Talk:Scuba set

message: If an image belongs with a paragraph, I put the image description line before the paragraph's title line so that the image comes as high as possible within the paragraph, to cut down the amount that the image intrudes into the next paragraph. Anthony Appleyard 07:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True, and I dont remember seeing a definition stating that they are part of the same set, so can you provide a reference? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Queries

message: *#Firstly, in potassium superoxide rebreathers the scrubber filling also produces oxygen, but these rebreathers, too, contain a high pressure cylinder to top up the loop with breathing gas, which gets compressed with the depth!  In liquid air scuba, the liquified breathing gas is also stored in a high-pressure cylinder.Thus, I argue, a high pressure cylinder is a general part of both types of scuba sets - aqualungs and rebreathers.
*#Secondly, old constant-flow open-circuit sets as well as some rebreathers contain a constant flow regulator (more correctly - a constant mass flow regulator), whereas the aqualungs and the rest of the rebreathers contain a constant pressure regulator.  Hence, generally it is a regulator which is a general part of scuba sets.The term demand regulator is -- in my opinion -- highly misleading. It is technically a constant gas pressure regulator combined with a demand valve.
*#Thirdly, pony cylinders and stage cylinders are an important feature of a diver's equipment, I agree. However, they are just independent aqualung-type scuba sets attached to the diver to enhance his/her safety or gas supply, they are not parts of what this article describes - a scuba set.  Logically, you can't say a scuba set is a part of a scuba set. They belong to articles on diving equipment or configuring cylinders, otherwise it is just duplicate information in the encyclopaedia.Similarly, wings and/or jackets are not a part of the breathing apparatus. They are attached to the harness, but so is the knife, the light canister, the weights etc.  Here, they are misplaced - for the sake of logic and clarity, they belong to different articles! AtonX
*:14:30, 27 December 2004 User:AtonX
*Whether we call pony cylinders part of the same set or another set, is a matter of definition. Anthony Appleyard 23:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True, and I dont remember seeing a definition stating that they are part of the same set, so can you provide a reference? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cylinders, regulators and stages

message: An edit note: there were sections of this page that were exact duplicates of previous sections. A copy-n-paste gone wrong? I'm not sure. In any case, I've removed them. Thayvian 19:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate sections 

message: Should we be encouraging spearfishing (by including it in the links) amongst scuba divers, esp given how many organisations dissaprove of it.
*  I agree with you that some divers oppose spear fishing (personally, it's not something I do, and I prefer it not be done when I'm near it in the water), but I don't think it belongs as an italicized comment to the link.  My suggestion would be to add a spear fishing segment to SCUBA to bring it up there and cite concerns.  It just doesn't belong as a comment on the link.  Wikibofh 6 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
*  Perhaps instead we should be linking to the spear-fishing article and debates about ethics could be brought up there? Justin 16:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spearfishing? 

message: Would a bit about nitrox be ok here? Justin 17:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not put it in Enriched_Air_Nitrox? Mark.murphy 19:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've re-written the last paragraph of the section "Open circuit scuba sets" to try to remove the ambiguity. My usual dive shops still use partial pressure blending, so I suspect the phrase "common method" may vary regionally. I've changed it to reflect the lack of consensus for "the most common". Have a look at the article Gas blending as that is the most appropriate place for the section on production of oxygen enriched air (if you think the content already there could be usefully improved). --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the think about valve, I'm not happy with the wording.  The point is that the grease and rubber are part of the tank valve, the problem is that our cousins cross-the-pond insist on calling a regulator a "valve" and I'm not sure the best way to bridge our problem of having a common language that isn't.  Suggestions are welcome.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 03:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitrox 

message: "Captain Trevor Hampton in the 1950's or 1960's designed an early single-hose aqualung with a fullface mask with a circular window which was a very big and thus very sensitive demand regulator diaphragm."
Did the circular window somehow act as the diaphragm? --Gbleem 06:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Circular window

message: I've removed all external links, as none of them were appropriate for this article. This is an article on scuba equipment, and only links providing further information on equipment are appropriate. That means that links to commercial websites, local diving websites and training organisations shouldn't be there. Please read WP:EL and WP:NOT, and discuss here before restoring links. Thanks. (Of course, relevant links can still be added.) -- David Scarlett(Talk) 22:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Regarding this sentence:
Exotic gas mixtures presently used in scuba are intended to prevent decompression illness in diving, but officially, the FDA appears to continue to believe that scuba divers all use compressed air.
Either the FDA "officially" recognizes something or they only appear to recognize something because it isn't official policy.  Instead of conjecturing as to what their policy may or may not be, how about finding a reference? Mojodaddy (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a "citation needed" to this claim.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.78.252 (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I can't find a source saying that the FDA appears to believe that all scuba divers use compressed air (officially or otherwise). The sentence seems to be editorial comment based on (i) The FDA designates non-air gas mixtures intended to prevent or treat diseases as drugs (sourceable); (ii) The FDA does not regulate the use of other gases in scuba diving to avoid DCI (may be sourceable, but more likely an inference from the lack of FDA regulation). That is a kind of synthesis and is WP:OR without a reliable source which states that conclusion. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can modify the wording, but you cannot escape logic. If the FDA has no regulation on scuba breathing gases intended to prevent DCI (as it certainly does on the oxygen to TREAT DCI-- look at those dive boat kits), then that MEANS it does not regulate these gases for this purpose. Lack of regulation = does not regulate. This is not a synthesis; this is a restatement of plain English. If you can't do that much, you're going to have hard time writing an encyclopedia. As for the rest, if the FDA regulates all exotic gases for the purpose of preventing diseases (as they state they do), and DCI is a disease (do you need a reference), and the FDA does not regulate exotic scuba gases for the prevention of DCA, it is a matter of simple logic to determine that the FDA either does not know about exotic scuba gases (unintentially ignoring them), or is intentionally ignoring them, or else is making a erroneous statement in its initial regulatory claims of coverage. There are no other possiblities. WP:SYN does not include arithmetic, and it does not include logical syllogism. If all men are mortal {citation provided} and Mr. X is a man {citation provided} then I can write in his bio that he is mortal and don't need a cite for that.SBHarris 18:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of the problems for a minority sport such as ours, Steve, is that we have a lack of recognised pundits and very few researchers – Peter Bennett & the folks at DAN, our own Gene Hobbs and the team at Duke come to mind; but then who? Even so a lot of the real research is a spin-off from projects on human spaceflight or aviation – there's little funding for scuba research. The result is that we don't fit Jimbo's idea of sourcing – the "if it's worthy of inclusion, somebody reliable will have said it" kind of view. That's what our policies are built around, and with the best will in the world, your chain of logic doesn't fit that scheme. All that you say is logical, and my personal view is that I'd agree 100% with the truth of it. Unfortunately, I still can't find anybody more eminent than you or I who has published the point about the FDA and breathing gases. No matter what we think, as soon as any of us put together two sources and draw a conclusion, we fall foul of the OR policy, even if it's logical (the directly and explicitly supported by the source phrase in WP:OR). We might be able to argue the exception for something being obvious (we don't need a source for "the sky is blue"), but I doubt it would hold up in this case. I've no intention of modifying the wording, but I couldn't honestly object if someone else chose to. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but Wales is simply wrong, if you take him at his literal word, and the policy illustrates this. The policy WP:CALC, which is cited within WP:NOR actually proves he's wrong; is an admission that he's wrong. If he were right, there would be no reason to have the WP:CALC policy at all-- any calculation answer which is true, should be easy to find a citation for, according to what Wales says. But it isn't. SBHarris 01:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: FDA

message: "Still, most semi-closed systems allow at least twice the duration of open circuit systems (around 2 hours)."
Which lasts 2 hours, the semi-closed or the open circuit?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.129.187 (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The semi-closed. The preceding paragraph illustrated a 40 minute duration for open circuit. RexxS (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguous

message: As this article has been around for some time, I thought I should flag up a revision I'm about to make. The article states "The drawback is that aluminium cylinders are neutrally buoyant when full, and positively buoyant when nearing empty. This results in having to monitor buoyancy during the dive more closely..." Why should a correctly weighted diver need to monitor more closely? The change in buoyancy as a cylinder empties is precisely the weight of air lost (about 1 lb for each 14 cubic foot of free air). It simply doesn't matter what the cylinder is made of. The real drawback of Al cylinders compared to steel is that they tend to be much thicker (and heavier despite the lower density of Al). This increases the total volume of the diver+set, which equates to a greater total weight to carry out of the water. RexxS (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Cylinders section 

message: Per User:Sbharris in this edit, it is not a stub and needs re-rating.
I suggest the options are:
* B: Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher 
* C: Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.
I would say that it meets C class, but does it achieve B?
Detailed B-class criteria state:
Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 Quite a lot of uncited statements, some dubious, but now mostly tagged. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat improved by now, but still some way to go. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

text: 2 Complies for coverage, bit shaky on accuracy in several places.Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

text: 3 Looks OK Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Now better.Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

text: 4 Can use some work, but not too bad. Good enough? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Better than it was I hope. Always room for improvement, but I think good enough as it stands.Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

text: 5 Seems adequate to me. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

text: 6 Looks OK to me. Certainly not over-technical in general. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

text: It's certainly C-class - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Scuba diving/Assessment, but the lack of references for many sections and multiple cn tags leave it short of B-class because of B1. It's well on its way against criteria B2-B6, and it may be that as more references are found the structure could be improved and other supporting materials added. This is, of course, an overview article and a balance needs to be struck between summarising articles such as Diving regulator, Diving cylinder, Rebreather, etc. and leaving it to the reader to visit those articles for the detail. --RexxS (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be up to B by now. There is a citation needed for the last paragraph of the Rebreather section which eludes me, and that paragraph could be more elegantly phrased. Also a collection of unreferenced trivia and a small number of fairly uncontroversial points that would be better properly referenced. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality rating 

message: All,
Reading through this, it feels pretty comprehensive on the mechanical side, but the breathing gas piece feels a bit cursory by comparison, especially since the rest of the article makes reference to using pure oxygen, trimix and other 'exotics' ... so spending a bit of space on what people breathing and how it has evolved feels as important as the equivalent technical side.  I've had a go at a replacement block for that section, but since this is a high importance page, and I'd need to suss out sourcing and links before putting it in, I've put proposed text below rather than directly editing the article at this stage.  Its longer, but not more so than the other sections.  I've tried to give some basic information on what factors matter, then how they have impacted recreational, technical and open & closed circuit over time.  Thoughts? Greg (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , There is a separate article on breathing gas linked from the section. Most of it is about breathing gases for diving, which includes scuba, and goes into much more detail than this article, which is about scuba sets, which are the equipment used to deliver the breathing gas. When a scuba set is empty, it does nor stop being a scuba set, so the gas it contains is peripheral information. Do you think that it is really useful to expand this article to include that peripheral information, when a more extensive coverage is a click away? It is necessary to mention the breathing gas, as it is necessary to the function of the equipment, and to understanding this function, but the details of the gases used are beyond the scope of the article. Whenever there is sufficient information to justify a specific article, it is split off and replaced by a link and a summary, to keep the original article at a readable and manageable length.  You are welcome to provide reasons why you may think I am mistaken in this case.  • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fair point.  But if the section is worth including then I still think it a bit unbalanced to omit the range of fairly commonly used Scuba gasses in favour of extra detail on recreational Nitrox.  Maybe a compromise would be something like "Until nitrox, which contains more oxygen than air, was widely accepted in the late 1990s, almost all recreational scuba used simple compressed and filtered air. Other gas mixtures, typically used for deeper dives, may substitute helium for some or all of the nitrogen (called trimix, or heliox if there is no nitrogen), or use lower proportions of oxygen than that found in air.  In these situations divers often carry separate scuba sets, called stages, with gas mixtures with higher levels of oxygen that are primarily used to reduce decompression time.  These gas mixes allow longer dives, better management of the risks of decompression sickness, oxygen toxicity or lack of oxygen (hypoxia), and the severity of nitrogen narcosis.  Closed circuit scuba sets have a gas mix that is controlled dynamically to best optimise the mix for the actual depth at that point in time." Greg (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , Nice summary. It should not take long to reference it, then go ahead and make the change. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Your more comprehensive explanation above may be worth considering for addition to the Breathing gas article as an introduction to the section on breathing gases for diving and other hyperbaric use. Some work would be necessary to blend it in with the existing content. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done inc, references which now covers all of the items in the 'See also' piece in the same section, so I took that out.  Also sorted citation for the adoption of Nitrox for recreational use which was missing in the original.  Will have a look at the intro in the Breathing gas article when I get a chance, but prob not for a week or two. Greg (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breathing gasses section 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Scuba which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 19:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: I propose to merge Camstrap into Scuba set as it is a component part. There are other uses of similar items, but they are not the same and can best be mentioned where they are relevant.
Current article Camstrap has been tagged as unsourced since December 2009, it is very small with little chance of much expansion. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections, so will do the merge.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Scuba set. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161104080007/http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_reg/ohasa85o1993rangnr41716/ to http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_reg/ohasa85o1993rangnr41716/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030022352/http://www.espalion-12.com/scaphandre/autonomie/scaphandre_autonome.htm to http://www.espalion-12.com/scaphandre/autonomie/scaphandre_autonome.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is an acronym. SCUBA. It even says this in the article. 79.106.209.51 (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCUBA