Jump to content

Talk:Diving regulator

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TMI

[edit]

At first glance, this article suffers from TMI -- Too Much Information. It is poorly laid out and goes into irrelevant detail.

  • It should be rewritten, starting with the most general information first, then branching out into details.
  • The information on the history of diving regulators is weak and needs to be pulled together. Much of it revolves around Cousteau's modern development of the Aqualung, but an uninformed reader would have difficulty pulling this thread out of the article.

--QuicksilverT @ 20:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A-type tank connector

[edit]

The A-type connector is also called Yoke. This should be mentioned in the article.Michagal 12:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not TMI

[edit]

It does not have too much information! I am taking an intro SCUBA class where there is no organized technical discussion of equipment, and first stages aren't discussed at all. This technical description is just what I was looking for. David Quinn davidquinn_1@yahoo.com

Unbalanced, Balanced and Overbalanced first stages

[edit]

"Overbalanced" - It seems that different manufacturers use this term to describe different effects. Scubapro uses it to mean boosting the IP (intermediate pressure) as the tank pressure falls.[1] Whereas Apeks uses it to mean boosting the IP by an amount greater than the increase of water pressure, as depth increases. [2] While both of these are desirable refinements, I'm not sure that it aids clarity in the article briefly to define it as making it "easier to breathe at depth".

There are two design objectives for first stages - to make the breathing effort consistent independent of cylinder pressure and to make it consistent independent of depth.

That brings me to the question of what "Unbalanced" and "Balanced" mean?

My memory suggests that the oldest "unbalanced" regs had the characteristic of increased effort as tank pressure dropped, so that may have been the original issue that "balancing" addressed. I'd need someone who was diving in the 1970's and earlier or some reference from that era to be sure. This issue was addressed by designing so that cylinder pressure neither reinforces nor opposes the opening of the first stage valve. The idea of allowing water to exert pressure inside the valve to reinforce the IP is a different issue as it is meant to ensure that the IP remains about 9 bar above ambient at all depths (so that the second stage always has the same pressure differential across it).

Bearing in mind the TMI comment above, I don't think I can adequately explain of this concisely enough to suit. What's the solution? RexxS (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Performance of regulators

[edit]

I tried not to exacerbate the TMI comment by forking this section off a smaller article Breathing performance of regulators but now that Gene has expanded the section with references to US standards, I wonder if I was right to make the smaller article? Would it be best to forget about the TMI and merge it into this section - or should we copy Gene's expansion into Breathing performance of regulators? What is best? --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Somebody told me recently that Sherwood was the first company to mass manufacture regulators for the domestic market. I haven't been able to find a written source for that, but if somone else can (assuming it to be true), that would be something that could usefully be included. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Sherwood started selling regulators and valves under Sherwood Brand they said they were largest diving regulator manufacture in US making them for other manufactures. At about same time I was at US divers for regulator maintenance training. US Divers had another company make their regulator parts and only assembled then tested their regulators. They did mold rubber seat onto High Pressure Disc and Retainer. Fishblow (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

it outdated the photo is reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally old I bet some info is old to Random kid who likes science (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalance regulator, balanced regulator advantages

[edit]

Unbalanced regulator

Regulated pressure output is affected by supply pressure changes. On up stream valve one end of valve poppet is exposed to small area of regulated low pressure at HP orifice and opposite end of poppet is exposed to High Pressure. The larger the HP orifice the greater the pressure is unbalanced. This upstream valve pressure unbalance is trying to close the valve. As gas is withdrawn from HP cylinder, pressure supplied to regulator decreases, unbalance decreases and regulated pressure rises.

If Unbalanced Pressure Change is 0.5psi regulated per 100psi change in supply pressure, with 3,000psi cylinder pressure and regulator set to 150psi. That regulator with 500psi cylinder pressure, regulated pressure would be 162psi. If this pressure increase is unacceptable use smaller orifice which restricts flow. Larger diaphragm, improved leverage and better gas velocity boast (venture) might help performance. (This was done on single stage double hose regulators.) With diving regulators this regulated pressure increase helps flow rate at low bottle pressures. If down stream 1st stage or single stage regulator was used regulated pressure would decrease with cylinder pressure making gas flow rate worse.


Balanced regulator

Regulated pressure stays same regardless of supply pressure as long as supply pressure is high enough to operate regulator and supply flow demand. HP Orifice can be larger to increase flow capacity. The up stream poppet had guide block that became low pressure balancing chamber. Poppet guide shaft was same diameter as HP orifice. Drilled passage through center of poppet and guide shaft filled LP balance chamber. If poppet guide shaft is less than HP orifice diameter regulator can have large HP orifice for higher flow capacity and regulated pressure rise at low cylinder pressure.

Piston Regulator

First piston first stage scuba regulator was Healthways Scuba Star. Design was not patented because it was step down of flow capacity and unknown life of dynamic O-rings on piston. Exact design was made by everyone. Scuba Star was single hose regulator with upstream tilt valve 2nd stage. I have seen exact same first and second stage regulator used for decompression chamber O2 bibs masks. Tilt valve 2nd stage regulator can not act as relief valve so relief valve was installed on 1st stage. Scuba Star's intermediate pressure was 110psi as were all regulators at that time.

Flow Velocity Boost is part of all high performance scuba regulators 1st and 2nd stages. Many different designs to not infringe on patents. Higher effort is required to start flow and stop flow than sustain regulator flow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishblow (talk • contribs) 07:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rearrangement of page

[edit]

The page is currently in need of re-organisation. A more logical layout of components may help. I propose to describe the regulator as 1st stage, Demand valve/2nd stage, and accessories, as currently several accessories are lumped in with 2nd stages, which must be confusing for a lay person.Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment for B-class

[edit]

B
  1. 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.

    2. Moderately referenced, but some references formatted at in line links, which should be fixed, and a lot unreferenced, though much of that is uncontroversial and should be fairly easy to reference. nevertheless, quite a bit of work needed. Quite well referenced, just a few outstanding, none critical. checkY
  2. 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.

    3. Probably true, but as the layout is not very good, it is not easy to be sure.Covers the topic quite well, though there may be some material which is not really necessary and there are a few aspects which are incomplete. checkY
  3. 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.

    4. Structure and layout can use improvement. There may be significant duplication of information due to layout issues.Structure much improved checkY
  4. 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.

    5. Not very clearly laid out. Information seems to be scattered. Room for improvement. Improved. checkY
  5. 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.

    6. Good supporting materials. checkY
  6. 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.

    7. Generally comprehensible. checkY

Needs work, but not out of reach. Clean up references, improve structure and much of the other problems will fall in line. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up a lot. More work needed for GA, but good for B. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Exotic examples

[edit]

I propose to delete any unencyclopaedic, unsourceable or trivial information from this section. If anyone has any objection, please discuss here before re-instating. Provide reasonably reliable references in all cases of dispute. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diving regulator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I propose merging Purge button into Diving regulator, as the purge button is a part of a regulator. The article is small, and unlikely to be expanded much, and much of the information is already in Diving regulator. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objections in a month. I will go ahead and merge with redirect. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopaedic/out of scope content

[edit]

Anthony Appleyard, I have removed unencyclopaedic and out of scope content again. The article is about diving regulators, not about poor quality comic book art. If you believe that this content belongs in the article, I suggest an RfC to establish a consensus on the appropriate scope of the article. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pbsouthwood: Thanks. Ref. Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I am not querying your knowledge of diving gear. I realize your point. But many readers do not know so much about diving gear. The basic query here seems to be: "As Wikipedia is intended to describe the truth about things and people and matters, and as many people have a limited choice of what they read, is it within Wikipedia's remit to warn its readers about common popular sources of false information?". The endlessly-continued common habit of much-read comics of drawing twin-hose aqualungs without regulators, each comic artist copying this error from his predecessors, including on combat frogmen, exposes the common public to error about the design and use of diving gear; and errors that children may read when young, may persist in their heads into adulthood, if that error is not pointed to them then or later. (I have seen that error drawn in an advertisement in a newspaper.) As regards warning the readers about sources of error, see List of common misconceptions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anthony Appleyard, There must be a limit to how far off the point the content in an article can be. To me, that is when the information is not about the actual topic, and is not needed to understand the actual topic. I consider that the number of trivial ways to misrepresent a topic is possibly not infinite, but certainly larger than the amount of factual information available. As an encyclopaedia, we are expected to provide information primarily on what the topic is, and exhaustive or trivial information on what it is not is out of scope. Clearly we disagree on this point, which is mainly a matter of content, but also a matter of policy, and it would be appropriate to get a consensus on it as I doubt that I will persuade you or you persuade me. I suggest that this is best settled by a discussion of interested and affected parties, or the closest we can get to that on Wikipedia. As the article is listed on WikiProject Scuba diving and Wikiproject Technology, I suggest that we ask for comments from those two projects. There may also be other interest groups which would have a valid interest. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you considered whether List of common misconceptions is not a better place for the information? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there a compromise available? Perhaps a one-line mention in this article of the misconception (no need for a whole section) linked to a fuller description of the issue in List of common misconceptions. It might even be possible to use the See also section to hold an annotated link (as it's a little empty right now). Would that address Anthony's desire for Wikipedia to describe the misconception, as well as meeting Peter's (and my) wishes to keep the scope of this article more tightly focused? --RexxS (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is enough information and sources to indicate notability, I would quite like to see a stand-alone article on underwater diving in popular culture, which could then be linked from several diving articles from the see also section. That would provide a place where this kind of information actually should be. I have not started it because it is not a personal interest, and I don't know of good sources for it. I would be happy to contribute and maintain if someone can find evidence of notability, which for fiction is also not part of my skill set. Content could include all the fictional dive gear, books, movies, comics, misconceptions etc in one place
          • I see that the disputed content has been quietly restored to the article. I will not continue this stealth reversion war, as I intend to submit for GA in the reasonably near future, and we will see whether the disputed content survives a GA review. If it does not, I expect that decision to be honoured. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article Underwater diving in popular culture It should serve to accommodate a lot of the disputed material. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose to merge Mouthpiece (scuba) into Diving regulator as it is a very small article, unlikely to be greatly expanded, about a component that is a part of a diving regulator. It can also be mentioned in Rebreather where it serves the same purpose. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

No objections posted, so will do the merge. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Diving regulator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diving regulator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diving regulator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

[edit]

I propose splitting out the section on the mechanism and function of diving regulators to a new article.

  • The cutrrent article is very large (109,267 Bytes), and this is a large and rather technical section. I think that replacing it in this article with a simplified summary, and treating the mechanical complexities in a stand-alone article will serve the reader better than the current arrangement.
  • The proposed title for the new article would be Mechanism of the diving regulator of something similar. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • The article is currently 64kB readable prose size, so WP:SIZESPLIT suggests that it "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". I think that the only likely problem is ensuring that the split-off topic meets WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. A rather specialised topic like "mechanism of diving regulators" is not going to attract much published attention by media independent of the subject, so several of the sources in that section are weak. For example, Scuba regulator maintenance and repair is published by Airspeed Press, which has a total catalogue of five titles, all of them by Vance Harlow; Hammerhead Press offers six books, five of them by Steven M. Barsky. It's hard to argue they are not effectively self-published sources, and the authors have no article, so the case for being a published expert in the field is weakened. That makes meeting GNG more difficult. --RexxS (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RexxS, There is also the BS-AC Diving manual 10th edition, which has a chapter of 18 pages titled Principles of the Aqualung, Fred Roberts' second edition of Basic Scuba with a bit over 200 pages of detailed descriptions of dozens of models of regulator, and 4 pages in chapter 4 of the second edition of the NOAA diving manual, all of which I have on my desk in book form, and 4 pages in chapter 7 of Commercial Diving Manual by Larn and Whistler. There is a little bit in the US Navy Diving Manual. Also 5526 hits for "diving regulator" on the Rubicon Research Repository, and over 7 million Google hits for "diving regulator mechanism function", almost all of which will be useless. I am open to other ways of splitting the article, but this just seems the most logical and useful split for the reader. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter: I'm sure that splitting out that section will work out okay, as there won't be many folks beside me worrying about GNG for the topic. My advice would be to take advantage of the chance to beef up the references wherever you can, and let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RexxS, I will start preparing for the split by making summary sections to leave behind. I will also try to spread the references around a wider range of sources to demonstrate general notability. If you notice anything that should be in either article but does nor seem to be covered sufficiently, either fix it yourself, leave me a note, tag the section, or link me to a source. As always your critical eye will be appreciated to spot the errors. I may need to do a few diagrams too. If there is any specific illustration you think would be useful, let me know. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Split  Done. Will be expanding the new article over the next while. Suggestions etc welcome. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diving_regulator&oldid=1206986385"