Talk:Rebreather

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rebreather[edit]

Diving Rebreather Manufacturers
Ambient Pressure Diving (http://www.ambientpressurediving.com/) - closed circuit rebreathers
Drager (http://www.draeger.com) - semi-closed circuit rebreathers
Halcyon (http://www.halcyon.net/index.shtml) - semi-closed circuit rebreather
Kiss (http://www.jetsam.ca/) - closed circuit rebreather
Steam Machines (http://www.steammachines.com/) - rebreather
Is the entry name "Kiss" valid here? I thought that this "KISS" is short for "Keep It Simple, Stupid" and is a generic noun for a type of home-made rebreather and not a maker's name or tradename. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 October 2004 (UTC)[reply]

KISS is perfectly valid because each of the current models is suffixed with KISS and referred to as the: Sport KISS or Classic KISS. (Sport KISS owner) 195.171.114.69 James Laver 12:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both are suffixed because they are identified with a brand, using a Constant Mass Flow of O2. Many rebreathers use a KISS principle but are not associated with that brand. The use of the term is advertising, and serves no useful purpose. It is there fore removed from the title above in accord with Wikipedia guidelines. Further on the advertising, two images of current rebreathers in the article are of a sports rebreather from the same manufacturer, and shows nothing of their operation. It is suggested either both be replaced, or one replaced by another brand to give a representative article free of advertising. Incidentally, the above list is very out of date, and was out of date even when first proposed. 79.135.110.169 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We use photos that are available. If they are all of the same model, that is still better than none. If you have good images suitable for the article, please feel welcome to upload them to Commons in Commons:Category:Diving rebreathers and link to them in the article or here, and someone will make use of whatever looks best for the application. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

artificial gills[edit]

has there ever been an attempt to make artificial gills to remove dissolved oxygen from the water, or is this purely science fiction at this point? - Omegatron 18:02, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

According to http://www.wetpaper.com.au/student/chapters/24.html "In sea water, the average amount of oxygen is 7 ppm". Roughly, this means 1,000,000kg (a 10x10mx10m cube) of sea water holds 7kg of oxygen or roughly 5,000 litres (7kg / 1.42 kg/m3) at atmospheric pressure. The most economic diving equipment for oxygen consumption is the rebreather where divers typically consume 1 of oxygen l/minute, so, the diver would need to pass at least 200 litres (200 kgs) of oxygenated water through 100% efficient gills each minute to stay alive. Mark.murphy 20:11 Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
LIKE A FISH – REVOLUTIONARY UNDERWATER BREATHING SYSTEM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegatron (talk • contribs) 12:48, 8 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Types of rebreather[edit]

I don't think that Potassium Superoxide or cryogenic rebreathers belong in a section titled "Main rebreather design variants", given that they're basically non-existant. If they're to be mentioned at all, I think it should be in a section dealing with uncommon or theoretical rebreather designs. David Scarlett 05:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not correct: MSA produce a potassium superoxide rebreather for surface emergency rescue purposes - the MSA AirElite 4h. Reference to this should be added to the article. 212.129.109.176 (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I built and patented an MSR variant rebreather used on Mt. Everest in 1986. See: http://www.velocitypress.com/closedcircuit.shtml. Tholzel (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says: "Oxygen rebreathers are no longer commonly used in diving because of the depth limit imposed by oxygen toxicity. However, they are still the most commonly used for industrial applications on the surface, (SCBA) such as in mines, due to their simplicity and compact size." However, during a informal excursion on the naval base in Den Helder, the netherlands, I was shown and told that the marines that dive still use the pure oxygen sets. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a source, but perhaps this sentence can, for the time being, be omitted as it doesn't seem to be true. water1309

  • Oxygen rebreathers are very widely used underwater by naval divers. They are some of the most widely used rebreathers in use today, with 5 companies producing these.79.135.110.169 (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment, The article has been changed. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"a diver --- their rebreather", and suchlike[edit]

  • The traditional use of "they", "their", etc as plural has been a handy way to distinguish singular from plural in English, ever since Anglo-Saxon took the Old Norse pronoun þeir in Viking times, and I see no need to mess it up now by using "they" as singular, or to get up to contorted sentence constructions, merely to avoid using gendered pronouns which have been in English and its ancestors ever since Common Germanic times. Giving clear information about rebreather use is more important than paranoia about avoiding a few gendered pronouns. Anthony Appleyard 17:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The traditional use of "they", "their", etc as singular has been a handy way to refer to someone without specifying a gender in English ever since the 14th century by such authors as Chaucer, Shakespeare, Spenser, Swift, Dickens, Orwell, Auden, and Jane Austen, and I see no need to mess it up now by insisting that the word must be plural, merely to enforce alleged grammatical rules that don't hold up when subjected to historical scrutiny. Giving clear information about rebreather use is more important than adhering to outdated notions about gender. (P.S.: The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed, explicitly recommends use of singular "they," though sadly the editors removed that recommendation in 15th ed, preferring to remain silent on the question.) --Elysdir 06:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In most of the old uses of "they" as singular that I have seen, there is an "each" or equivalent in the sentence, e.g. "... the army ... each ... they", where there is influence from the plural. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much advertising linkspam[edit]

  • need some consensus on which of the links scattered round the page are valid and which are linkspam/ads... --Firien § 14:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, maybe helpme isn't the right template here? Anyone know of a better one? 14:07, 28 June 2006 User:Firien
  • All these links are valid.There is:-
    • A list of manufacturers at the end.
    • In a few places, a mention of who made a type of rebreather which is being described.
Leave these links alone. Anthony Appleyard 17:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming and Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided provide some guidance. I'd be happy to see the whole set of manufacturer external links removed. Perhaps just mention notable manufacturers in the article instead.--Commander Keane 14:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point number 3 under Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided specifies links to sites intended to sell products. Manufacturer links certainly seems to qualify. I think the section should be struck. croll 15:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of these manufacturers have been important in developing makes of rebreather. Also, many people look in Wikipedia for practical information, and this section, a handy list of rebreather makers written NPOV without spam-type clutter and praising their wares, is practical information. Leave it alone. Anthony Appleyard 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To that end, manufacturers such as Tide have contributed to the development of detergent but we don't list them even as examples of detergent. (Example straight of the wiki policy.) Virtually all manufacturers contribute to the development of a product. I don't see how these are different. Further, there are a lot of exemplar links to sites other than manufacturers. croll 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. - I added a "may contain spam" header to that section. After some discussion from other parties and once we come to a concensus it should be removed.[reply]
  • Many people look at Wikipedia for practical information. That includes finding where things are made. This page is the only place that I know of (except Wikipedia echoes) where there is a list of rebreather makers plain and not mixed with spam and pictures and other matter. Where something is made is as valid a piece of information as anything else about it. Particularly as each maker's web site contains more useful information about the rebreathers that that firm makes: information much more relevant to divers than information about detergent makers is to a housewife. Leave it alone. If a piece of information is no interest to any one reader, that reader should not casually delete it, because it may be interesting or useful to someone else. Anthony Appleyard 10:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does nothing to address the point about the wikipedia policies. To the contrary, it helps prove the point. It sounds like you're saying the links should stay because it's a helpful compilation of sales links in one convenient spot. That is not what wikipedia is for. How does listing them not violate the policies? croll 13:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not only sales links: their web sites also have useful information about those rebreathers. Anthony Appleyard 13:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be true, but when I checked them yesterday some of the links were dead and others really didn't offer any information as to the technology or information aside from how their version is better than others. There are lots of links that provide helpful information in this article (too many, IMO). I don't see why links to manufacturer pages that are biased towards sales should be included. WP:WWIN, 1.5 and 1.7, WP:LINKS, 4.1. *shrug* Regardless, I appreciate your point -- I think we just disagree. Let's wait for some other to chime in and try to come to a concensus. I promise, I won't touch the links in the meantime. :) croll 13:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these manufacturer links are currently 404 :: I just looked thru them. Except that http://www.heliox.com/ says "Back soon / Down for scheduled maintainance". Many of these linked sites have good big useful images of these rebreathers. Hundreds of Wikipedia pages point to manufacturers' sites. Anthony Appleyard 13:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because other articles have those links doesn't mean it's okay. I'll double-check the links; I'm sure you're right, but one of the first four was down yesterday. croll 13:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC) ... Yup, just the heliox site.[reply]
  • I think that all the links there are very useful for individuals to find out more - without the manufacturers then there would not be a page here in existence. And most of the other links are very informative. 20:38, 22 March 2007 User:217.44.226.103
  • The Heliox site is dead and I deleted the link. croll 21:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of spam on this page. Every picture of a current rebreather relates to one specific manufacturer, or a kit for that manufacturer's products. On the rebreather manufacturers list I removed Aii and Teledyne, as they make components used by some equipment rather than rebreathers. Also removed reference to DEMA awards that was alongside one manufacturer's name, especially as the award did not relate to a rebreather but to another product. A Wikipedia page should strive for accuracy, and not succumb to being yet another marketing opportunity. 212.129.109.176 (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link spam, deux[edit]

The "Manufacturers" type of section, while expansive, is generally not considered "bad" on Wikipedia to my knowledge, though it should probably be listed last in the "links" area.

I added the cleanup-spam template to the section about "innovations", however, as that is obvious linkspam. However, as I'm not a subject matter authority, I'll leave it to more knowledgeable folks to fix it appropriately. At most, such links should be presented as footnotes, not inline links -- but I would guess that these are not the only companies making such devices. Todd Vierling 22:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd -- thanks. I guess this is enough for a very unofficial "keep" consensus for the external links issue above (since there was never a formal question on it). Still think y'all are wrong but I can live with that. ;-) If it comes up again, you know where I stand. I'm also reluctant to delete anything on this article as I'd likely cut all those links, so -- like you -- I'll leave it to someone else. Peace. croll 21:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The innovation section appears to only be wiki-links now -- nothing external. Since there seems to be some mild concern about the external links section, I moved the cleanup-spam template there instead. Feel free to remove it from that section as well. Brainsik 05:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to flog a dead horse, but WP:NOT states quite clearly that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, i.e. articles are not collections of external links or Internet directories, which is where the list of links to rebreather manufacturers belongs. Yes, it may be useful, but as croll pointed out, that does not necessarily mean it should be in an encyclopedia (otherwise we'd have lots more recipes ;) ). Also, the links are to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services (criterion #4 of links normally to be avoided). I too think we should delete the manufacturers section. ~ Danelo 06:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just checked all the external links: 2 duplicates deleted, a 404 deleted, a link updated. Anthony Appleyard 10:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to just be bold and I got rid of the Manufacturers section --Naruto Tron 22:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, I think this is getting completely out of control yet again. There are now 49 external links... that's ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. I have never seen such a long list of external links on any article aside from this one, and all efforts by various editors to bring it under control have been reverted or ultimately added back in at a later date. I asked the Wikiproject External Links folks to take a look at it to try to get an outside opinion. croll (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., That doesn't even include the links to manufacturers which are now in their own section, "Some makes of rebreathers", a mix of links to other articles and to corporate websites. So, 50+ external links. croll (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think a careful review of the external link guidelines would result in the removal of the majority of links that are there now, including most - if not all - of the links to manufacturers websites (which are sites that primarily exist to sell products or services and thus violate guideline #5). An outside opinion would be good to have on this. ~ Danelo (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each manufacturer's link contains useful information, which it would be tedious to all repeat in this article, and useful images which cannot be copied into Wikipedia because of copyright, about that manufacturer's products. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because they might be "useful" doesn't mean they should all be listed here. Wikipedia is not supposed to become a repository of links, which is what this article looks like. In addition to a slew of manufacturer sites intended to hawk products, many of these sites are in foreign languages (but yes, they have pictures; a tenuous rationale IMO). I find it hard to understand how this is appropriate and consistent with Wikipedia Policy; I have never seen an article with so many external links (50+). I think it would benefit the article greatly to have this list culled to the five or so links that are the most helpful and informative and I'd be willing to help do that, but I also think there has been a degree of ownership asserted over this article that makes constructive editing extremely difficult. croll (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divers wanting detailed information about modern rebreathers might not agree. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously some of them don't, but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue or that the over-inclusion is consistent with WP:WWIN simply because they disagree. I would submit this for a request for comment but I'm not sure how. croll (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are rebreathers light?[edit]

  • I certainly wouldn't call any rebreather LIGHT except for a pure O2 rebreather (such as the military uses). They're heavy, heavy, HEAVY! 01:51, 1 September 2006 User:Cellosubmarine
  • Does that term refer to the buoyancy of the object? Despite how heavy an object might be, if it has positive bounancy then once it's in the water, it would be light. Banaticus 18:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here "light" refers to weighing the rebreather when out of the water. Anthony Appleyard 22:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And (ahem) my potassium superoxide rebreather for mountainineering use weighs FIVE pounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.97.215 (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC) block evasion Professor marginalia (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buoyancy control[edit]

I recall reading somewhere that buoyancy control with rebreathers is a totally different experince from open systems. Is that so? and if so, can it be put in the article? :) 85.225.87.57 (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shallow water blackout possible contradiction[edit]

The article provides two totally different explanations for shallow water blackout. First, it says, "Among British naval rebreather divers, this type of carbon dioxide poisoning was called shallow water blackout." then later "This makes hypoxia a deadly problem for rebreather divers: it was sometimes called "shallow water blackout"." This seems like a contradiction, but I'm not qualified to fix it. Can someone familiar correct this, clarify, and add references? Superm401 - Talk 09:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert, but I cannot imagine anyone not noticeing an excess of CO2. My experience atthe Army Cold Regions lab in Hanover, NH has been that even small amounts (<1%) of CO2 cause an acute sense of suffocation and engender rapid breathing.Tholzel (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request For Comment -- External Links[edit]

Are the Some Makes of Rebreather and the External Links sections consistent with WP:EL and/or WP:WWIN?

  • I've submitted a RfC for this article's external links section based on the inability of the current editors to agree on whether the current list is consistent with Wikipedia policy on External Links and What Wikipedia is Not. In short, several editors feel the current list of external and manufacturer links violates Wikipedia policy by turning the article into a repository of links, some of which are to sites in violation of WP:EL by going to sites primarily intended to sell products, in a foreign language, or personal pages. Other editors feel the links are to sites that provide useful information that divers and others interested in the article's content would find helpful and informative, thus the links are consistent with Wikipedia policy. Attempts by various editors to cull the list have been consistently reverted, and there appears to be an impasse. croll (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a fuzzy border zone between NPOV and spam :: web sites that contain some advertizing-type matter and some valid information. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do like the list as it is kept current and find the information useful. The rebreather page does not have a request for such a list because of this effort (ex. dry suit talk page). I do not have a problem with the list but would a link to another external list be one possible solution (though not currently as complete as this page)? Gene Hobbs (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be no commercial links in the section Rebreather#Other information sources, but only in the sections after. I removed http://www.rebreathers.it/Inglese/home.htm, which seemed to be 404. I have put Rebreather#Other information sources in alphabetical order. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, all the links that I removed was all against WP:ELNO because they are promotioning a company/forum or blog. For example, this page: [1] and this: [2] are forums/social networks, and, even if they may contain useful informations, like you said, it is still not alowed according to WP:ELNO. Also, I am pretty sure that this is NOT the only forum of this kind that exist in the world. What I mean is that if you can put the link of this forum on Wikipedia, then what about all the other similar forum that also contain useful informations? What are the people from the other forums are going to say: why this forum and not our's? If you can put the link of a forum, it also means that all the similar forums containing useful information can be put on Wikipedia too. If so, we will end up having 2,3,4... pages of links. I don't think that is what we want. It is also the exact same thing for the links of the manufacturers:they are not the only rebreather-maker company in this world. Even if they may contain useful information,these links are promotioning these companies; it is advertisement. DON'T FORGET, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DIRECTORY. Finally, if you guys/girls say that all these links respect the WP:EL, then why are you, Anthony Appleyard, are putting back the templates that says: "The external links in this article may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines." and "This article may contain spam." ? It is really contradictory from what you said and what you did. Thank you. Jolenine (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But they DO provide a "provide a unique resource", namely many images of makes of rebreathers, and descriptions of them. Information about so many makes of rebreather may be "scuba-gear-cruft" to some people, but is relevant and important to many scuba divers. See User:Gene Hobbs's message above. For example, one useful link which was deleted is "A history of closed circuit oxygen underwater breathing apparatus, published in 1970, plenty of images, including mountaineering rebreathers": it is good information about early rebreathers
    • It would be useful if we could discuss separately these subsets of this list:
      • "Surface-only (industrial) rebreather manufacturers", "Diving rebreather manufacturers", "Makers of parts for rebreathers": which I admit are commercial links (which answers the end part of User:Jolenine's last message above), but have many good images which are copyright and thus not available in other web sites.
      • "Other information sources", "Notable former diving rebreather manufacturers": these are not advertisory as far as I can see.
      • "Rebreather-related forums" :: I appreciate User:Jolenine's message above, but to people wanting information about rebreathers, where to find a good relevant forum is useful information. To find those forums I had to scavenge and ask all over the place; easier to find those links to forums here. I was not intending to list every scuba forum that exists.
      • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, OK, I have found other housing for the list of commercial links. Is this new format OK? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you thin out this list, please do not revert, but work from the current version and delete or comment out the links which you do not want. That way, a compare will show easily what has gone or changed or appeared. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page from when I was doing cleanup on the Kiss (disambiguation) page. There, we have an entry for Kiss which directs people to this Rebreather page, but the only mention of "Kiss" here is a listing for the Kiss rebreathers. This listing has no other sources than a link to the company webpage. This makes me uncomfortable, because I feel it runs afoul of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and possibly WP:CORP. Now, if there are third-party sources, not directly affiliated with the company, which say that Kiss rebreathers are a notable example of this type of equipment, then I might be okay on including the information here in the Wikipedia article. Otherwise no, it's just a bit too spammy. And the idea that we'd use up a slot on a disambig page just to direct people here, also makes me uncomfortable. If we tried to do that for every brand name in the world, to whichever product page that brand name was for, I think we'd run into quite a bit of resistance very rapidly. Now, I did read the above comments, and I understand the debate between "useful links" and "scuba cruft", and I agree that this is a bit of a judgment call. The tipping point for me, is independent third-party reliable sources. So, add a couple sources, and the link can stay. If not, it should probably be removed. --Elonka 23:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links again[edit]

  • I saw that somebody returned a batch of external links to the article and upon seeing the mass linkfarm that was already there I set about trimming the links that were in violation of WP:EL. Please, please, read over WP:EL before discussing the links or adding any more to the article. Thank you, Themfromspace (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is still in need of cleanup and I intend to restore the {{External links}} template. Per WP:MOSLINK, it is much better to avoid using external links in the body of the article. The information contained in them should be incorporated into the text and they should be converted to citations to support that information, or they should be moved to an "External links" or "Further reading" section if the information they contain is relevant but impossible to incorporate. In the latter case, they will still need to meet the requirements of policy in WP:EL, particularly the prohibition on links to "chat or discussion forums". As for the current external links, all but the copyrighted images could be incorporated into the article, as long as they meet WP:V. If they don't meet WP:V, they shouldn't be in the article anyway. --RexxS (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just added the template after many of the links I removed were restored without comment. Take a look at which were readded and let us know what you think of them. I think the article just got turned back into a linkfarm. Themfromspace (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the links that just got added, the links to links to the companys shouldn't be added because Wikipedia isn't a place to promote specific companys. This is an article about rebreathers in general, not about buying rebreathers. Wikipedia shouldn't point people to specific companys. I object to the link to therebreathersite dot nl on a ground that I normally don't use and that is ELNO#5, which deals with pages with objectionble amounts of advertising. That link is to a linkfarm in itself! Finally, the nobubblediving site is a dead link. Why were these links readded if not for promotion purposes? Themfromspace (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) To be honest, I don't think any of the 37 external links scattered around the article should be there, but I'm willing to compromise. However:
    • WP:ELNO number 1 says avoid "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." - that would dispose of most of them.
    • Number 2 says avoid "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." - much of the information pointed to by the links would probably be "unverifiable research" as it is unlikely to meet WP:RS.
    • Number 5 says avoid "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services" - which several links fail to meet.
    • Number 9 says avoid "Links to any search results pages" - there's at least one link to a Google search.
    • Number 10 says avoid "Links to social networking sites, chat or discussion forums/groups, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists." - which disqualifies any links to forums.
    • Number 13 says avoid "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject" - which in my humble opinion removes the scubadoc link on shallow water blackout, particularly as we have a wikipedia article that could be linked if relevant.
    • Number 14 says avoid "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers." - which covers an entire subsection.
      • So, I submit that the onus is on anyone who wishes to add external links to justify them. If they meet WP:EL, I won't object. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why I have restored some of the deleted matter:
    • I restored ==Some makes of rebreather== because it was not a link-farm but partly internal Wikipedia blue-links and partly history of various makes of rebreathers. Please do not "throw the baby out with the bathwater", but please list and discuss about each link that seems to be undesirable.
    • I restored 5 other links. Particularly, Siebe Gorman was extremely notable in rebreather making and developing.
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I for one completely agree with Rexxs. Look at all the featured articles on this encyclopedia, they do not link around brand names and such. This is totally unacceptable and these links, most particularly the ones to the manufacturers, have to go. Anthony, up above I see you've been defending these links for literally years against others who have brought up similiar concerns. Please reread WP:EL to see that most of these links do not belong in this article. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Themfromspace (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reverted the links as it appears theres a strong consensus on this talk page to do so. Looking through the discussion it seems this problem has been going on for some time and at one time an RfC was called for the links. Looking through the comments, the users who agree that this is a linkfarm and the links to go are Firien, Carlroller, 212.129.109.176, Todd Vierling, Danelo, Naruto Tron, Jolenine, Elonka, RexxS, and Themfromspace. Users who agree the links should stay are Gene Hobbs, and Anthony Appleyard, who has been defending the links as an army of one against all of the above. Consensus clearly shows that the links should go. Anthony, do not revert them before discussing it here as you'd be editing against consensus. Themfromspace (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.therebreathersite.nl[edit]

  • The most important thing about external links is that they should add something that the article itself cannot do. This could be linking to official sites of the subject, but since the subject in this case is an object and not a corporation or a person it does not have an official site. External links can also be used to bypass copyright infriingement by linking to a copyrighted source. If a link can help out an article, try incorporating the text from the link into the article, but Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a linkfarm or to promote sites that you have a personal relationship with. And you do have a personal relationship with this site, Anthony, as you are personally thanked by the site and your own link is linked to. In that regard, please look over the conflict of interest guidelines for editng links which might generate traffic to your personal site.
    • Now as to the link itself, I already mentioned that it contains objectionable amounts of advertising. About half of the homepage is devoted to ads to other sites. Also, it doesn't offer up much that helps the encyclopedia or the article. The pages on the "Info about rebreathers" link do not need to be linked to as any appropriate material can be lifted from there and cited accordingly. The webshop shouldn't be linked to since it's a commercial business. The photo galleries, while interesting, do not need to be linked to since there's already another link to galleries and a photo of a rebreather on the article page. Any information that this site has that can help the encyclopedia can and should be implemented and sourced into the main article, but the site as a whole shouldn't be linked to. Themfromspace (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that http://www.therebreathersite.nl contains advertisement, to help pay for the man to run his site, but it (and the pages that it links to from the column of lines of text at mid left) contain a massive amount of good information. See http://www.therebreathersite.nl/08_Website_Related_Information/speed_menu.htm for a list of what is on his site. Wikipedia is not a hermitage, and in the real world people have to put up with seeing unwanted advertisement when going for something that they want. OK, OK, I have accepted loss of the big section ==Some makes of rebreather== that much of the trouble was about, same as earlier I accepted loss of the big list of rebreather manufacturers. Please, this is only ONE LINK. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your response, Anthony. May I clarify further, then:
    • Image gallery of .... Ideally, we would get permission to include such images on Wikipedia directly. I accept that may not be possible, in which case we should weigh the balance between linking to information and sites containing advertisement. There are a lot of good images there and I am willing to be persuaded that this link could be justified.
    • Rebreather Articles. WP:ELNO 11: "Avoid links to personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Wikipedia avoids directing readers to personal websites because the information there lacks verifiability. The standard is no less than that we require for information incorporated into articles. Anybody could write anything on a webpage and for that reason we neither link to personal pages nor use them as citations. The exception is if the webpage is written by a recognised authority on the subject. Wikipedia states that a minimum requirement for accepting someone as a recognised authority is that they meet our criteria for notability (usually proven by having a wikipedia article themselves, sorry if I wasn't clear about that). Personally, I agree that Verdier ought to be considered an authority on rebreathers, but I'd be hard-pushed to justify that to a non-diver. As an alternative, have you considered incorporating some of the interesting information from his page into this article? He has had several books published and I'm sure there would be enough citations from those to source such information.
    • The Rebreather Site - apologies, it's nothing to do with wikis. My concerns were about advertising and being a personal webpage (EL 5 & 11). I do think it's a good site, but what does a link to the homepage actually add to our article? Is there content in there that couldn't be in this article? The obvious part would be the image gallery there, and I was suggesting a deep-link (e.g. the Image Gallery page directly, rather than the homepage) could be much more justifiable, particularly a link like http://www.therebreathersite.nl/02_Photo_Galleries/Photos_O2_RB.htm if it were associated with something in the text to illustrate what certain types look like.
      • If people want to know who makes each sort of rebreather, then I would have thought something in the text on first mention of a particular model like " ... the Inspiration closed-circuit rebreather, made by Ambient Pressure Diving Ltd,[el 1] ..." would satisfy that. I don't see a reason to direct readers to the manufacturer's website directly, just the reference should be enough for those interested. Of course, if the manufacturer has a wikipedia article, then a link to that would be even better.
  • ^ "Inspiration for Divers" (in English and French). Ambient Pressure Diving Ltd. 2008. Retrieved 2009-01-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
      • I do understand that you want to have as much information easily available to readers as possible, but the best place for that information is in the article itself, with appropriate references. I'll try to find enough time to look hard at each of the external links in the article, and see if I can do some expansion using the sites as sources. --RexxS (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have ventured to put this link in:
      [http://www.therebreathersite.nl/08_Website_Related_Information/speed_menu.htm Janwillem Bech's big rebreather information site] (warning: contains advertisements)
      • Much of the complaints in #External links again referred to the links in the former big section ==Some makes of rebreather== (which I have not restored again), and not specifically to this one link to Janwillem Bech's site. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every bit of information on that site thats useful to the article can be correctly implemented into the article and cited. Stop adding the link or I'll report this to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard as you clearly have a conflict of interest when dealing with this link. Themfromspace (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But copying so much matter (rewording to avoid copyvio) would take a "month of Sundays", as people say here in England. That is why I found easier to link in. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For one thing, this article is already of substantial length. Try to find some potentially disputable statements and cite them from the rebreather site. External links aren't meant to substitute the article, they're meant to link to official sites of the article and material that doesnt belong in the article. Themfromspace (talk)

    Arbitration[edit]

    Anthony, your persistance in this really leads me to believe you have a close relationship with the site. Themfromspace (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The archive table-of-contents hasn't been updated yet. The discussion can be found at WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Rebreather. Please take to heart the advice there. This article is very short of references for its size. I'm sure there is much that could be cited from The Rebreather Site, as well as the possibility of adding material to the article using it as a source. --RexxS (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Other designs[edit]

    a mere bag-design (as used in offshore survival) is not mentioned. See http://www.seadolby.com/the_seafarer/BOISET.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.182.55 (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CO2 buildup[edit]

    In the section "controlling the mix", there is this statement: With humans, the urge to breathe is caused by a build-up of carbon dioxide rather than lack of oxygen. Rebreathers remove exhaled carbon dioxide with the scrubber, suppressing this natural warning. It seems unlikely to me that removing CO2 from the loop will suppress the urge to breathe. Compare the situation with open-circuit, where the exhaled CO2 is completely removed into the water! Am I missing something or does this need to be rewritten? --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you're missing something. This part of the article is absolutely correct. See the article on air hunger; it occurs when the body detects a high partial pressure of carbon dioxide. The rebreather operates by a chemical reaction which selectively removes carbon dioxide from the exhaled air, which is then breathed in again. In the case of an open-circuit system, the exhaled air is not breathed in again. 70.160.30.252 (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear enough. What you're missing is this: It doesn't matter one jot whether the air breathed comes fresh from a scuba tank or via a scrubber, which has removed the carbon dioxide. In either case the inspired air contains virtually no CO2. So how does the rebreather (any more than open circuit) "suppress the natural warning"? We get the urge to breathe (normally) because the blood pH rises as CO2 accumulates in the blood through normal metabolism. The idea that a rebreather has any effect on that is utter hogwash. --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In the absence of a scrubber or oxygen tank, using a rebreather is equivalent to breathing into a closed bag: do it long enough and the amount of oxygen in it drops while the amount of carbon dioxide in it rises. In this case you receive a natural warning to stop breathing from the bag and get some fresh air. In the case of a malfunctioning rebreather where the oxygen supply is cut off but the scrubber continues to remove CO2, you receive no warning (due to the lack of CO2), yet the air still isn't fresh (due to the lack of oxygen). Then you run out of blood oxygen and black out, with no warning -- this is the danger that this paragraph of the article is talking about. Maybe that needs to be made more explicit? 70.160.30.252 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In the absence of a scrubber or oxygen tank, you haven't got much left of a rebreather, have you? This isn't an article about breathing into a bag - that idea went out centuries ago. The problem with that paragraph is that it confuses a problem caused by failure to inject oxygen into the loop with the fact that the scrubber removes CO2. If a malfunction causes the ppO2 in the loop to drop much below about 0.15 bar, you'll become hypoxic, regardless of what the scrubber is doing. Exactly the same thing happens on open-circuit if you breathe a sufficiently hypoxic trimix bottom gas up to the surface. It's the fact that we get little urge to breathe from oxygen that makes these scenarios dangerous, not the scrubber removing CO2 - it's only doing its job. Anyway, I've tried a re-write of that section. I think I've described the problem without any mention of the scrubber - what do you think? Feel free to revert it and have a go yourself if you don't like my effort, I won't be offended <grin>. --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me. 70.160.30.252 (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Arrangement of sections[edit]

    Looking at the sections, they don't seem to have any logical sequence - particularly as "Advantages" is #3 and "Disadvantages" is #6. There's also quite a bit of content in "Parts" that describe how the rb is used, rather than describing the part - I'd suggest having a section on "Operation" where that could be usefully collected. I would suggest this sort of layout:

    1. Basics Purpose
    2. History of rebreathers
    3. Main rebreather design variants
    4. Parts of a rebreather
    5. Operation
    6. Advantages of rebreather diving
    7. Disadvantages of rebreather diving
    8. Sport diving rebreather Technology innovations
    9. See also
    10. References
    11. External links

    Since WP:HEAD recommends Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. ... headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated, I'd also suggest striking the parts of the section names as indicated. Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    NIOSH Docket # 123[edit]

    • A user commented out this link:
      • NIOSH Docket # 123, titled "Reevaluation of NIOSH limitations on and precaution for safe use of positive-pressure closed-circuit SCBA" is available at the link http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/review/public/123/default.html Public comment is sought from responder and manufacturer stakeholders not later than 30 September 2008.
      with the comment "Very outdated now, does this link have any useful info for the article any more?"; but please how is it outdated? What in detail is wrong with it? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response, Anthony. Two points:
    • Links in the "See also" section are for internal links to other Wikipedia articles. In this case, to NIOSH, where the reader will expect to find information relevant to Rebreather - but that article doesn't mention rebreathers.
    • The external link to http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/review/public/123/default.html takes the reader to a site where NIOSH is requesting comment on rebreather procedures, but the deadline was almost a year ago, so if the reader follows that link, they are no longer able to comment. I'm unsure what other value there would be to the reader in following the link.
    If you wanted to make the point that NIOSH consults and produces recommendations on procedures for operating rebreathers, I would suggest that is explicitly written into the article (with the http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/review/public/123/default.html site used as a reference). Hope that makes this clearer. --RexxS (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hans Haas Rebreathers[edit]

    Are there any mention of the rebreathers used by Hans Haas before WWII? When I was a kid I remember them being called as Haas Lungs, but google did not confirm that. I did find some info on http://www.therebreathersite.nl/Zuurstofrebreathers/German/hans_hass.htm, http://www.therebreathersite.nl/03_Historical/al_betters_hass_rebreather.htm, and http://www.protecblog.com/rebreather.html. Were they designed by him or he just walked into a store and bought them? SupremeDalek (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Efficiency of rebreathers[edit]

    The paragraph

    At depth, the advantage of a rebreather is even more marked. Since the generation of CO2 is directly related to the body's consumption of O2 (about ~99.5% of O2 is converted to CO2 on exhalation), the amount of O2 consumption doesn't change, therefore CO2 generation doesn't change. This means that at depth, the diver is not using any more of the O2 gas supply than when shallower. This is a marked difference from open circuit where the amount of gas used is directly proportional to the depth.

    has come under question as "not making sense". I'll try to explain and let's see if the wording needs to be modified.

    1. On the surface the ambient pressure is 1 bar. At rest, the air breathed in contains about 21% oxygen (O2) and the air breathed out contains about 17% O2. So the body has consumed about 4% of the O2 breathed in and converted it to carbon dioxide (CO2). Let's call the amount consumed 'X molecules of O2'.
    2. At 30 metres (100 ft) underwater, the ambient pressure is 4 bar. That means each litre of air breathed in now contains 4 times as many molecules of air - and that means 4 times as many molecules of O2. So the 'X molecules of O2' consumed now represent only 1% of the gas. And that means that the air breathed out is now about 20% O2. On open-circuit scuba, that's quite wasteful.
    3. Open-circuit scuba has to supply all of the gas for each breath, as the exhaled gas is lost into the water on exhalation. At 30 metres (100 ft) depth, it is losing 4 times as much as on the surface.
    4. A rebreather has only to replenish the amount of O2 consumed on each breath—an amount which does not change with depth—since the unused O2 is recirculated and re-used.
    5. As you can see, the rebreather is more efficient than open-circuit at the surface, since open circuit 'throws away' gas containing 17% O2; while at depth, it is even more efficient as open-circuit 'throws away' even more O2.

    So, does that explain the paragraph? If not, what needs clarification? If it does, then does the paragraph need re-writing to make it clearer? Comments welcome. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    External links again[edit]

    The article seems to be accumulating external links again. I'm sure the contributors are acting in good faith, but wikipedia has clear consensus on what is appropriate. WP:ELYES#3 states:

    What should be linked: 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

    and WP:ELNO#1 has this restriction:

    Links normally to be avoided: 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

    Wikipedia is not a directory of web-based resources, and information missing from the article should be added and cited. I'd request that editors consider carefully the guidance above before adding further external links. --RexxS (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Uses[edit]

    What about underwater complexes (eg those not connected to the surface, and those connected to the surface, but including a rebreather system on strategic sections for emergencies (eg if sections are closed off due to a breach causing a flooding and requiring sections to be sealed watertight.

    Include to article KVDP (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like a good addition. Where would we find the sources describing this? --RexxS (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The link : 28.^ "OC/DSV BOV FFM page". www.therebreathersite.nl. 2008. Retrieved 2009-03-03.[dead link] should or could be changed to the right article: here: http://www.therebreathersite.nl/01_Informative/BOV_page/BOV_page.html it is a unique link to pages with BOV listed. JanWillem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arawak3 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Good catch - thank you, Jan. I've updated the ref as you suggested. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tank capacity[edit]

    Under Feasibility advantages, the article states: "It is not uncommon for a 3 litre (19 cubic foot) diluent cylinder to last for eight 40 m (130 ft) dives."

    3 liters = 0.105944 cubic feet, and 19 cubic feet = 538 liters. I suspect that one value refers to tank volume, and one refers to volume of unpressurized gas. Should this be clarified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartoncasey (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right; countries that use metric designations for diving cylinders quote the internal volume. The convention in countries using imperial units is to quote the equivalent amount of unpressurised gas when the cylinder is filled to its working pressure (often 200 or 232 bar). A "19 cubic foot" cylinder will actually be a 2.7 litre (internal volume) cylinder pressurised to 200 bar. There's a clarification at Diving cylinder#Breathing capacity. I'm not sure if a clarification is needed here as a reader will be familiar with one or the other way of specifying cylinders, depending on where they live. --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already clarified. Didn't see the dicussion, just the article edit, and I think this will come up again, there are lots of people who are not familiar with the conventions in diving but still know what litres and cubic feet are, so have specified nominal capacity with a link to the section in diving cylinders. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "Information Sources" as a new Link Farm[edit]

    I admire the other editor's persistence in this matter, but this page is (once again) beginning to turn into a link farm. I just went through the "Information Sources" list at the bottom and removed two dead links and found one that was a duplicate link (also deleted). There's another duplicate link, but instead goes to a sub-page of the website. I'm not deleting this entire section again; other wikipedia editors can deal with article in a manner consistent with the arbitration archive linked above. But, Anthony, you are clearly passionate about this article, but if you're going to keep adding this stuff, at least make sure you're not putting in duplicates. croll (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Split article into Rebreathers and Rebreather diving?[edit]

    • Most of the article is about rebreather diving, so the name is wrong as it doesn't leave the generic name available for the generic equipment.
      A rename to Rebreather diving with Rebreather allocated to the generic would be more appropriate.
      Comment? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently either no-one noticed or no-one cares. I will put up a notice suggesting a split and give it a few more days. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which parts were you thinking of splitting off? The design and the function and the use of the parts of a rebreather are tied closely together. Aspects of rebreather diving that can be described separately, are already in other articles, e.g. oxygen poisoning and shallow water blackout. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the current article is about rebreather diving, so split off the parts about specific rebreather details to an article called Rebreather (including non-diving rebreathers) and rename this one to Rebreather diving. (technicalities probably the other way round). The article is already quite large, but there is a lot about the subject that could be expanded, and that would require a split soon anyway. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Article has been split. Cleanup under way. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rebreather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dubious claim, unreferenced.[edit]

    With a pendulum system, there may be two "fronts" where the absorbent is being used up, one advancing from each end of the canister. Unless someone can provide a reference soon, or explain logically why this should be true, I will remove this claim. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    B-Class review[edit]

    B
    1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.

      2. Needs more references. Too many existing references are bare urls and vulnerable to being lost. ☒N
    2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.

      3. Adequate coverage, could even be split. checkY
    3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.

      4. Structure reasonable, though it could probably be improved. checkY
    4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.

      5. Looks OK checkY
    5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

      6. Adequately illustrated. checkY
    6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

      7. Looks OK. checkY

    Not yet. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Closed circuit mixed gas rebreathers section graphic[edit]

    The diagram in the section 'Closed circuit mixed gas rebreathers' has missing and misplaced labels on the electronic components. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:90DE:4300:AC7C:E1D3:ACAA:5A63 (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well spotted, and thanks for letting us know. It has been fixed. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Merger proposal[edit]

    I suggest that Diffuser (breathing set part) should be merged into this article as for most purposes it is a part of the structure of a diving rebreather and is hardly ever found on open circuit diving equipment. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that we might have to follow the sources here, Peter. Although I agree that Rebreather would be the obvious choice to us, at least two of the four sources in Diffuser (breathing set part) discuss the use of specialised diffusers in conjunction with open-circuit scuba. That indicates to me that we ought to also consider the possibility of merging Diffuser into Scuba set, where all four sources would be relevant. What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point RexxS. I quite agree to merging any parts that are useful into the appropriate articles. My objection to the current article is that it is a subset of diffusers that just happen to be used in diving equipment, and a subset of component parts of diving equipment that happen to be diffusers. This is not a particularly notable way of distinguishing between diffusers, and unlikely to become a significant article anytime soon. We may as well have an article on bolts used in the construction industry. I would be quite happy with merging into a more inclusive destination. I have not heard of diffusers used on SSDE, so scuba set may well be the best place available. I will revise the notices accordingly. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Done.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified one external link on Rebreather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 2 external links on Rebreather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Split and merge Diving rebreather[edit]

    Both Rebreather and Rebreather diving are very long articles. Quite a lot of the content in both articles is on the topic of diving rebreathers. I propose splitting out the content on diving rebreathers from Rebreather to Diving rebreather, and possibly splitting and merging some content from Rebreather diving to Diving rebreather. Courtesy pinging @Anthony Appleyard, Mark.murphy, and RexxS: · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss:

    • I do not expect this to be controversial. This article is very large and the content on diving rebreathers is clearly notable, with many reliable independent sources already in use. If there are no logical objections after a week I will split at my convenience. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Diagram for Architecture/Components subheadings[edit]

    @Pbsouthwood - do you have any images depicting a basic repreather setup (ie not one of the variations, showing only the components described in Rebreather#Architecture and Rebreather#Components? A diagram here would be very useful for general understanding; otherwise perhaps Rebreather#Architecture and Rebreather#Components could be moved below Rebreather#History so as to reference the diagrams already in the article. Darkskysunflowers (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Darkskysunflowers I get your point, but I think the architecture section is better where it is and should get its own image(s). Do you think a couple of photos showing a pendulum and a loop rebreather or a very basic schematic diagram with just the ambient pressure breathing gas spaces of a pendulum and a loop rebreather would work best?
    I will think about what would work best for the components section, but if you have any suggestions I would like to see them. It is a bit more tricky, since unless one is reasonably familiar with breathers, a photo is probably not going to help much. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the placement of the architecture section, and also that photos would not add much. What I would like to see is the most basic schematic diagram possible, anchored beneath the Architecture heading, that is labelled with each of the subheadings under Architecture and Components.
    I only bring this up because I was reading the Architecture and Components sections myself and needed a diagram for it to make sense, so searched google images and found what I was looking for and it linked back to the Rebreather wiki article! They were just further down the page. But none of those variant diagrams illustrates the basic must-have components only. So I was hoping amongst all of your (excellent) diagrams you may have one for just the basics. Darkskysunflowers (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkskysunflowers, I will try to draw a diagram for this. It may take a while to work out what will work beat, so if you have further suggestions, go ahead. I will ping you when I have something. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pbsouthwood - I was hoping you had something on-deck, wasn't implying you should make a new diagram de novo! Would love to see it if you have the inclination to however. For future reference either way, I think most useful would be the following points:
    - Diagram applicable to any application of a rebreather, ie:
    - Diagram in harmony with the article prose describing the fewest necessary components for a device to be accurately termed a 'rebreather'.
    - Any components beyond this least-necessary-components device separated from the architecture and components section, or made sub-headings, and not included in the diagram
    - Anything beyond this least-necessary (Minimum Viable Product-adjacent) set of components be detailed in the Variants subheading
    - Perhaps moving the History section elsewhere such that the basic Architecture / Components section is adjacent to Variants
    I'm looking at this from a mine rescue/exploration perspective, and amongst all of the applications listed under that section, it could be useful to point each application to the variant(s) most often encountered in that domain. Of course this is separate from the above, just another thing I've noticed reading the article. Best - Darkskysunflowers (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will cut and paste where I can, but I have no existing diagrams that would be right for thr job.
    I am a diver. I have no experience in the mine rescue and exploration applications, so if you have ideas for that and access to references, lets have them. I am also a mechanical engineer so the concepts, mechanism, and drawings are no problem. I will also look at options for moving the History setion. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkskysunflowers, I have produced a diagram for the Architecture and Components sections, and found a photo that illustrates the components quite well. I have also done a major bit of editing, including some clarification and removing some diving specific content. Your feedback would be appreciated. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 00:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pbsouthwood - Your new diagrams are fantastic! Perfect for making the Architecture and Components section generic to all applications. Kudos (and sorry for the delay in feedback)!
    I intend to make some basic diction/formatting edits but I feel the edits you've made add substantial clarity to this page and have also improved the Diving Rebreather page substantially. Darkskysunflowers (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkskysunflowers, You are welcome. and thanks for the feedback. Let me know when you are done, and particularly if you find anything that is unclear or needs expansion. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    resqueteam in mine[edit]

    on tv a requeteam helping miners in a colapsed min seemed to use a rebreather is this link commercial? https://www.biomarineinc.com/product-biomarine-biopak-240r — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.149.83.125 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rebreather&oldid=1210949429"