Talk:Submersible

(Overall quality)
Although this article is arguably a dicdef substub at present, please don't delete it. Some of the material now at submarine really belongs here. That's all that is needed for it to grow. There's also a lot more material that could be added.

The submarine article also needs some work, it contains some oversimplifications at present. Replacing this redirect with a definition is a start to that. Andrewa 18:29, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It's years later, and this article is still in terrible shape. Also, makes questionable statements. E.g., contradicts the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for submersible. Commments like "the main problem" and "having little function at the surface" and "widely used" are fluff. It should be a matter of an hour for an expert to write a meaningful article. 76.102.157.205 (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

contradiction
In the first paragraph, it states "limited mobility intended to remain in one place during use", then the next paragraph details its limited range. In researching such things as shipwrecks (e.g. Titanic), submersibles do move quite a bit. I'm removing the 'intended to remain ...' part of the sentence because it is contrary to actual use and its unnecessarily confusing to a reader unfamiliar with the topic.

I also agree that the submarine/submersible articles are in need of serious revision. - Istvan 18:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

(Unidentifiable topic)
Fred Gorell Ocean Nova —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.215.212 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Alexander
The graphic on the right of this talk section is a fascinating artifact, but not yet -- nor, i would guess, ever -- suitable for the article. Its inclusion would require body text that (implicitly) clarified how it was deemed relevant. Are there any Hellenistic writers who attest to such an event? I seem to recall another (more) SW Asian, and probably actually Muslim, figure involved in such a legend; is there any reason to doubt that either the artist confused that person w/ AtG or someone later misconstrued the artist's intention? I.e., how do we know that's a portrayal of AtG? And even if it were so intended, Glass attributes the development of glassblowing (surely needed for emperor-rated glass containers!) to the first century BCE and of clear glass to the first century CE. Even appropriate text references to whatever classical info abt forerunners of submersibles exists would not come in the lead section, but in a historical 'graph, which also would need a lot more V than a painting, before saying more than
 * Fantasies and claims of humans going underwater inside some kind of container have been recorded since at least ...[etc.]

and images portraying fantasies and unverifiable claims have no real pertinence. As to the caption, BTW, i understand the well established term Islamic art (tho it is perhaps an unfortunate one; i wonder, in fact, if Edward Said didn't construe it as part of Orientalism), and the fact that this work is part of Islamic art -- even tho it is no more Islamic in nature than Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer or The Night Watch is Christian in nature. IMO making the leap from "work of Islamic art" to the piping "Islamic painting", is a confusing, terrible choice. "A 16th-century Indian painting..." would be better -- especially as the style itself is recognizable without a caption -- even to many people who would be confused by even the accepted term "Islamic art" into frustratedly searching for elements of the painting that disclose a religious intention! (Google searches show that "Islamic painting" is about 1/16 as common as "Islamic art", and "Islamic paintings" (implying several instantiations of the practice or tradition of "Islamic painting", rather than the practice or tradition itself, and perhaps the only practical way of detecting instantiation such as "an Islamic painting" implies) is 40% less common. Such rarity of use should be expected to multiply misinterpretation at least proportionately.

Incomprehensible language
I removed
 * which are suspended from a cable and winch-operated from the diving support vessel, instead of submersible chambers (diving chambers or diving bells).

from a sentence whose beginning presents no sensible way of incorporating it. Specifically, i found
 * A submersible vessel has greater mobility than a typical submarine, using propeller screws or pump-jets, which are suspended from a cable and winch-operated from the diving support vessel, instead of submersible chambers (diving chambers or diving bells).

and left
 * A submersible vessel usually has more dexterous mobility, generally provided by use of propeller screws or pump-jets, than a typical submarine.

Someone else may do better, by means of archaeology in the edit history, which may disclose an earlier version whose meaning is more clear. --Jerzy•t 01:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Operations Section
The Operations section states, "Submersibles differ from submarines in that submersibles typically have shorter range, and operate underwater almost exclusively, having little function at the surface." However, it mentions that Alvin, which dives very deep, is a submersible. Also, I thought that submarines (especially nuclear subs) spend most of their time underwater and submersibles spend a comparatively lesser amount underwater. So which of these contradictions is correct?75.164.218.83 (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Introduction Re-write Oct 2011
I just re-wrote the introduction. The previous introduction was very short & slightly inaccurate, & had no citations. If anyone has any questions regarding anything I wrote feel free to discuss with me and/or make alterations:-) I realize that some of the other information in the article is now redundant and that the rest of the article still needs a lot of work. I will work on it as soon as I have the time. If anyone else wants to, please feel free. Thanks. MsBatfish (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I also edited the section "Deep manned submersible" (changing the title to "Deep-Diving Manned Submersibles") as it was inaccurate, poorly worded and solely about China's Jialong sub. I added info on the deepest-diving sub ever, the Trieste, for now, but there are other notable deep-diving subs which could also be added. I am not sure of the accuracy of the pre-existing info from this section that I left unchanged, it is possible some of it is not accurate or was from a biased source. Will do more research when I have more time unless someone else is willing to do it. MsBatfish (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup Template Added 27 Nov 2011
I haven't had much time to work on expanding this article myself, so I added a cleanup template with the reason being that the article requires expansion in order to present a comprehensive article on the subject. It needs more information & more citations. Please feel free to flesh out the article. If anyone adds a fair amount of additional info then by all means remove the cleanup template. Thanks! --MsBatfish (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

WWI "submarines" are actually submersibles.
I have read in numerous places that WWI and WWII "Submarines" are actually, by definition, submersibles. They were surface ships 90% of the time, running on diesel engines, yet which were capable of submerging for brief periods only, to hide or to attack enemies. Their endurance underwater was very limited, and they had to resurface for long periods of time to recharge their batteries, and fill their air tanks with fresh air. It wasn't until the invention of the nuclear submarine that the true submarine was born (although we are now getting some true non-nuclear submarines with fuel cells, and such things). I think that this and the article on Submarines ought to reflect this. A submarine is an underwater boat, such as a nuclear submarine, which can travel around the globe without ever surfacing, easily. A submersible is a boat that CAN go underwater, but only for a limited time and range...i.e. a typical WWII diesel-electric sub..45Colt 19:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

0,01 bar/m?
« As the diver descends, the pressure on them increases by 0.01 bar for every meter of depth.» Really? I would have expected 0,1 bar/m or 1 bar gauge pressure at 10 meters, not 0.1 KjellG (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)