Jump to content

Talk:Diving suit

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

wetsuits aren't just for diving

[edit]

as the fact that wetsuit redirecting here combined with the section in this article seem to imply. they are also used in many other watersports especially those where thier is quite a high probablility of getting wet. some people even deliberately swim in them although i belive they add a lot of effort to doing so.

how best to handle this? should other uses be handled here? should wetsuit be split out? what? Plugwash

ok i partially take that back thier are references to other uses but they are in passing right at the end of the section Plugwash 23:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a seperate article on Wetsuits that discusses non-diving uses. This article is on diving suits, and so discussion of other uses for wetsuits are not appropriate. - David Scarlett 10:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i didn't notice that article at "wetsuit" (without the space) and "wet suit" redirected here at the time i made that post (bloody anons). Plugwash 11:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-dry suits?

[edit]

I question the provenance of the term "semi-dry suit". I have a wetsuit that is the same as what is described, and I call it a wetsuit. I have never heard anyone in the Northern California diving community refer to a "semi-dry" suit. To keep the term, we should get a citation of its use.Joe Malin 00:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be a regional thing, but it's a very common term in the UK. A quick google search for "semi dry suit" gives 104,000 hits. Here are the first few sites who use the term:
and so on. I really think it's common enough not to require citation, but if you insist, just pick a source. --RexxS (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How a Wetsuit Works

[edit]

I think people should get the real story of how a wetsuit works. Its not cause it lets in water!! Wear a plastic bag over it and they are just as warm. It is because nitrogen is an insulating gas. Neoprene is a synethetic rubber made by Dupont and it has essentially no thermal resistance (no warmth.) Look it up! or I'll save you some time [1] Think about it. Why is a dry suit warmer than a wetsuit? Because no water gets in. So why would you want water in a wetsuit? To keep you warm? I don't think so water is a excellent thermal conductor.

IIRC the basic idea behind a wetsuit is that the water goes in initially (why you initially feel cold when you enter water in a wetsuit) and only changes quite slowly after that, so it has time to heat up to body temperature. Also having some water in there dilutes the sweat and makes them a bit less sticky. Plugwash 11:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortuantely links to magazines tend to expire quite quickly, so here's a useful link that may stay longer [2] - if you look at the the quoted figures you'll see that water conducts slightly better than neoprene, and 20 times more than air (refer to [3] to see that O2 & N2 have the same conductivity). However, it is quite inappropriate to call water an excellent conductor, when there are materials (metals) that conduct up to 1,000 times better than water. The real reason that a wetsuit works is that water has a high capacity to hold heat and is consequently an excellent convector. Without a wetsuit heat would be removed from the skin and carried away by moving water. With a wetsuit a thin layer of water gets in, but cannot convect away. This layer of water insulates about as well as the neoprene as long as it is not continually escaping and being replaced ("flushing"). It should be obvious that trapping a layer of air near to the skin will provide 20 times the insulation of water or neoprene - that's how a dry suit works. RexxS (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that dry suits work in two ways. Some merely keep water out so that a standard air-trapping material inside, like nylon fleece, can do the heat insulation (you could even use goosedown if the dang things didn't tend to leak a bit at the neckseal). Other drysuits have a layer of neoprene foam on the outside so that they are capable of insulation even if you have little on, underneath. Or that adds to what you have on. Most people don't understand that a plain uninsulated drysuit (slick outside, no neoprene foam inside) with no air insulation inside or outside, would not work well. It would cling to the skin with the squeeze and would be as COLD as wrapping yourself in a form fitting garbage bag. There IS not thin later of air next to the skin in the average drysuit with no undergarment at depth, and even if there was one, there would be serious free convection problems with it.

Good insulators need two things: a poor conductor (like a gas), AND small semi-sealed cells to break up natural convection. That's how feathers and fiberweaves work, and under a drysuit, and outside a drysuit, they do the same. Both wetsuits and drysuits are often insulated with neoprene foam which contains aircells, and that provides the insulation. That thin layer of water inside your wetsuit isn't worth much-- not only does it have worse insulation overall than an equal thickness of skin and fat below it (which isn't much), but it is subject to natural and forced convection also, since nothing breaks currents in it up (unlike the case with your subcutaneous fat, which isn't well vascularized, so has no natural, and little forced convection). Without the neoprene air cells, a "wetsuit" would do you no more good than wearing ordinary fiber clothing (say, polyester jeans and a sweater) in water. Which also leaves a layer of water next to the skin, but which isn't worth much, per se. SBHarris 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm certain I agree with almost all you say, I'm not sure I agree with your view that drysuits work in two ways. Uncompressed neoprene has maybe half the conductivity of water or 10 times that of still air. Even 8mm neoprenes only have the same insulation as 0.8mm of air so they don't make much of a contribution compared with a few mm of air trapped within an undersuit. This is particularly so when you consider that below about 15 metres depth, the neoprene is severely compressed and loses a lot of its insulation value. I think folks make too much of the thermal insulation that a drysuit might provide - in truth it's the undersuit that determines the insulation. Anecdotally, I've had two regular buddies who dived in Viking neoprene suits - they invariably wore undersuits several mm thick. Any water warm enough to dive without an undersuit, they would dive in a semidry. I've never been a fan of uncompressed neoprene (mainly because of the 8-10Kg buoyancy change with depth); I started diving with an Aquion trilaminate (membrane) suit which I used for several years, then replaced it with a DUI crushed neoprene. In the same water conditions, I've found that with either drysuit, I've needed the same undersuit - that's the bit that keeps me warm!
I suppose to get back on-topic (improving the articles), we ought to be considering how much detail & explanation ought to be in Dry suit and Wet suit. Is the detail of comparative conductivities and the importance of stopping convection useful to the aim of improving those articles (and this one), or would we be accused of "Too Much Information"? RexxS (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeans

[edit]

The "Dive skins and jeans" section needs clean-up so that, among other things, the buoyancies on the jeans agree and Wikipedia isn't accused of being sponsored by Levi Strauss. - 128.237.241.229 19:48, 8 February 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The jeans and skins section needs a cleanup desperately. It changes the story throughout where it says 2 digfferent things about jeans. - 88.104.159.242 21:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this serious? At first I though this section was an April Fool's joke, but it looks like it's been there since May 2004. Has anyone here actually ever heard of anyone seriously using jeans as exposure protection while diving? The current description is almost a word-for-word copy of this article, but I couldn't say which came first. It also sounds like an ad for Levis. I think this section should be reverted back to the skins section that existed prior to the addition of the jeans bit, or at the very least reverted back to before the December 2004 expansion of the jeans section that reads like an advertisement. - David Scarlett 05:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've removed all mention of the use of jeans for scuba diving. Still can't believe that was in the article for almost 2 years! David Scarlett 11:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joking aside guys, there are plenty of photos of commercial divers in the Gulf Of Mexico wearing jeans... --UD75 23:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason that some divers wear boiler suits. personal protection against abrasion, stings etc. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Argox as suit inflation gas

[edit]

Does anyone else think that the use of argox as a suit inflation gas is not notable enough to be worthy of mention? Given that argon is highly narcotic, and such a gas would be quite narcotic below about 15m (EAD of 41m) and could quite likely kill the dive if breathed below 30m (EAD 72m), it seems absurd to mention it here. That and the fact that its use is pretty much completely unheard of. See Talk:Argox (scuba) for some discussion on this gas. -- David Scarlett(Talk) 02:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argox and other exotic diving gases are interesting and worth mentioning but in their own articles, an "exotic gases" article or a section of breathing gas and not in the diving suit article. While it's good to see different angles and the unconventional in articles, argox is too marginal to be useful in an article on diving suits.Mark.murphy 20:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Actually first diving suite was invented by very famous Italian inventor Giovanni Alfonso Borelli in 1679. Also he was first man who successfully test diving suite. This suite called "Borelli Sub" 1) http://history.cmas.org/chronology-120217122507 if it necessary I can try find more "trusted" proof but I do remember that fact from diving school (have CMAS). 2) https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=wQnjd5FK_IoC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=diving+suite+1679+alfonso&source=bl&ots=PXTRn13czI&sig=CHlJ1zzs6Kq8c7On5iSGaCbi16E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=diving%20suite%201679%20alfonso&f=false 3) Spanish wiki has this info https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arqueolog%C3%ADa_subacu%C3%A1tica — Preceding

Is anyone able to put this info in article since I'm not an English speaker?

unsigned comment added by Lebed~enwiki (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference (CMAS article)does not mention a diving suit invented by Borelli.
The second reference does not mention Borelli inventing a diving suit on the pages accessible to me for preview, so I can not use it as a reference. It mentions a submersible designed by Borelli called the Borelli sub, but that is not a diving suit, so not applicable to this article.
The third reference is to an unreferenced item in Spanish Wikipedia. As it is unreferenced, we can not use the information. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class review

[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. Needs more references. Almost all now cited, of the remaining, I know one is true from personal observation/ common knowledge and the others are quite plausible, just have not found refs yet. 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. Looks OK. 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. OK. 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. Looks OK. 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. Looks OK. 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. Looks OK. checkY

Just need a bit of referencing. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good enough for B now.checkY • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diving suit. 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}}).

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) 04:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Diving suit. 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]

Shark suit

[edit]

The image File:Neptunic shark suit 1.jpg has recently appeared in these articles: Shark suit, Chain mail, Diving suit, Underwater diving and Thumb signal. It certainly looks like spamming of a personal snapshot across multiple articles, some of which are only tangentially related to the topic of the image. I've reverted the last three for the following reasons:

  • Its use in Thumb signal is positively misleading. Any diver is aware that the "thumbs-up" signal is an indication that the divers should begin to ascend.
  • In Diving suit and especially in Underwater diving, there are hundreds of images that could be used, and we have to be selective about which ones are most useful to the general audience. The use of a "shark suit" is so uncommon compared to the many other types of suit in use that I don't believe it is WP:DUE for either of these two articles.

In the case of Shark suit, a barely notable stub, it is of course appropriate. I don't think it adds much to Chain mail, but I'll leave that for others to determine. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same IP user added content and images to several other unrelated articles which was usually reverted although of quality that should have reasonably been accepted as in good faith. User responded by edit warring when asked to discuss on talk page and has been blocked (not by me). I could see a niche for the image and a short bit of background in Diving suit, but not at the top of the article. Underwater diving is stretching it beyond the reasonable. I will give this a bit of thought. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter: the policy governing adding images to articles is (unsurprisingly) Wikipedia:Image use policy #Adding images to articles:

The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central.

I think that if the article Shark suit ever had sufficient notable content to be worth summarising in Diving suit, then a case can be made for including the image in Diving suit alongside that summary. Until that happens, my advice is to leave it out. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that images are there to illustrate content. Sometime an added image inspires added content which is relevant to the topic, which had previously been missing, for whatever reason. In this case it is somewhat marginal in my opinion. Shark suits exist, they are worn by divers while diving, and as far as I can tell are not used for any other purpose, so can reasonably be classified as diving suits, they appear to be at least to some extent effective. They also appear to be seldom used, even by serious shark researchers, and I have not found a lot of published information on them, so there may not be much to say. Still may be worth a look, but not holding my breath. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 21:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revisão de classe A

[edit]

Esse trópico revisa classe A 186.237.238.229 (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diving_suit&oldid=1200210084"