So Lee, is that is what it does -  calculate nitrogen loading based on air
but N2 clock exposure based on 50% ?

Bjorn

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Catron" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 23:54
Subject: Re: [SCUBA-SE] Call Me Old Fashioned


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J.M. Vitoux" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 09:21
> Subject: Re: [SCUBA-SE] Call Me Old Fashioned
>
>
> > Steven Catron wrote:
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Bjorn Vang Jensen" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 02:31
> > > Subject: Re: [SCUBA-SE] Call Me Old Fashioned
> > >
> > > > > One computer sets itself to a mix that totals more than 100 ???
> Why ?
> > > Sounds like the when computer doesn't know if you're using nitrox or
> air
> > > on a subsequent dive, it goes to the most conservative defaults (i.e.
> > > nitrogen for air, oxygen exposure for nitrox)
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - And why is 50% oxygen more conservative ?
> > > In terms of oxygen exposure, wouldn't using the highest 02 setting be
> the
> > > most
> > > conservative?
> >
> > In terms of O2 Toxicity yes. In terms on nitrogen loading definitely
> not.
> Right.  Ergo the nitrogen = 79% co-default.
>
> > Your remark had me re-read Lee's post under a new light. If indeed, the
> > computer by default sets Oxygen = 50% to track O2 toxicity/exposure and
> at
> > the same time Nitrogen = 79% (obviously a fictive mix) to track loading,
> it
> > results in the most conservative model (assuming that 50% is the maximum
> > setting).
> That's what I was trying to express.  :-)
>
> Steven
>
> Steven
>