Talk:Diving bell

Depth problems
"Such problems occur at a pressure over two atmospheres, experienced below a depth of 20 metres (32 feet)." - Which is it, 32 feet or 20 meters? 20 meters is 66 feet. -Riedquat (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

i will also point out that it says 'over two atmospheres' And 'below a depth of 20 meters' 10 meters of water exerts a pressure of one atmosphere, but the air above it exerts one also, making the pressure at 10 meters 2 atmospheres [29.4 Psi or 2 BAR.]

the pressure water exerts at 20 meters is therefore 3 atmospheres [44.1 Psi or 3 BAR.]

One other point... all Dives shallower than 10 meters are planned as though 10 meters. [when accounting for nitrogen build up] which means nitrogen does build up in the body shallower than 10 meters [two atmospheres] and can still cause problems if total bottom time overruns non decompression limits.


 * The above statement is factually incorrect, as most diving tables and algorithms allow for planning at shallower depth, as the buildup of inert gases in the tissues is independant of the planning procedure and is directly related to depth and time of exposure. See Decompression (diving). For depths of 6m or less there may not be a no-decompression limit. This means that a saturated diver could safely ascend from that depth without decompressing (see US Navy Air decompression tables) Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Dive tables usually allow planning in multiples of 3 metres (10 feet). Bühlmann tables, for example, provide for a no-deco limit of 130 min at 9 metres. Apart from an anecdotal report of a diver employed to clean fish farms, who suffered a bend after multiple ascents from 6 metres, there is very little evidence that diving to 6 metres or shallower incurs any measurable risk of DCS. --RexxS (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

records
something that might want to be included:

70.24.244.198 (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Diving bell. 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/20050615074443/http://www.thehds.com:80/publications/bell.html to http://www.thehds.com/publications/bell.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Problems
So many problems with this article from a technical standpoint; would take weeks to straighten out. Confusing the public about the technology and what divers do.MichaelSmart (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, . Articles are written based on the reliable sources that editors can find, and sadly many topics don't have enough sources to make comprehensive articles out of them. In this article, 8 of the 11 sources relate to the history of the diving bell (and other one sources the trivia section). So there's plenty of room for reworking most of the sections, particularly if you know of good sources that can be used. --RexxS (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have been doing a bit of cleaning up, using my limited sources. Could you take a look and point out or tag the areas that are problematic so that we can fix them. If you have any useful content to add for which you can cite references or any suggestions for reliable references that are accessible, please feel welcome to either add them directly, or if you feel there may be a conflict of interests, add them to this talk page, and if appropriate I will add them myself as I have no COI. Cheers &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate and recognize your determination to improve this article. Unfortunately, it needs so much work that it should be scrapped and rewritten.  The first three paragraphs alone are a tangle of unnecessary abstractions and riddled with grammatical mistakes.
 * Further down I come across the passage:
 * “The physics of the diving bell applies also to an underwater habitat equipped with a moon pool, which is like a diving bell enlarged to the size of a room or two, and with the water–air interface at the bottom confined to a section rather than forming the entire bottom of the structure.”
 * What is the author trying to say?
 * “A diving bell enlarged to the size of a room...” That’s a new one on me.
 * The language here is so poor and misleading that it leaves my head spinning. The question is: what would it do to the non-diver?  I imagine he or she would stop reading.
 * There are also fundamental problems with the basic structure of the article. There is an over-emphasis on wet bells, with explanations long-winded and confusing (i.e. “Wet bells with an air space will have the air space topped up as the bell descends and the air is compressed by increasing hydrostatic pressure.”).
 * Here’s another example of making the subject sound too important:
 * “Volume reduction of the air in an open bell due to increasing hydrostatic pressure as the bell is lowered is compensated. Adding pressurized gas ensures that the gas space within the bell remains at constant volume as the bell descends in the water. Otherwise the bell would partially fill with water as the gas was compressed.”
 * Yawn....
 * Some of the graphics need to be repositioned, some removed altogether, and then, at the end of the article, there is mention of the “diving bell spider”...??? What?
 * In short, this article should be rewritten in a manner to keep the subject focused, simple, and most importantly, understandable.
 * My two cents. MichaelSmart (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's more like two dollars, Michael, and if you were serious about improving the article, you could have used the time it took you to write all that to make some improvements, instead of whining about the contributions of others who have actually taken the time to write the article. Let's have a look at your suggestions:
 * it should be scrapped and rewritten – yer well, that's not going to happen. Unless you're willing to do the re-write yourself? Don't forget the references.
 * What is the author trying to say? – the contributor is explaining that an undersea habitat like "La Chalupa Research Laboratory" is larger than a diving bell, but has similarities to an open-bottomed wet bell, except that the entry/exit is only in one part of the habitat. Do you really have so much of a problem in comprehending that?
 * There is an over-emphasis on wet bells, with explanations long-winded and confusing – so step up and write a better explanation, or is that not what you're interested in?
 * Yawn – You may find the description of how the air pressure in a wet bell has to be increased with depth boring, but this is an encyclopedia, not a cartoon strip designed to entertain. Feel free to tell us how we get that point across in a less dull way.
 * the “diving bell spider”...??? What? – There's a real spider, called a diving bell spider. Is that really so startling? Its habitat has similarities to a diving bell and it's an interesting fact for some readers. What's the problem with mentioning that?
 * Have a think about how Wikipedia actually works. Somebody reads a source and summarises it in their own words in an article. Other people come along, read more sources, and make improvements to the text. Somewhere in that process, there's a spot for you to contribute. All you need to do is work out how to do it. --RexxS (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is an over-emphasis on wet bells, with explanations long-winded and confusing – so step up and write a better explanation, or is that not what you're interested in?
 * Yawn – You may find the description of how the air pressure in a wet bell has to be increased with depth boring, but this is an encyclopedia, not a cartoon strip designed to entertain. Feel free to tell us how we get that point across in a less dull way.
 * the “diving bell spider”...??? What? – There's a real spider, called a diving bell spider. Is that really so startling? Its habitat has similarities to a diving bell and it's an interesting fact for some readers. What's the problem with mentioning that?
 * Have a think about how Wikipedia actually works. Somebody reads a source and summarises it in their own words in an article. Other people come along, read more sources, and make improvements to the text. Somewhere in that process, there's a spot for you to contribute. All you need to do is work out how to do it. --RexxS (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Out of the blue Peter contacted me and asked for my advice on how to improve or fix this article. I gave him my advice.  He asked what might be some of the problematic areas of the article.  I offered some examples.  I stand by my statements.  I realize they are unflattering, but they are constructive.  Based upon my experience as a diver and an author, the whole article is a hodgepodge, lacking clarity and understanding and should be revamped with a new outline.  If this is a hard pill to swallow—sorry—but I was asked for my opinion so I gave it. MichaelSmart (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Air Lock Diving-Bell Plant
Hi, Diving bell editors! I've added this as a see-also in order to be able to take an 'orphan' tag off a DYK on today's main page. I don't know enough about either subject to know where it would be more appropriately inserted, and I'm hoping someone here will be excited to discover this new article, which seems to certainly be worth mentioning in the Diving bell article. --valereee (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Mary Rose
I removed the following short section:
 * "In 1642, American Edward Bendall built two wooden diving bells to salvage the wreck of the Mary Rose, which had exploded in a cargo fire accident, off Portsmouth, England. The vessel was eventually raised by the Mary Rose trust in 1982."

This has been referenced to Diving Almanac of Records but I believe that source to be wrong. There has been a confusion of ships' names here: I'll add a reference to Bendall back in for the Charlestown event as it's an interesting historical note. &mdash; BillC talk 06:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The well-known ship Mary Rose did sink near Portsmouth, UK in 1545, and was raised in 1982. It is now preserved in Portsmouth. It did not however explode in a cargo fire accident, but rolled over and foundered during a naval action against the French.
 * There was another Mary Rose that exploded and sank near Charlestown, Boston (year uncertain at present), and was raised by Edward Bendall in 1642 by means of a pair of wooden diving bells.
 * Well spotted, . It's incredibly unlikely that by 1642 anybody had any idea of where the wreck of the Mary Rose lay in the Solent. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, . It's incredibly unlikely that by 1642 anybody had any idea of where the wreck of the Mary Rose lay in the Solent. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Information Studies
— Assignment last updated by DiscoverWiki1110 (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)