Talk:Rebreather

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Rebreather 

message: 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)
thread_title:  artificial gills 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fair comment, The article has been changed. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of rebreather 

message: * The traditional use of "they", "their", etc as plural has been a handy way to distinguish singular from plural in English, ever since Anglo-Saxon took the Old Norse pronoun þeir in Viking times, and I see no need to mess it up now by using "they" as singular, or to get up to contorted sentence constructions, merely to avoid using gendered pronouns which have been in English and its ancestors ever since Common Germanic times. Giving clear information about rebreather use is more important than paranoia about avoiding a few gendered pronouns. Anthony Appleyard 17:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a diver --- their rebreather", and suchlike 

message: *need some consensus on which of the links scattered round the page are valid and which are linkspam/ads... --Firien § 14:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave these links alone. Anthony Appleyard 17:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I don't want to flog a dead horse, but WP:NOT states quite clearly that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, i.e. articles are not collections of external links or Internet directories, which is where the list of links to rebreather manufacturers belongs. Yes, it may be useful, but as croll pointed out, that does not necessarily mean it should be in an encyclopedia (otherwise we'd have lots more recipes ;) ). Also, the links are to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services (criterion #4 of links normally to be avoided). I too think we should delete the manufacturers section. ~ Danelo 06:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *Just because they might be "useful" doesn't mean they should all be listed here. Wikipedia is not supposed to become a repository of links, which is what this article looks like. In addition to a slew of manufacturer sites intended to hawk products, many of these sites are in foreign languages (but yes, they have pictures; a tenuous rationale IMO). I find it hard to understand how this is appropriate and consistent with Wikipedia Policy; I have never seen an article with so many external links (50+). I think it would benefit the article greatly to have this list culled to the five or so links that are the most helpful and informative and I'd be willing to help do that, but I also think there has been a degree of ownership asserted over this article that makes constructive editing extremely difficult. croll (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Too much advertising linkspam 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I don't want to flog a dead horse, but WP:NOT states quite clearly that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, i.e. articles are not collections of external links or Internet directories, which is where the list of links to rebreather manufacturers belongs. Yes, it may be useful, but as croll pointed out, that does not necessarily mean it should be in an encyclopedia (otherwise we'd have lots more recipes ;) ). Also, the links are to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services (criterion #4 of links normally to be avoided). I too think we should delete the manufacturers section. ~ Danelo 06:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *Just because they might be "useful" doesn't mean they should all be listed here. Wikipedia is not supposed to become a repository of links, which is what this article looks like. In addition to a slew of manufacturer sites intended to hawk products, many of these sites are in foreign languages (but yes, they have pictures; a tenuous rationale IMO). I find it hard to understand how this is appropriate and consistent with Wikipedia Policy; I have never seen an article with so many external links (50+). I think it would benefit the article greatly to have this list culled to the five or so links that are the most helpful and informative and I'd be willing to help do that, but I also think there has been a degree of ownership asserted over this article that makes constructive editing extremely difficult. croll (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Link spam, deux 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Are rebreathers light? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Buoyancy control 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shallow water blackout possible contradiction 

message: Are the Some Makes of Rebreather and the External Links sections consistent with WP:EL and/or WP:WWIN?
*I've submitted a RfC for this article's external links section based on the inability of the current editors to agree on whether the current list is consistent with Wikipedia policy on External Links and What Wikipedia is Not. In short, several editors feel the current list of external and manufacturer links violates Wikipedia policy by turning the article into a repository of links, some of which are to sites in violation of WP:EL by going to sites primarily intended to sell products, in a foreign language, or personal pages. Other editors feel the links are to sites that provide useful information that divers and others interested in the article's content would find helpful and informative, thus the links are consistent with Wikipedia policy. Attempts by various editors to cull the list have been consistently reverted, and there appears to be an impasse. croll (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request For Comment -- External Links

message: *I saw that somebody returned a batch of external links to the article and upon seeing the mass linkfarm that was already there I set about trimming the links that were in violation of WP:EL.  Please, please, read over WP:EL before discussing the links or adding any more to the article.  Thank you, Themfromspace (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External links again 

message: *See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Rebreather. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Arbitration

message: 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)
thread_title: Other designs

message: In the section "controlling the mix", there is this statement:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Looks good to me. 70.160.30.252 (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CO2 buildup 

message: 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:
# Basics Purpose
# History of rebreathers
# Main rebreather design variants
# Parts of a rebreather
# Operation
# Advantages of rebreather diving
# Disadvantages of rebreather diving
# Sport diving rebreather Technology innovations
# See also
# References
# External links
Since WP:HEAD recommends , I'd also suggest striking the parts of the section names as indicated. Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arrangement of sections

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hans Haas Rebreathers 

message: The paragraph  has come under question as "not making sense". I'll try to explain and let's see if the wording needs to be modified.
# On the surface the ambient pressure is 1 bar. At rest, the air breathed in contains about 21% oxygen (O2) and the air breathed out contains about 17% O2. So the body has consumed about 4% of the O2 breathed in and converted it to carbon dioxide (CO2). Let's call the amount consumed 'X molecules of O2'.
# At  underwater, the ambient pressure is 4 bar. That means each litre of air breathed in now contains 4 times as many molecules of air - and that means 4 times as many molecules of O2. So the 'X molecules of O2' consumed now represent only 1% of the gas. And that means that the air breathed out is now about 20% O2. On open-circuit scuba, that's quite wasteful.
# Open-circuit scuba has to supply all of the gas for each breath, as the exhaled gas is lost into the water on exhalation. At  depth, it is losing 4 times as much as on the surface.
# A rebreather has only to replenish the amount of O2 consumed on each breath—an amount which does not change with depth—since the unused O2 is recirculated and re-used.
# As you can see, the rebreather is more efficient than open-circuit at the surface, since open circuit 'throws away' gas containing 17% O2; while at depth, it is even more efficient as open-circuit 'throws away' even more O2.
So, does that explain the paragraph? If not, what needs clarification? If it does, then does the paragraph need re-writing to make it clearer? Comments welcome. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficiency of rebreathers 

message: 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:  
and WP:ELNO#1 has this restriction: 
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)
thread_title:  External links again 

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

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Information Sources" as a new Link Farm 

message: * Most of the article is about rebreather diving, so the name is wrong as it doesn't leave the generic name available for the generic equipment.
*:A rename to Rebreather diving with Rebreather allocated to the generic would be more appropriate. 
*:Comment? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Article has been split. Cleanup under way. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article into Rebreathers and Rebreather diving? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rebreather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060713202011/http://www.netmarine.net:80/forces/commando/equipement/equip05.jpg to http://www.netmarine.net/forces/commando/equipement/equip05.jpg
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050331070724/http://www.aqualung.com:80/military/PDF_Data_Sheets/Rebreathers/FROG.pdf to http://www.aqualung.com/military/PDF_Data_Sheets/Rebreathers/FROG.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dubious claim, unreferenced. 

message: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as  is optional.Needs more references. Too many existing references are bare urls and vulnerable to being lost. 
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for , although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.Adequate coverage, could even be split. 
The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.Structure reasonable, though it could probably be improved. 
The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.Looks OK 
The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.Adequately illustrated. 
Not yet. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-Class review 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well spotted, and thanks for letting us know. It has been fixed. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed circuit mixed gas rebreathers section graphic 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526061320/http://www.netmarine.net/forces/commando/equipement/ to http://www.netmarine.net/forces/commando/equipement/
*Added  tag to http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/specials/special_drebbel.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) 17:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919055258/http://www.nobubbles.com/Rebreather/kiss.htm to http://www.nobubbles.com/Rebreather/kiss.htm
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65WFPMl7n?url=http://www.specwargear.com/dive to http://www.specwargear.com/dive%26swim.html
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) 04:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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  · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split and merge Diving rebreather 

message: 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)
thread_title:  resqueteam in mine