This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Rebreather was copied or moved into Diving rebreather with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The contents of the Breathing tube (breathing apparatus) page were merged into Rebreather on 20 August 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Material from Rebreather was split to Rebreather diving on 23rd April 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
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)
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 Incidentally, the above list is very out of date, and was out of date even when first proposed. 79.135.110.169 ( talk) 20:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Are the Some Makes of Rebreather and the External Links sections consistent with WP:EL and/or WP:WWIN?
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. -- El on ka 23:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
B |
Needs more references. Too many existing references are bare urls and vulnerable to being lost. Adequate coverage, could even be split. Structure reasonable, though it could probably be improved. Looks OK Adequately illustrated. Looks OK. |
Not yet. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Done.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/specials/special_drebbel.htmWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
Discuss:
@ 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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Rebreather was copied or moved into Diving rebreather with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The contents of the Breathing tube (breathing apparatus) page were merged into Rebreather on 20 August 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Material from Rebreather was split to Rebreather diving on 23rd April 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Are the Some Makes of Rebreather and the External Links sections consistent with WP:EL and/or WP:WWIN?
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. -- El on ka 23:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
B |
Needs more references. Too many existing references are bare urls and vulnerable to being lost. Adequate coverage, could even be split. Structure reasonable, though it could probably be improved. Looks OK Adequately illustrated. Looks OK. |
Not yet. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Done.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/specials/special_drebbel.htmWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
Discuss:
@ 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)
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)