Talk:Diving chamber

Plywood
Is plywood allowed in hyperbaric chamber?
 * It would not normally be considered a good idea, but there might be reasons to do so in a specific case. It would not be a high risk material, but it is porous and would undergo dimensional changes under pressure, and is flammable, so should not be used for internal furnishing for long term use. A more specific question could be answered in more detail. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I suggest a merger with redirects incorporating Decompression chamber and Recompression chamber into Diving chamber, as they are all basically the same hardware, and the other terms are just different applications. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Merges done Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources
This article is short of reliable sources, so it is regrettable that I had to remove a citation to http://hyperbaric-chamber.org/. Unfortunately, this is a WordPress site, self-published and containing not only information which is misleading, but in places downright wrong. For example, this is misleading: While this is pure nonsense: Although it may be argued that any reference is better than none, I believe that this instance proves the contrary. --RexxS (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "But people often look out for these hyperbaric chamber treatment options when they tend to suffer from the following physical disorders or injuries: ... Suffering from autism, stroke, cerebral palsy, psoriasis, sclerosis, pancreatic cancer"
 * "This facilitates the hyperbaric oxygen to fill the hyperbaric chamber completely and the patient gets to inhale 100 percent oxygen through his helmet or mask for 30 minutes until a short break for normal breathing of air for 5 minutes. At this crucial point, the oxygen enters the blood stream of the patient and accelerates the activity of the white blood cells and antibacterias."

Invented in 1916?
Diving chamber says "The decompression chamber was invented in 1916", but this news story says (with my emphasis here) "In 1915 a Japanese pearl diver, ... in Broome in Western Australia ... placed in an experimental recompression chamber. ... The chamber had been donated to the town a year earlier ...", implying that it must have been invented by 1914. Unfortunately I don't have access to the article references (Scott, David) to check them. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica says that "Experimental compression chambers first came into use about 1860." Mitch Ames (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This 1914 newspaper article includes an extract from a letter from CE Heinke and Co dated 5 December 1913 that says "we are making a re-compression chamber". (This is likely to be the chamber mentioned in .) Here's another 1914 reference to a decompression chamber, and here's a 1904 reference to Messrs. Siebe and Gorman, submarine engineers, having "designed a diving-bell which will ... 'decompress' a man and allow him to become gradually accustomed to the normal atmospheric pressure". Mitch Ames (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Mitch Ames, Your sources look reliable for the suggested changes. Do you have a suggested alternative text for the article (including the Brittanica and Sunday Times references)?
 * The 1904 article refers to a closed diving bell, not a recompression chamber, but is also a good addition to the time-line. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mitch. I've used
 * to amend the timeline at Decompression sickness removing the claim of invention and noting that chambers were being used around 1914–16, as that's probably the best we can summarise from the sources. Perhaps the text here can be expanded in a similar manner?
 * @Peter, as any closed chamber that is supplied with compressed air could serve the purpose of a recompression chamber, it doesn't stretch the imagination to accept that bells could have been used for that purpose. I'm guessing that the Britannica article probably refers to something like that with its unsubstantiated 1860 claim. As a result, I doubt that anybody can be credited with inventing the chamber and any speculation about first uses is likely to be a matter of original research on our part. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The device described in the 1904 article has "a steel chamber divided into two separate compartments, one of which is open at the bottom like an ordinary bell, while the other half is closed" - more importantly it explicitly refers to bring the chamber being "brought on board ship" and then "the air is allowed to escape very slowly". It is clearly designed for decompression, not just a diving bell. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The device described in the 1904 article has "a steel chamber divided into two separate compartments, one of which is open at the bottom like an ordinary bell, while the other half is closed" - more importantly it explicitly refers to bring the chamber being "brought on board ship" and then "the air is allowed to escape very slowly". It is clearly designed for decompression, not just a diving bell. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Mitch, The1904 bell was, as you and the article say, specifically designed for decompression on deck. No mention is made of use or intended use for recompression of a diver, for therapeutic or any other reason. It would have been technically capable of recompression, and would very likely have been tested before commissioning by pressurization on the surface using air and/or water, as these are the conventional ways of checking for strength and pressure tightness of a pressure vessel, but speculating that it was intended for or used for this purpose would be considered original research. Decompression on deck is a more convenient place to spend some hours decompressing than underwater, but this deck decompression is entirely preventative procedure to avoid decompression sickness, and is significantly different from recompressing to treat it. As RexxS states we are not here to speculate about first use, and clearly we don't have sufficient evidence of who invented the treatment chamber, but the available evidence indicates that the Broome chamber predates the 1916 claim.
 * RexxS, In water recompression in an open bell is entirely possible and plausible, but we have no reliable source indicating that it was ever done before the Broome chamber, which is at present our earliest reasonably reliable reference. We can reasonably state a purpose built recompression chamber was used in Broome in 1915, and make no claim as to whether it was the first use of a sealed chamber for recompression (what about caissons? were they ever used to recompress bent divers for the purpose of treating the complaint? Completely feasible, and almost certainly happened unintentionally, to workers with mild symtoms at least, but we have no reference at present).&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I see the distinction between decompression as preventative, and recompression as a "cure". I'm updating the history now - I've moved it up a level, because it should cover both. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the edit conflict, I was busy when you put up the in use notice. I will leave it to you for a while. I think the history section should be raised another level to cover all uses. at this time it is still in "Out of water use", but you may have done that by the time you see this. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm done for now. My edit summaries should explain changes I've made to your text, but (as always) ask here if you're not happy about them.
 * Regarding where the History section should go - the current contents really only cover out-of-water use, (although the 1904 device goes underwater, its primary purpose is to get the diver out of the sea to decompress them on the boat) so the section location is probably correct. Should we expand the History section to include underwater use? Or create a separate underwater history section? Mitch Ames (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, Your changes are an overall improvement. More can be added as references become available. The Broome chamber is a single occupancy chamber, it is fairly obvious from the photo, but you are right, the cited reference does not say so. If interested, read "The White Divers of Broome" for a reasonably entertaining history of the area with reference to decompression sickness and this particular chamber. If I remember correctly this book specifies that the chamber is for single occupancy, but I read it last year while crossing the bight and it stayed on the boat. Please feel encouraged to expand any section you like if you have good information to add. I tend to find historical information by accident rather than as targeted research, as I tend to put it in the "nice to know" category rather than "need to know".
 * The section is OK as it stands. If we get some history relating to underwater use I think the section should be raised a level to keep it all together. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Cut from section on Hyperbaric chambers for discussion
Benefits from using HBOT and hyperbaric chambers is old knowledge. It has long been known that healing many areas of the body cannot take place without appropriate oxygen levels in the tissue. Most illnesses and injuries occur, and often linger, at the cellular or tissue level. In many cases, such as: circulatory problems; non-healing wounds; and strokes, adequate oxygen cannot reach the damaged area and the body's natural healing ability is unable to function properly. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy provides this extra oxygen naturally and with minimal side effects. You can read more about the benefits from using hyperbaric chamber http://www.gda-sverige.com/hyperbaric-oxygen-therapy.html (added by user:Warensce at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diving_chamber&diff=prev&oldid=737995880 )

Brought here to discuss if any of this is suitable for inclusion. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC) I don't think this adds anything useful to what is already in Hyperbaric medicine. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC) I have trimmed it down and inserted the useful bit into the Hyperbaric treatment chamber section, where it helps clarify the function. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, if suitable, it would be more appropriate in Diving chamber, or Diving chamber, as that is where treatment is done.
 * Secondly, the article is about Diving chamber, not HBOT, which has its own article. I am undecided whether this level of explanation is suitable for this article, but open to discussion.
 * Thirdly, the cited link does not appear to support all the claims, although the claims are also not contentious, and should be fairly easy to reference.
 * The page at http://www.gda-sverige.com/hyperbaric-oxygen-therapy.html is marketing blurb by a company manufacturing hyperbaric equipment. Although it contains some well established facts (e.g. HBOT is used to treat decompression sickness), it strays into areas where the claims are not supported by evidence, such as the use for treating diabetic ulcers (see Hyperbaric medicine and similar sections). Because it increases oxygen transport via dissolved oxygen in serum, HBOT is most efficacious where the haemoglobin is compromised (e.g. carbon monoxide poisoning) or where the extra oxygen in solution can diffuse through tissues past embolisms which are blocking the blood supply (e.g. DCS). The mechanism is complex and it is often simply untrue to baldly assert that "Hyperbaric oxygen therapy provides this extra oxygen", because in some cases, it doesn't. --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair comment. I have made changes, but feel free to tinker until you are happy with it. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair comment. I have made changes, but feel free to tinker until you are happy with it. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

non-medical usage
Other wikis direct here for non-diving usages. I would suggest that a preliminary statement is added stating that this wiki is for diving usage and direct the reader to "hperbaric-oxygen therapy" for other usages. It also might also be best to transfer the minor section here on non-diving usage to the "hyperbaric-oxygen-therapy" articleJulian D (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

B-Class review
Just needs a few more references. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diving chamber. 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 tag to http://www.pccii.com/index.cfm?sectionid=36&ProjectID=20
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161104080007/http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_reg/ohasa85o1993rangnr41716/ to http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_reg/ohasa85o1993rangnr41716/

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) 16:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Link is under paywall
Link 25 to https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618493.000-technology-dry-run-for-deepest-dive-.html require registration and subscribtion to read article. 95.220.200.101 (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)