Talk:Wetsuit

Wetsuit Types
I see no mention of front or back zipper suits. It seems that front zippered full body suits are more difficult to find. I wonder if there is a specific reason for this.

Astorg, 15 Jun 2013, 1703h EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.152.198 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Front zippered full body suits can be very difficult to get out of without assistance. I know this from personal observation, but as I have no reference, this may be challenged as original research. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Cites for this page are very hard to produce
First off, there is no book or academic paper in existence that documents suit design history. There's really nothing official that can be used for an official citable reference, and no wetsuit manufacturer has ever written much of anything about their history.

The only real citing that is possible is to photograph old/vintage wetsuits and include the photos in this article, but here we run into a different problem: neoprene and other rubber materials are perishable. They eventually start to rot, dry out, and fall apart. Most of the vintage wetsuits that could be used as cites would probably fall apart of someone tried to actually wear them now.

So, what is good enough as a cite for this article? Do we need to set up a photo archive on Wikimedia of old-style wetsuits?

DMahalko 22:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Mermaid suits
The link provided as a reference for mermaid suits seems to be to a small company that is trying to popularize them. There is no mention of men on this site (except to say there is no reason why they should not wear them) and this is contrary to the article which says that they are "equally used" by men and women. I don't know enough about wetsuits to know, but this looks like blatant advertising of a "new type" of suit that is actually a novelty product. Could someone either clarify here or remove/improve the information? -- cmhTC 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Somebody removed it anyway. --Qsaw (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Water is NOT an insulator!
"Wetsuits help to preserve body heat by trapping a layer of water against the skin; this water is consequently warmed by body heat and acts as an insulator." FALSE (though commonly stated to beginning divers). Water is a conductor, not an insulator. The insulation is provided partly by the neoprene suit material, but mainly by the bubbles of gas that are occluded within that material. 58.174.242.29 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct in stating that water is not an insulator when considering heat conduction. Nevertheless, it is stretching the point somewhat to call it a conductor either! Browsing through Thermal Conductivity of some common Materials and Conduction will show that insulators are considered to have thermal conductivities (k) up to 0.16 W/m K; water has a k of about 0.6; while metals usually have conductivities in the range 100-400. Clearly, water lies outside the insulator range by at least a factor of 4 but is 100 times less conductive than the worst metals. Anyway, that's academic as I don't suppose anyone is going to insert a claim that water is anything more than a very poor conductor of heat. It's interesting to note that the k of neoprene is quoted as being in the range 0.15-0.45 which of course makes it 10 times better at conducting heat than still air (which has a k of 0.025) and not far different from water when compressed. It would seem that those little occluded bubbles don't help much :p
 * The heat conduction of water is not particularly relevant, because real-world water doesn't stand still, and so it exhibits convection in addition to conduction. Water moves inside the wetsuit which helps to conduct heat from the skin to the neoprene.24.85.131.247 (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as the article is concerned, it would probably be best to make the points that the water outside the diver removes heat mainly by convection and because of water's huge heat capacity, a naked diver would rapidly lose body heat in water below 20+ Celsius - and that the most desirable property of a wetsuit is a good fit. Eliminating flushing is far more important than the small difference in thermal conductivity between a thin layer of water and a few mm of neoprene. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess 58.174.242.29 merely wanted to point out that the suits insulation does not depend on the trapped water film, which is a common misconception. Jaho (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, RexxS is not correct. It is in fact those few mm of neoprene which insulate. The wetsuit does not get rid of convection, which still happens as before. Only, it happens at the surface of the foamed neoprene, rather than the surface of the wearer's skin. Because the foamed neoprene doesn't conduct heat well, its surface becomes nearly as cold as the water. The water removes heat as fast as the neoprene can supply it. Thus, there being little heat differential between the neoprene and the water, little heat is lost. If the wearer's skin is exposed without neoprene cover, there is substantial loss because the skin is not only made up largely of water, which conducts better than foam, but it performs active convection of heat due to the circulation of blood. Warm blood travels to the surface of the skin, gets cooled, and then travels back deep into the body. Neoprene gives you a second skin which is made up of air (air which cannot convect because it is trapped in small pockets), and a skin which has no heat-circulating blood vessels. That's all there is to it. A thin rubber sheet will not keep you warm, even if it constitutes a dry suit. 24.85.131.247 (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've worked that out below. You can eliminate flushing entirely, but a even a drysuit would still be mighty cold, if it was a membrane type with no insulation. Going to wet gets rid of some insulating air between the membrane and your skin (which isn't much), and is colder still. Without that insulating foam (or insulating fabric inside a drysuit, or both) you're going to be cold. Small trapped air pockets do the insulating job in all cases. S  B Harris 03:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

O'Neill
An editor has just inserted the assertion that 3 brothers founded O'Neill, which led me to check it as far as I could. So far I can't find any reference, let alone a WP:RS. Also, the Surfline website gives Jack's wife's name as "Marge" while the O'Neill website indicates that indicates that Bridget is the name of one of Jack's daughters.

In summary, I'm not at all convinced that much of what is in this paragraph is true - and it certainly doesn't seem to meet WP:V. I suggest it be deleted unless someone can come up with some sources. --RexxS (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the paragraph leaving in the facts that I could verify and added the sources they used. They are not great sources, but hopefully better than no sources at all. --RexxS (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Three brothers did start O'Neill, Robert O'Neill being one of them check here and here. Even though Jack O'Neill does not recognize his own brother via oneill.com website it has been edited accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.225.235 (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The second source is just a copy of an older version of the Wikipedia article, so no use for verifying the claim. The first one really doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, in my humble opinion - see WP:RS. However, I'll add the source to your edit and see what others think. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
Why is wetsuit one word, whereas dry suit is two words. Shouldn't related content be created in a consistent method? Merriam-Webster.com says that both entries are 2 words, with alternate spelling as one word. Wikipedia needs to standardize spelling, so we don't have British spelling mixed together with American in articles.


 * I think it's more a question of usage than UK/US. When two words are used together in English to convey one idea, it is not unusual for them eventually to become written as one word (sometimes passing through a phase of being hyphenated). This generally takes time and is driven by common usage. It would be nice to think we could dictate uniformity, but we should use the spelling that is found in the majority of sources - and if that is inconsistent between related words, then that's what we use. I suspect that 'dry suit' will eventually become 'drysuit' over time, but we're not there yet. As an aside, the hat note (or is that hatnote?) on this article directs to Diving suit for scuba-specialized clothing. I expect 'divingsuit' may take much longer. --RexxS (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Beuchat
A claim that Georges Beuchat invented the first "isothermic wetsuit" has been made here, at Recreational diving and Timeline of diving technology. I have been unable to find such reliable sources to verify that claim, and I'm not clear how other wetsuits are not "isothermic". This is probably a translation of combinaison isotherme constituée de mousse de caoutchouc (isothermal combo made from foam rubber). There are traces of sources from a google of "Georges Beuchat"+wetsuit, but http://cac.plongee.free.fr/Histoire/Histoire.htm is a dead link and what's left is forums and the French wikipedia. I've marked this claim with a fact tag, but think it better to wait before removing it, in case sources can be found. --RexxS (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Better link for you here. Does not help me think this is notable though. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thickness error
"Typically, cold water wetsuits have 12 to 15 mm of material around the torso and 6 to 8 mm for the extremities." I've removed this statement because it is completely incorrect. Wetsuits are available in thicknesses up to 7mm. I've never seen one thicker than that. If a wetsuit was 12-15mm (1.2-1.5cm), it would be too thick to allow any kind of movement.Fuzzform (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement is correct because wetsuits are available as two-piece suits (e.g. "Farmer John" + jacket) - take a look at http://www.ndiver.com/site/test/ndiver_clearance/products/wetsuit_twopiece.html for an example. While I would agree that "typically" is too strong, it is not an uncommon arrangement. My first wetsuit was a Beaver Icelandic two-piece and despite having 2 x 7 mm = 14 mm around my chest, I was able to dive perfectly well in it. Would you be kind enough to revert your error, please? --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sizing / Fit
The size of a suit could be mentioned relative to its wearer. Is a tight fit desirable, and what is too tight, or too loose? Someone with experience could try to describe "a good fit". Also, will a new suit 'give a bit' after a little use or age ? 79.75.101.176 (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A tight fit is desirable to prevent water "flushing" out of the the suit (the major source of heat loss in ill-fitting suits), although having good seals around the neck, wrists and ankles is more important for that purpose than the suit being body-hugging. Depending on the thickness of the neoprene, it will stretch a little, but new suits are pretty flexible. I have a twenty-odd year old wetsuit that has become stiff with old age, rather than more flexible, but that happens to all of us! Unfortunately, no amount of experience makes me a reliable source for encyclopedia information. So unless someone can find a good article about wetsuit fit from a reliable publisher, we'll have to make do with anecdotes on this talk page. :( --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Flushing is certainly bad, but it happens almost entirely at the neck and a diver is certainly aware of it! The next-worst heat transfer in a wetsuit is the convection-heat transfer from the diver's skin to the inside of the suit, via micro-water currents. That happens in a worse way if the suit doesn't fit well, but there is little to stop it in any part of the suit that doesn't contact skin quite closely. When it acts, it transfers heat well from skin to suit and causes the skin temperature to assume the temperature of the inside of the suit, which essentially means that the internal water stops being a part of the insulation at all, since it's so much worse than the neoprene. You can look up the purely diffusive "k" for still water, but we don't have still water here, so it's irrelevent! The entire purposes of small bubbles in neoprene (as the trapped air pockets in any air-based insulation fabric) is to cut insulating power down to as close as possible to the diffusive conductivity of air, with no convection. As such, the insulating power of the compressed air bubbles in neoprene, bad as it is (a quarter as good at 100 ft as at the surface, which is most of why that depth feels so cold!) is most of what does the job that gets done. I doubt if the water layer helps much at all. If it's "immobilized" well enough to stop convection, it's too thin to help. And if not, its thick enough to allow convection and then you don't have the diffusive k anymore, but something far closer to a conventional conductor. S  B Harris 21:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I follow your reasoning, Steven, but can't agree with your conclusion! Surely a situation where the skin is in contact with the inside of the suit provides approximately the same total thermal resistance as the situation where the skin is coupled to the inside of the suit by efficient convection? In either case, the heat which is lost still has to flow away through the wetsuit (which is the principal thermal resistance in the path). In the case of a very thin layer of water – as you rightly say – it's a negligible barrier to heat flow. Once a steady state has been reached, in all three cases, the skin, the inside of the wetsuit and any water in between are at roughly the same temperature, so the rate of heat loss would be pretty much the same.
 * On the other hand, flushing can also be a significant loss. For each litre of water that's been heated by the body from 20 C to 35 C, there is a loss of 6,300 joules when it's replaced by water at 20 C. In water at 20 C and skin at 35 C, an uncompressed neoprene suit with a surface area of 2 square metres and 7 mm thick loses heat at a rate of k.A.dT/t (conductivity x area x temperature difference / thickness) = 0.15 x 2 x 15 / 0.007 = 640 joules per second. So flushing 10 cc of water per second is the same as the heat lost through the suit. Or put another way, it would make a 7 mm suit feel like a 3.5 mm one - brrrrr! --RexxS (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't disagree about the badness of flushing-- clearly it's the worst thing that can happen. I was merely making the point, which you seem to agree with above, that in the absense of flushing, the value of water insulation inside the suit is nearly nil with respect to the neoprene. Its resistance due to thinness, absense, or thickness-with-convection makes it a thermal extension of the skin, and thus can be neglected in the calculation. One cannot use its simple diffusive resistivity, since that only applies to layers too thin to offer much total resistance! As a thermal "resistor," any trapped water in the suit is in series with a "resistor" of much higher resistance (the suit fabric itself), and can be disregarded. Most of the termperature drop will be across the suit, not the water inside. So, a wet suit (fitted at neck and limbs to eliminate flushing) really doesn't rely to any significant extent on the insulative power of the water inside-- that's an urban myth. S  B Harris 17:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely 100% in agreement. Now where the heck do we find the sources so that we can write it into the article? :D --RexxS (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I finally found a data sheet that gives a value for thermal conductivity of foam neoprene: It shows a value of 0.08 W/m-K which I assume is uncompressed. Compare with 0.025 for air and 0.15 to 0.45 for sheet neoprene of different types, and 0.56 for cold still water.
 * http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=57bd764080a74a03bbe04401f85c0511&ckck=1

Does anyone have access to http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/38/20/009 as that models how the conductivity of neoprene changes with hydrostatic pressure? --RexxS (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pendergast is a friend of mine so I should have the article for you soon. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Update - Check your email RexxS. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent as always, Gene! For readers who don't have access to the journal, I've included a couple of quotes below.
 * Page 3837: "The thermal conductivity started at a value of 0.0518Wm−1 K−1 and increased to 0.0942Wm−1 K−1 for the 5mm sample, whereas it started at 0.0561Wm−1 K−1 and increased to 0.116Wm−1 K−1 for the 12mm sample"
 * Page 3836: "The initial densities of the 30.5 cm × 30.5 cm foam neoprene sheets were measured to be 262 kgm−3 and 293 kgm−3 for the 5mm and 12mm samples, respectively."; "The density at 1.2MPa (107 msw) was 800 kgm−3 and 899 kgm−3 for the 5mm and 12mm foam neoprene samples, respectively."
 * There's more, so if anybody is keenly interested in this topic, drop me (or Gene) a note. --RexxS (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's more, so if anybody is keenly interested in this topic, drop me (or Gene) a note. --RexxS (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Gents please put all units in metric first then imperial after if required. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia not an American encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.142.68.62 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 9 August 2011
 * Thanks for adding the convert template for those temperatures. I'm not sure if you're aiming the comment at us, but Gene is American and I'm British, and both of us will supply metric/SI/imperial/other units as required by the context. WP:MOSUNIT gives some fairly complex guidance on what units to use and how to decide which comes first, but I agree with you that providing at least one conversion each time will allow most readers to get some idea of what quantities are being discussed. However, I don't know of anyone who measures thermal conductivity in "British Thermal Units per foot-degree Fahrenheit", so I didn't bother doing those. --RexxS (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Image Taucheranzug
Here my photo from the Berlin Museum of technik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoKiLeCh (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Titanium in wetsuit material
The claim in the article that titanium fibres are used to increase flexibility and/or warmth is implausible. Titanium is a high modulus material, adding it as fibres to a neoprene matrix will increase stiffness/rigidity. It is also a fairly good conductor of heat, so how it could increase warmth is not clear. I know that titanium has been advertised by wetsuit manufacturers, but I have never seen any claim that it is used as a fibre, nor how it is supposed to work, and I have assumed that it is standard marketing bullshit. The neoprene in the claims was silvery colored on one smooth surface, I suspect it may be using titanium powder as a pigment. I had a suit where this was used on cuff seals, and it was not obvious that it made any difference, though the surface did crack after a while. Can anyone find a reference proving otherwise? Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * From the 3rd bullet point here, it looks like the titanium provides a silvered rather than a dark surface, which reduces radiative heat loss. Given that most of the heat loss is conductive/convective, I have my doubts about how much that helps.-Wikimedes (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that might be what they are trying to say. However I consider that particular advertisement to be inaccurate on several points, if not actively misleading. There remains no indication that relaible sources have documented tests showing that there is any substance to the claims. The first bullet point in the same source is even more dubious, as no indication is given of in what way the calcium carbonate is substituted for "petroleum" which is an excessively vague term in this context. I think the authors of the advertisement had no idea of what they were talking about, and just grabbed a few catchy terms from the manufacturer's specification and applied spin. The word "bullshit" springs to mind. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is an advertisement and not a reliable source.  It gives an indication of what the claim for titanium is, but in no way substantiates the claim, and is not useful for writing the article, just for an understanding of what the claim is.
 * In the first bullet point, I think they mean that CaCO3 is used as the carbon source for the polymer synthesis, rather than the more commonly used and non-renewable fossil petroleum products. But again, this just aids our understanding and is not really useful in writing the article.  (Except that now that we know what the claims are, we might be able to more easily locate sources substantiating or refuting the claims, or simply remove the unsubstantiated claims from the article.)--Wikimedes (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My expertise in polymer chemistry is very limited, and I can't think of a way that CaCO3 could be used as a carbon source for polymer synthesis. Possibly as a CO2 source for expanding the neoprene, but I thought that was generally done with nitrogen. What CaCO3 is frequently used for in composite engineering is a cheap filler, to extend volume, but it usually results in a heavier, less flexible and less water resistant product when used in laminating resins. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both these commercial sites (same company as above) and  claim that CaCO3 can be used instead of oil as the raw material for neoprene rubber.  A Bing search resulted in several hits for companies that sell CaCO3 as an additive to modify rubber's physical properties, similar to what you say.  I'm not looking to add this info to the article, though the possible use of CaCO3 as a raw material for synthetic polymer synthesis is interesting.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As fashion?
I know nothing about wetsuits and I know nothing about fashion; I just want to say that up front. However, while idly watching '80s videos, I noticed wetsuits cropping up occasionally: from 3:05 to about 3:20 of this one ("Show Me" by The Cover Girls), and on the young lady on the right throughout this one ("Point of No Return" by Exposé on TV). So, my very-uninformed question is: were wetsuits ever a "fashion" item in the late '80s, either in clubs or for performers? A2Kafir (and...?) 05:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Single Backed
Single backed neoprene is beneficial for activities that are on water as opposed to in it. This is because it sheds water more readily from its outer surface and is therefore less affected by evaporative windchill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.25.61 (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can provide a reference for this we might be able to use the information. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

See http://www.spartanwetsuits.com/2012/06/12/single-lined-neoprene-the-only-defense-against-a-chilling-breeze/ Also many references if "single neoprene windchill" typed into search engine 86.130.71.209 (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Advertising copy is not considered a reliable reference for anything that is not immediately obvious, like availability, appearance and existence. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely this is basic physics and an already accepted principle? A material that retains water on its surface will support evaporative windchill, whilst a material that sheds water won't. Wikipedia's own Wind Chill entry states "A surface that is wet, such as a person wearing wet clothes, will lose heat quickly as the moisture evaporates and therefore feels colder." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.180.189 (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am well aware that the statement is true, That does not remove the necessity to be able to provide a reliable reference. Wikipedia articles are expressly disqualified as reference for other Wikipedia articles to avoid circular arguments. Also the statement you refer to is not referenced, so we can't borrow the reference. If you feel strongly enough that the information should be included, all you need do is find an external secondary source and cite it. That is what we all have to do, and finding and citing suitable sources may be the hardest work in compiling this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is made reliable by referring to reliable sources. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Too many images
It's unusual for a Wikipedia article to have too many images, but this is the case here, where 11 images are used. From the point of view of an encyclopedia, the point of an image is to convey information more easily than that information could be imparted by text. Image use policy is clear about this: "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."

There are over 50 images of wetsuits on Commons (commons:Category:Wetsuits) and I don't believe it is reasonable to include all of them in this article. I suggest that we should remove images that are purely decorative, i.e. do not illustrate a point in the article, or that merely repeat a detail that other images cover. Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say there are too many images per se, but I would say that some of the current images do not serve a particularly useful purpose. If each image provides useful, relevant and unique information, which one would be too much? Other than that, I would support a bit of culling. Some of the current images are unnecessarily repetitive, others not very good quality. Also maybe some of the less informative ones could be replaced by better options if they are available. Do what you think is good, and if I don't like it I will comment. If I have the time I will also look through commons and see if there are better options. If you spot anything that needs a custom photo, I will see if I can organise something suitable. The text could also use a bit of work. There are some very vague statements, some slightly dubious ones and probably quite a bit that has not been said. As mentioned above, references are thin on the ground, so I am inclined to be less rigorous than for some subjects. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For starters, I think one woman in an old style beavertail is enough. Three is a bit over the top. My preference would be to keep the one on the boat, but I am open to discussion. The kiteboarder could stay, to illustrate use by kiteboarders. Current caption suggests information which it does not deliver, and is a touch promotional/bullshit. Any caption highlighting the brand should probably go. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of these might be useful:


 * Not much in the commons category that is useful...
 * Thanks Peter! I see you've been very busy and the article is looking Better already. The image of the semidry cuffs is an obvious candidate for inclusion, I think, as it clearly illustrates the point about getting a good seal at the wrists. I've gone ahead and included it in the Insulation section as there's some mention there of having a good fit at the openings and it doesn't bunch up with other images there. If you can see a better place, feel free to move it. The commons category is stuffed full of holiday snaps that illustrate nothing more than "Here's me in a wetsuit" - as you say, not a lot that leaps out as being very useful. --RexxS (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "highlighting the brand" :: Or edit the image to lose the brand. (I saw that done to remove a brand logo on the side of a big static propane tank in a Wikipedia image.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

B-Class review
Close but needs quite a few more references. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Wetsuit. 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/20100524061149/http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/01/exercise-in-cold-part-ii.html to http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/01/exercise-in-cold-part-ii.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517234328/http://www.gul.com/about/history to http://www.gul.com/about/history
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517234328/http://www.gul.com/about/history to http://www.gul.com/about/history

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) 22:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thermal Diffusion
As a Licensed Professional Mechanical Engineer I must disagree with the use of this term. There are three types of heat transfer Conduction Convection and Radiation. The Article states that if there is no water movement so that eliminates convection. I also think that the inside surface of the wetsuit and the skin temp once acclimated will be fairly close to each other so Radiation would be small. Therefore unless someone has some references to reflect otherwise I will wait a little bit before changing this from pure Thermal Diffusioin to Pure Thermal Conduction TSpot-SF (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The word diffusion is just as applicable to the process of thermal conduction as it is to any other process where a physical quantity is transported by some gradient from one region to another, and the heat equation is modelled by just the same equations as any other diffusion process. See:
 * Diffusion
 * Heat equation
 * Thermal diffusivity
 * Unless you're planning on removing the words "diffusion" and "diffusivity" from all of those articles as well, I really can't see the point of your objection. In addition, changing:
 * "Still water ... conducts heat ... by pure thermal diffusion"
 * to:
 * "Still water ... conducts heat ... by pure thermal conduction"
 * is poor style: "conducts ... by conduction" is a tautology, which is probably why the original editor chose the equivalent term "diffusion". --RexxS (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , It is not clear what you are objecting to. Please either clarify or produce a reference to illustrate your point. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , It is not clear what you are objecting to. Please either clarify or produce a reference to illustrate your point. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , It is not clear what you are objecting to. Please either clarify or produce a reference to illustrate your point. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Interlanguage links
Wetsuit is a complicated topic because it can be a surfing suit, one used for boating, or a diving suit. Each of these slightly different concepts have multiple pages on sister Wikipedias, not always in a one-to-one correspondence. However, Wikidata only allows one sitelink per language for each of and. The result is that the best interlanguage links for wetsuit are sometimes not the ones that Wikidata provides. That is why we have manual links – so that we can override poor automated choices with better ones. is now edit-warring to remove the carefully considered manual links and replace them with automated ones. Here is a comparison of the manual links with the Wikidata sitelinks: With the possible exception of Romanian (which is actually Standard diving dress), each of those manual links is better than the ones provided by Wikidata. I'll restore the manual links. Again. --RexxS (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)