Talk:Rebreather

Scuba diving Mid‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Scuba divingWikipedia:WikiProject Scuba divingTemplate:WikiProject Scuba divingSCUBA articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Physiology Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the respiratory system.

Mining Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Technology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

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.

Section sizes Section size for Rebreather (51 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 3,996 3,996 General concept 4,925 5,622 Endurance 697 697 Architecture 637 1,931 Pendulum 656 656 Loop 638 638 Components 478 8,661 Counterlung 406 406 Scrubber 3,494 3,494 Breathing hoses 1,788 1,788 Mouthpiece or facemask 213 213 Oxygen supply 561 561 Valves 1,354 1,354 Oxygen sensors 367 367 System variants 1,635 7,358 Oxygen rebreathers 1,675 2,526 Oxygen feed options 851 851 Mixed gas rebreathers 1,032 1,032 Rebreathers using an absorbent that releases oxygen 1,180 1,180 Rebreathers which use liquid oxygen 729 985 Cryogenic rebreather 256 256 Fields of application 2,663 13,809 Diving rebreathers 832 2,848 Surface supplied diving gas reclaim systems 571 571 Saturation diving life-support systems 1,445 1,445 Atmospheric diving suits 837 837 Industrial and rescue self-contained rebreathers 3,262 3,262 Mountaineering rebreathers 1,492 1,492 Rebreathers for unpressurised aircraft and high altitude parachuting 298 298 Anaesthesia systems 1,090 1,090 Space suits 925 925 Habitat life-support systems 394 394 Safety 165 7,326 Hazards 236 3,182 Hypoxia 553 553 Carbon dioxide buildup 1,445 1,445 Leakage of toxic gases into the breathing loop 436 436 Fire hazards of high concentration of oxygen 385 385 Caustic cocktail 127 127 Failure modes 64 3,979 Scrubber failure 3,115 3,115 Other failure modes 800 800 History 56 10,656 Early history 1,315 1,315 Working rebreathers 4,684 4,684 Rebreathers during World War II 3,181 3,181 Post-WWII 1,420 1,420 Manufacturers and models 1,848 1,848 See also 314 314 References 23,762 23,762 External links 585 585 Total 85,868 85,868

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]

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]

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]

• The traditional use of "they", "their", etc as plural has been a handy way to distinguish singular from plural in English, 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]

• need some consensus on which of the links scattered round the page are valid and which are linkspam/ads... --
  en § 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: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

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

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
  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
  ]

• 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]

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]

The article provides two totally different explanations for

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]

Are the

• I've submitted a
  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: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

• 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 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 {{
  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]

• Thanks for the explanation, Anthony. All of the following is merely my humble opinion:
  • Can I first of all say that
    WP:ELYES
    "1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any).
  • Using CCR Rebreathers in cave diving - the information in there would make a great expansion to this article (per
    WP:ELNO
    2).
  • In-depth explanation on how rebreathers work - as above.
  • Image gallery of LAR-6 and LAR-7 and FGT II and LAR V rebreathers, and other combat frogman's kit - fails ELNO 5.
  • A history of closed circuit oxygen underwater breathing apparatus - looks good to me, but I'd still consider incorporating the information and using the site as a reference.
  • Rebreather Articles - would be the exception to ELNO 11, if the author's recognized authority were shown, but we don't have the article Cedric Verdier, the minimum standard to establish that.
  • Information on shallow water blackout - fails ELNO 13. This article already has an internal link to the article
    Shallow water blackout
    and that page has the ScubaDoc external link, where it is less inappropriate.
  • Richard Pyle's rebreather page - duplicate of In-depth explanation on how rebreathers work.
  • The Rebreather Site - fails ELNO 5 & 12. A deep link to the images might be appropriate.
  • Rebreatherworld list of links to rebreather manufacturers - fails ELNO 14.
  • Therebreathersite list of links to rebreather manufacturers' websites - fails ELNO 14.
    • Is that enough to start with? Please accept that all the above is only my personal opinion and I'm happy to discuss in more detail any that we might disagree on. --RexxS (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Re queried links:
  • Image gallery of LAR-6 and LAR-7 and FGT II and LAR V rebreathers, and other combat frogman's kit - fails ELNO 5.
    • It contains many useful images, far too many to link to each separately from here. (The small images are thumbnails which if clicked lead to big images.) Again arises the problem of a site which contains both advertisement and useful information.
  • Rebreather Articles - would be the exception to ELNO 11, if the author's recognized authority were shown, but we don't have the article Cedric Verdier, the minimum standard to establish that.
    • Please clarify. (Info: Cedric Verdier's name occurs as a signature on that page.)
  • The Rebreather Site - fails ELNO 5 & 12. A deep link to the images might be appropriate.
    • ELNO5: This site contains much information, if you ignore the adverts which clutter its front page and click at the column of links down its left edge.
    • ELNO12: This site does not look like a wiki to me.
  • Rebreatherworld list of links to rebreather manufacturers - fails ELNO 14.
  • Therebreathersite list of links to rebreather manufacturers' websites - fails ELNO 14.
    • Sometimes people do want to know who makes each sort of rebreather, plain and not mixed with advertizers' blah. I thought that a brief pointer to an external list would be acceptable. Otherwise people would have to ferret and ferret for this information.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:26, 26 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

• I see nothing wrong with including http://www.therebreathersite.nl (The Rebreather Site). Please comment. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

• • 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]

• The amount of matter in http://www.therebreathersite.nl which is of my originating is very small. (E.g. some matter about the Siebe Gorman Salvus; when I wrote that matter and sent it to Janwillem Bech, Wikipedia had not yet started.) Try linking to that web area via http://www.therebreathersite.nl/08_Website_Related_Information/speed_menu.htm ? That shows a compact contents list linking to every page, and much less proportion area of adverts than the front page. http://www.therebreathersite.nl and its subpages contain far too much matter for me to have to wade through writing it all in different words to avoid copyvio, when I could much easier merely link to it. Anthony Appleyard Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:43, 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

• See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Rebreather. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As I cannot find this arbitration in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or its archives, I have ventured to restore a link to this very useful info site, using , which is a direct list to all of his pages and less adverts. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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

• 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]

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]