TheScubaPanda
Contributor
I'm working currently on a project about surface gradient factors. Trying to experiment a little with it. I'm currently in a phase where I'm simulating randomly generated dive profiles and I want to track along the dive the Surface Gradient Factor (shorten SFGF later on).
Which is the gradient factor of the Buhlmann algorithm you would have if you were to instantly be on the surface. I find this parameter super interesting and I want to experiment with it.
Problem, I see a lot of articles online explaining Buhlmann algo. But no official data source for the ZHL-16C parameters. I also can't find anywhere an equation on how to "calculate a gradient factor at depth X (which obviously you replace with 1bar/atm at the surface for an SFGF).
I'm not even exactly sure how the tissue compartments m-values shall be calculated. I found a few implementations on github. But no one seems to agree.
Any idea where to find something a bit more "peer-reviewed" and robust computation method.
I think I'm pretty close I'm getting 15min of NDL with 40/70. However I get 20min with 40/85 and it shall be more (shall be 23). So something is off slightly. I'm now trying to understand where I did a mistake
Thanks a lot,
Jonathan
Which is the gradient factor of the Buhlmann algorithm you would have if you were to instantly be on the surface. I find this parameter super interesting and I want to experiment with it.
Problem, I see a lot of articles online explaining Buhlmann algo. But no official data source for the ZHL-16C parameters. I also can't find anywhere an equation on how to "calculate a gradient factor at depth X (which obviously you replace with 1bar/atm at the surface for an SFGF).
I'm not even exactly sure how the tissue compartments m-values shall be calculated. I found a few implementations on github. But no one seems to agree.
Any idea where to find something a bit more "peer-reviewed" and robust computation method.
I think I'm pretty close I'm getting 15min of NDL with 40/70. However I get 20min with 40/85 and it shall be more (shall be 23). So something is off slightly. I'm now trying to understand where I did a mistake
Thanks a lot,
Jonathan