Talk:Rebreather diving

Scuba diving High‑importance

	Underwater diving portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the 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

Section sizes

Section size for Rebreather diving (81 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	2,181	2,181
Comparison with open circuit	34	9,992
Basic principle	1,719	1,719
Advantages	146	4,697
Efficiency advantages	1,370	1,370
Feasibility advantages	1,055	1,055
Other advantages	2,126	2,126
Disadvantages	2,750	2,750
Other differences	792	792
Function	213	6,588
Scrubber endurance	488	488
Controlling the mix	3,263	5,024
Set-points	1,761	1,761
Gas endurance	863	863
Calculating the loop mix	467	10,604
Oxygen partial pressure in a semi-closed rebreather	1,146	8,984
Constant mass flow	2,732	2,732
Passive addition	5,106	5,106
Maximum operating depth	1,153	1,153
Safety	2,171	51,945
Hazards	4,179	4,179
Inherent limitations of the types of rebreather	237	13,675
Oxygen rebreather	687	687
Active addition SCR	381	3,259
Constant mass flow SCR	1,369	1,369
Demand controlled SCR	1,509	1,509
Passive addition SCR	1,069	5,012
Non-depth compensated PASCR	2,099	2,099
Depth compensated PASCR	1,844	1,844
Mixed gas CCR	1,666	4,480
Manually controlled CCR	823	823
Electronically controlled CCR	1,991	1,991
Failure modes	173	22,197
Scrubber failure	8,616	8,616
Oxygen monitoring failure	1,826	7,673
Managing cell failure in an electronic rebreather control system	5,847	5,847
Gas injection control circuit failure	1,037	1,037
Loop flood	1,769	1,769
Gas leakage	1,366	1,366
CMF Orifice blockage	1,563	1,563
Risk	8,266	8,266
Mitigation	546	546
Statistics	889	911
Demographics	22	22
Standard operating procedures	316	7,152
Assembly and predive function tests	3,382	3,382
Preventing flooding of the loop	483	483
Oxygen monitoring	570	570
Monitoring carbon dioxide	458	458
Restoring the oxygen content of the loop	776	776
Draining the loop	627	627
Post dive checks, cleaning and maintenance	540	540
Emergency procedures	589	12,224
Bailout	3,593	11,635
Bailout valve	443	1,620
Open circuit bailout valve	991	991
Closed circuit bailout valve	186	186
Bailout to open circuit	1,873	2,551
Team bailout	678	678
Bailout to rebreather	2,576	3,871
Bailout software	647	647
Bailout rebreather configurations	648	648
Training	3,058	6,571
Rebreather Training Council	1,004	1,004
Rebreather Education and Safety Association	424	424
ISO training standards	2,085	2,085
History	52	13,234
Early developments	4,949	4,949
World War II era	1,461	1,461
Technical diving era	6,772	6,772
Applications	331	12,473
Military diving	706	706
Technical diving	830	830
Recreational diving	265	265
Scientific diving	7,570	9,224
Training	1,654	1,654
Mixed mode and mixed platform diving	1,117	1,117
See also	154	154
References	32,691	32,797
Sources	106	106
External links	207	207
Total	166,122	166,122

Intentions?[edit]

To User:Pbsouthwood: Currently much matter about the design of rebreathers is in page Rebreather and also in page Rebreather diving, causing WP:content forking. What are your intentions here? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Design specific to diving rebreathers could go on either page. I am uncertain at this stage, though I lean slightly towards this page, but am open to persuasion. Do you have an opinion? Both pages are pretty large already, so it might even be appropriate to split again to a page Diving rebreather. I don't think this is an urgent split. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved back to page Rebreather all the matter about the design of rebreathers, rather than using them. Else we end up with a lot of WP:content forking. To page Rebreather I have added a section ===Industrial rebreathers===. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. That should work. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review[edit]

B	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 `{{cite web}}` is optional. Some unreferenced material, needs further checking. N The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. Fairly good coverage, no obvious gaps. Y 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 looks OK. ~~Lead needs some work to cover more of the article.~~ Lead expanded.Y 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. Y 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. Sufficiently illustrated. Y The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Looks OK to me. Y

Not yet. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Still needs more refs for some sections, otherwise still good. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split out and merge Diving rebreather from this article and Rebreather?[edit]

Both Rebreather and Rebreather diving are very long articles. Quite a lot of the content in both articles is on the topic of diving rebreathers. I propose splitting out the content on diving rebreathers from Rebreather to Diving rebreather, and possibly splitting and merging some content from Rebreather diving to Diving rebreather. Courtesy pinging @Anthony Appleyard, Mark.murphy, and RexxS:

Discuss at Talk:Rebreather#Split and merge Diving rebreather

There were no objections, the split has been done and merging of selected content is ongoing. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]