size: 9.5pt;"><font face="Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: inherit;">Jon</font></span></div><br></div><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif;"><br></div>
</div><div id="ydp91abeb3yahoo_quoted_7694681056" class="ydp91abeb3yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Friday, November 27, 2020, 03:48:17 PM EST, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles@psubs.org> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="ydp91abeb3yiv1998930088">I just thought I would share a couple of thoughts regarding calibration, because I noted Jon mentioning possibly using a sensor with a 25% range to calibrate a galvanic sensor with greater range, and while you might be able to get in the ballpark for a linear calibration factor, strictly speaking this is not a proper calibration.<br><br>In general, the range of your calibration standard should always match or exceed the range of the device you are calibrating, for a couple of reasons. The first is that while extrapolating a linear factor can indeed produce a reasonable slope estimate, you lose the ability to generate linearization data via lookup tables or polynomial corrections that are applicable within the calibration range once that range is exceeded. The second is that absolute error may be proportional to reading, but may also increase in the domain beyond the calibration range, and you are then unable to characterize this error in the extrapolated region.<br><br>Calibrating one sensor against another one is subject to the accumulated maximum error of both, and while it may indeed be possible to obtain a very high accuracy calibrated sensor for use as a calibration standard, the more accessible standard for an oxygen concentration calibration outside of the laboratory is to use gases of known concentration at extremely high accuracy, and the easiest and most accessible standards to use are 100% inert gas (0% oxygen), dry atmospheric air (20.95% oxygen), and of course, 100% oxygen, because these are not subject to any sensor error. This gives you a three point calibration which, in contrast to a two point, will also provide some estimate of error in the regression, because the three points will never be perfectly in line. That error, in turn, can be considered the minimum error apparent in any two-point calibration performed within a lesser range using the first sensor as the calibration standard, and of course the second sensor can also be independently calibrated against appropriate gases at two points within its range, just using the comparison against the other sensor to establish error bounds.<br><br>With CO2, in the absence of a custom reference standard calibration gas, you are limited to two point calibrations using oxygen or inert gas for 0 ppm, and atmospheric air for (as of today) 414 ppm. Again, for sub use you need to measure up to 5000 ppm, so this is technically not a proper calibration, because it extrapolates. To properly calibrate this sensor would require sourcing a certified high accuracy reference standard calibration gas, ideally at 5000 ppm CO2, so that your sensor calibration is entirely within the range of the calibration standard, and the three point calibration again provides you with an estimate of minimum error in the measurement.<br><br>This may not matter to most of you /us, but I point it out just for the sake of information. It is always good to be aware of the limitations of measurements. An instrument which reads to three decimal places can instill false confidence in its accuracy if the error in that measurement is on the order of the first or second.<br><br>Sean<br></div>_______________________________________________<br>Personal_Submersibles mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Personal_Submersibles@psubs.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Personal_Submersibles@psubs.org</a><br><a href="http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles</a><br></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>