Talk:Diving equipment

Octopus retainer

Can someone who dives please explain what an "octopus retainer" is and what it is used for? 65.78.188.53 (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is a device to hold an "Octopus demand valve" in place. An Octopus demand valve is a second demand valve connected to the primary regulator to supply emergency breathing gas to another diver. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus Retainer can also help save divers lives. XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.1.49.2 (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tags

I have removed the 'improve' and cleanup tags after a fairly extensive cleanup. The article still has very few inline references, but as almost all of the entries are linked to main articles or sections in other articles where they are usually adequately referenced, I consider this unneccessary. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DiverGuard

Part of the article seems to have been hijacked to act as an advert for this dubious device. Automatic inflation of the BCD of a diver who is not breathing, or has irregular breathing, will result in an uncontrolled ascent from depth with the attendant risk of burst lung and arterial gas embolism. This is not the optimal management of any diver who is diving under normal recreational conditions. I've requested a source for the claim that it "rescues divers in distress", but I remain convinced that the encyclopedia is simply being used as part of a PR campaign for snake oil. --RexxS (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RexxS, I think it is legitimate to mention the existence of the device, and the manufacturer's website is reasonable evidence of its' existence. I have not found any reviews on its safety or reliability or whether any diver certification agency holds an opinion on it at all. Until there is a citable opinion, I think we should mention that it is a new development and there is no citable opinion. I will do this.

I have requested User:Owlook to declare any interest in the device, as the photo uploaded looks rather like a commercial advertising shot, but is claimed as own work. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it exists, and I'm just as sure that considerable effort has gone into its promotion (try a Google search for 'diverguard'). That's ok, and perfectly legitimate as long as Wikipedia isn't used to promote it. Whether it can be classified as "Safety equipment" is open to debate and I haven't seen any evidence yet for the claim. Having seen three divers die in separate incidents following uncontrolled ascents from depth, I hope you'll forgive my scepticism. There's no citable opinion yet but you might like to consider the reception the device got at the Scubaboard forum: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/accessories/439600-diverguard-real.html

Here are a few quotes from Recommendations for rescue of a submerged unresponsive compressed-gas diver that you may want to counter-point the out-of-context quote from the American Heart Association (not a recognised source of expert advice on compressed gas diving):

"When an unresponsive diver is found at depth the rescuer will take steps to position the victim appropriately and initiate an ascent while controlling buoyancy and maintaining his/her own safety." (my emphasis)
"During the ascent the PADI Rescue Diver Manual recommends the rescuer maintain a safe ascent rate and holds the victim’s head in a neutral position." (my emphasis)
"If a compressed-gas diver is discovered in the clonic phase of a seizure at depth and the regulator is not in the mouth the diver should be retrieved to the surface without delay. If the regulator is in the mouth, then every attempt should be made to hold it in place while sealing the lips around the mouthpiece; surfacing should be delayed until the seizure has resolved." (my emphasis)

I'm unaware of any recommendation from a training agency that a diver should be rescued by inflating their BCD at depth and allowing them to make an uncontrolled ascent. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand some of the appeal such a device might have for newbies and the extremely timid. It reminds me of the parachute system for small aircraft marketed in the early 1990s—a device which (when activated) deployed a parachute for bringing the aircraft slowly to the ground, such as when a wing breaks off or the controls are jammed. The influential pilot organization AOPA rated it not recommended because the system's weight would displace critical fuel capacity, so it would be creating many more problems than it solved. (An out-of-fuel aircraft glides just fine, and is easily controlled, so the parachute system's primary justification is for almost non-existent situations.)

In certain circumstances, I can see the advantage of Diver Guard:

diving depth limited to 20 feet or so
absolutely no overhead obstructions (unlike shown in the video) or downcurrent hazards
inexperienced diver with a clueless buddy
out of air situation less likely than a medical condition—otherwise the device could not inflate anything
topside conditions calm and actively observed by many people

In short, these conditions are quite limited, but a few popular places where they might be met come to mind.

There is no neutral description of this device anywhere: I can find patent application data, trade show articles, scuba forums, and promotional literature, but no objective reviews or analysis. Until there are incidents involving the device, there probably won't be much write about. As such, mentions of Diver Guard should stay out of the article. At least for now. —EncMstr (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture at bottom of article could be improved

Honestly, no octopus? I know it's somewhat redundant for identification purposes, but it is standard equipment and needs to be demonstrated to be so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.131.47 (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard equipment for some modes of diving. I have added several new pictures, including some mention of octopus regs and a link to a section in the article on diving regulators. If you have a good photo which illustrates it better than what we have, you are welcome to upload to commons and link it from here. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]