Talk:Rebreather

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject SCUBA, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Scuba diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Contents 1 KISS Rebreather 2 artificial gills 3 Types of rebreather 4 "a diver --- their rebreather", and suchlike 5 Too much advertising linkspam 5.1 Link spam, deux 6 Are rebreathers light? 7 Buoyancy control 8 Shallow water blackout possible contradiction 9 Request For Comment -- External Links

[edit] KISS Rebreather

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)

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)

[edit] artificial gills

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)

[edit] Types of rebreather

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)

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)

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

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

[edit] Too much advertising linkspam

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.
• 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)
• 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)
• They are not only sales links: their web sites also have useful information about those rebreathers. Anthony Appleyard 13:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.
• 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)
• 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)

[edit] Link spam, deux

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I just checked all the external links: 2 duplicates deleted, a 404 deleted, a link updated. Anthony Appleyard 10:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• I decided to just be bold and I got rid of the Manufacturers section --Naruto Tron 22:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Divers wanting detailed information about modern rebreathers might not agree. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

[edit] Are rebreathers light?

• 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)
• Here "light" refers to weighing the rebreather when out of the water. Anthony Appleyard 22:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buoyancy control

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)

[edit] Shallow water blackout possible contradiction

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)

[edit] Request For Comment -- External Links

A user has requested comment on science or mathematics for this section. This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCsci list}}. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)