User talk:Gene Hobbs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Nitrogen narcosis

We've got Nitrogen narcosis under review for WP:GA and it's looking very encouraging. All that learning at Oxygen toxicity seems to have paid off! But I have (as usual) a favour to ask: There are four statements needing cites (see Talk:Nitrogen narcosis#Preparation for GA Review). Do you know any sources that would verify them? They seem true (to the best of my knowledge), but I can't find anything in Bennett & Elliott, US Navy Dive Manual, or NOAA Dive Manual - the likeliest places I thought to look - that supports them. I suspect there may be some study available at Rubicon to source the "accommodation loss", "alcohol recommendation" and "fitness findings", but I have no idea where the "panic & exhaustion" came from. --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RexxS, Sorry... You will probably not find these in the scientific literature but I see you already found one in a presentation. Peter Bennett's presentation available from DAN (here) is another one worth checking. Beyond that, I would have to say training manuals would be the next place to look.

Also, if you get a free minute... These might be worth looking at as well Captain Trevor Jackson and Simon Mitchell. I saw it from someones Facebook page, Simon is clearly notable so it is time to bring this up to date. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping that An early effect may be loss of near-visual accommodation, causing increased difficulty in close-accommodation reading of small numbers in middle-aged or older divers who already have any degree of presbyopia and Excellent cardiovascular health is no protection and poor health is not necessarily a predictor might have been your edits (they looked medical <grin>). The one about panic and exhaustion, I thought may have been an anecdote, possibly reported somewhere. I'll keep searching for sources.

I've copyedited Simon Mitchell a bit and commented at WP:Articles for deletion/Captain Trevor Jackson, calling for a keep on Simon Mitchell. You should comment there when you get a moment to spare. I'll find time later to see if Captain Trevor Jackson has sufficient notability to justify it, but WP:BLP1E may be a problem. --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Decompression sickness

You've spotted a problem with the sourcing for the onset of symptoms. Mark Powell does give tables for "Symptoms of the Bends by Frequency" and "Time of Onset of Symptoms":

• Powell, Mark (2008). Deco for Divers. Southend-on-Sea: Aquapress. p. 70. ISBN 1905492073.

which he ascribes to the USN Diving Manual, but he doesn't include it in his references for the chapter. So I searched my pdf version of USNDM rev 6, but could only find a bulleted list for onset at 20-3.1 and that doesn't agree with Mark's table:

• U.S. Navy Supervisor of Diving (2008). U.S. Navy Diving Manual (PDF). SS521-AG-PRO-010, revision 6. Vol. vol.5. U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command. p. 20-5. Retrieved 2009-06-29. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

I can't find the "Symptoms of the Bends by Frequency" data anywhere in the USNDM. It's possible Mark was using a different revision, or that he meant to reference USN studies not in the Manual. I'll see if I can get in touch with him to see if he can clarify his sources. In the meantime, the tables in article are only sourceable to Deco for Divers as far as I can see, so it may be best to simply cite the book in the article - we're encouraged to use reliable secondary sources! What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, I wrote him with that question months ago and never had a reply. I called a few USN folks that have worked on the manual for years and they did not recognize it. To be honest they look more like something that would have been pulled from one of the DAN Annual reports than a USN manual. I am trying to find the most recent "Dive Medical Officer Workbook" in the pile in my office. That might be helpful. With some luck, you will hear from Mark and more work will not be needed.

I do agree that it is good to use this secondary source but not being able to validate the primary calls it into question.

Thanks for the note on the narcosis article. Good work! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've eliminated the first onset table - the second one is actually the same as the figures given in the bulleted list in the USN Dive Manual, (as well as given by TDI). I've also cited the frequency table directly to D4D as that's the only place I can find it. Not perfect yet, but better than it was, I believe. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Main page

Well, yesterday was busy. Oxygen toxicity was the featured article on the main page, so it attracted huge attention and a number of vandals. I've finally managed to catch up with with all the comments on Talk:Oxygen toxicity, but I'm left with asking you if you can find a source again, Was this statement one that you contributed?:

The lungs have a very large area in contact with the breathing gas and contain thin membranes with limited antioxidant defences, making them particularly susceptible to damage by oxygen.

more importantly, do you know of any source for it? It's been removed and replaced with a statement that

The lungs, as well as the remainder of the respiratory tract, are exposed to the highest concentration of oxygen in the human body and are therefore the first organs to show toxicity.

which is supported by Clark & Lambertsen 1970 and Bitterman 2009 - although it seems counter-intuitive to me, as I don't believe that the ppO2 in other vital organs is likely to be much less than that in the lungs (since we metabolise about 0.04 bar O2 normally). Anyway, you're the expert, can you give me an opinion, please? --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That was one of mine and I paraphrased that from somewhere but that has been too long ago. The statement is correct though. I'll see if I can find where I pulled it from but that re-write was over a year ago so my notes are long gone. We are currently moving all of Lambertsen's books and data to the UHMS collection at Duke so my free time is VERY limited. (Baby will be here in 20 days too!!) --Gene Hobbs (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! My very best wishes to all of you, and don't worry about the article - you'll have enough to keep you busy at home for some time <grin>. --RexxS (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

2000 Edits

This editor is a Grognard and is entitled to display this Wikipedia Little Red Book.

Congratulations (if a little late) on passing 2,000 edits!

P.S. If you wanted to know how to get a direct link (http://uwex.us/AUEsummer09.htm), you only had to ask :D --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and thank you again. So, how did you get to the direct link? I hate to be a bother and I should know how to do that. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You're never a bother, and I was only teasing.

• It's easy in Firefox: right-click anywhere on the area that you think is a frame and look on the popup-menu for "This Frame"; follow that to "Show Only This Frame". That frame alone is then displayed with its url in the address bar for you to copy.
• In IE, it's a bit harder: you have to View -> Page Source, then guess which is the url of correct frame (copy and paste into the address bar to check).

Best wishes to all --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

References out of main text

I know you're busy, and I hope all is going well at home, but I thought you'd be pleased to hear that the wiki software finally allows us to move the full reference out of the body of main text and just use named refs there. The full refs go inside the references section. Take a look at Bühlmann decompression algorithm to see what I mean. Best regards, --RexxS (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks! here is the summary of my last few weeks... Thansk again for your hard work here! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that link. I know this must be a difficult time, but my thoughts and prayers are with you, Becky and Andrew. Family is the most important thing in anyone's life. --RexxS (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfluorocarbon

I shared my concerns here. Article looks messy and looks like it should merge with Fluorocarbon, which I've worked on. In general, I'm concerned about all the medical stuff that is 1. either unsourced or 2. sourced to very specific journals instead of reviews. And since your expansion was my best example of #2, I wanted to let you know. -Shootbamboo (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know enough to make a call on this but the merge seems like a good idea. As for the journals, you will not find a review specific to this as this is a new use being tested by the US Navy now (and probably the only major step forward in treatment of DCS since Albert R. Behnke suggested the use of oxygen in the 1930's). There might be something in Faceplate but good luck finding where that would be. The last reference from Richard Moon (unquestionable expert in our field) is a review of adjunctive therapies for decompression sickness that points out the great potential that this holds. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Isobaric Inert Gas Counterdiffusion

Hi Gene, I was just tidying and checking references in Isobaric counterdiffusion, when I noticed a discrepancy on the page http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/4337 – do you know if the editor's name is "RC Bornmann" (per Authors) or "RC Bernmann" (per Citation)? Happy New Year to you and Becky. --RexxS (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS, Happy New Year to you as well! Thanks also for the email, I hope to be back in swing here this week (working on a new article now).

It is Bob Bornmann, I'll fix it in the database now. Thanks for that! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

George F.Bond

Just doing the assessment against B-class. Please, please, please submit this article to Wikipedia:Did you know. I'll help if you need any assistance. Best --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated George F. Bond, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. RexxS (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

- Bah @template. I found out I can nominate it for you! --RexxS (talk)

Thanks! I just asked User talk:Bruce1ee that did the nomination of the Shilling article for DYK how this was done. The only other thing I thought might be fun would be to add: "... and once appeared on This is your life". --Gene Hobbs (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Posted as an ALT: Template talk:Did you know#George F. Bond

Hyperbaric medicine

Hi Gene, hope all is well. As usual I have a request for your sourcing skills. In Hyperbaric medicine there are two lists of applications of HBOT. Doc James moved the "diabetically derived illnesses" from the "other reported applications" list to the "approved by UHMS" list [1]. This seems quite likely, but neither of us have access to the source:

• Gesell, Laurie B. (Chair and editor) (2008). Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Indications. The Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Committee Report (12 ed.). Durham, NC: Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society. ISBN 0930406230. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)

If you have sight of it, would you check the list when you have time, please? I'm quite keen to keep the first list to those indications which are in the source, as it saves huge wars about all sorts of possible applications of HBOT, some more dubious than others. Regards to Becky and thanks in advance for any help --RexxS (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi RexxS, I have the reference but don't need to pull it as I put that list in the article. Most of the indications end up having diabetes as a comorbidity but they do stand on their own since not all patients with those conditions have diabetes. Here is the current list directly from the UHMS site. It is worth pulling Jeff Davis' book and listing the first indications used from a historical standpoint. Other countries follow different lists so the proactive solution might be to expand the article to catch those indications that people might creep into the article. Hope this helps and thanks for staying on top of things as usual! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, I thought that it was your addition. I've added an extra cite to the online list on the UHMS site. In an ideal world it would be good to expand the scope to include other countries, but I'd want to find the sources first. If I remember correctly, you tidied up a mess of dubious indications when you put the source in, and the last thing we need is dozens of other putative applications being inserted. What would be next – PED perhaps? --RexxS (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Just don't dive on Viagra, could be bad. ;) The comment he added was right as far as explaining what that entry covers but since it was referenced, I think that was overkill. I keep trying to get more UHMS members to get involved but so far I seem to be missing... Take care, --Gene Hobbs (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind! Let me know if there's any way I can help with recruiting UHMS members, but considering the reception they can get, and the way their contributions are viewed, it's not surprising they might be reluctant. --RexxS (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for George F. Bond

On February 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George F. Bond, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! It got top spot and they used the picture. How many DYK's is that now? --RexxS (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Responding to your advice and suggestion

I want to thank you for your suggestion, and I will follow up. I responded more fully where in my talk section where you posted the suggestion to me, but wasn't sure if you would see that unless directed from here. WatermanFF3 (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Images

Hi, File:Bühlmann.jpeg and File:BSAC Edinburgh Prize.jpeg have source and license but no evidence of permission. I therefore nominated them for deletion. Regards Hekerui (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's easy since they were cleared with a phone call (and I already hold clearance for that newsletter) but I'll get the new editor to post something on Monday if I can catch her. Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, got busy and forgot about this... Is there a way to bring them back from the dead? The letter from UHMS for permission is here. I am not sure how this process should look. Thanks, --Gene Hobbs (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if it was an email we'd use WP:OTRS, but we may be able to bypass that. I took a copy of the picture (just in case :), so I'll try to upload it and fill in the relevant parts - although I'm not sure if Lisa Tidd has quite realised what a CC-BY-SA licence actually entails. We'll see. --RexxS (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(Additional) Looks like we may not quite have sufficient permissions. Could you make a declaration here, that you release the image under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Licence, Gene? --RexxS (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah we did it that way because UHMS already looks to me to protect their documents and this conversation was held before we added the first file. Our thought today was that if I uploaded them with permission granted to me for this purpose then it is easy for me to say I release them. (and since I am on here, people would have a contact for anything they needed so that UHMS never looses control of their materials). I am guessing the letter granting permission to me is enough but I am not sure. I am glad there is a process (and that this came up) but I wish I knew more about it. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, did you happen to copy the citations from the first time I loaded these images? If not, I'll need to pull them out of the closet to make sure they are attributed to the best of my ability. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think I agree with RexxS about the permissions, in other words although we say you require permission, what you really need is a free license such as CC-BY-SA or GFDL. There's a sample letter at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries that could be useful. You could post at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if you want to get clarification, or another opinion about this. Although the images have been deleted, any admin can restore them, so that won't be a problem once the licensing issues are resolved. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that, Phil. I don't want to badger folks who are kind enough to give us images to use, but I think the way to cover all the bases is for Gene to explain to Linda that the image might be re-used beyond Wikipedia. If she's still happy with that, then she could put it writing explicitly - either email or paper along the lines of WP:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Gene could then forward the email to OTRS or put a scan of the letter on the Rubicon site (which is surely an acceptable, stable location). I hope that makes sense, Gene.

Phil, you may want to re-delete File:Bühlmann.jpeg - I went through the uploading process in order to make sure I read everything. Or I could simply change it to a "fair use" rationale as it's used solely in Prof Bühlmann's biography and he's now deceased. But that seems like a second-best solution, if there's a chance we can get the image released under a free licence. If we do get the licence, would it be ok to bother you for the undeletions, please? --RexxS (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I'd be happy to. PhilKnight (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I have explained our thinking incorrectly. UHMS has YEARS of Pressure available and many, many photos that would add quite a bit to our articles. They understand the CC3.0 license but do not want to be bothered by me or anyone else every time we want to use one (since it could be hundreds of images). So I proposed they give me permission to make the call on their photos (per the linked letter; I also have a re-worded letter made more generic cover their other newsletter images). Is there a way to serve as their advocate in this fashion within this system? At this point, I have to wonder if I should create a new collection in Rubicon and release the images under CC3.0 there. Once I make them available under license on my own site, they would be re-used here under the same license. This seems much more clean and simple than jumping through all these other hoops that are still not clear to me. One thing our Repository project has taught me is that the easier I make things, the more support I get. If this becomes difficult or time consuming, we will loose access and support. Thanks VERY much for your time guys! Thoughts? --Gene Hobbs (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I do understand we don't want to keep bothering the folks at UHMS, and I know everybody is grateful for their generosity. The simplest way is to get a written release of all Pressure images (that aren't subject to external copyright) with a CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence from UHMS and publish it. I'm guessing it's just as easy for you to publish the pics on the Rubicon site and put "All images on this page are licensed under <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License>CC-BY-SA 3.0</a> by permission of the copyholder", then we could upload them to Commons at will. If there are likely to be a lot of pictures, I can even make a template that would generate the appropriate wording on the Wikimedia image page. Either way would work, I'm sure. What's actually easiest for you, Gene? --RexxS (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have been away so long... These hurdles are interesting but I think this page will take care of the issues now and allow for future expansion as I request new images from Pressure. (We could not find UHMS's permission for the BSAC image so that would need to be addressed with BSAC directly. I am not sure that image added that much anyway.) If I should change any wording on the linked page, please let me know. Thanks again everyone! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That page is great, Gene! I think you're probably right about the other picture, but if anybody really wants it, I can try to contact BSAC for permission. As for the wording, it looks right to me (perhaps copyright holders, plural might be useful for multiple contributors from RRR). When I have time, I'll use Inkscape to recreate the line drawings for you in vector SVG format and as PNGs (JPG is the wrong format, as it doesn't scale well and produces artifacts on sharp edges). Thanks so much for your work in sorting that out. --RexxS (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Huge congratulations on the DAN award! I can't think of anyone who deserves it more. --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Decompression sickness

Work has slacked off here following a flurry during the General Election, so I'm going to put some time into getting Decompression sickness up to Good Article standard. It shouldn't need more than a little copyediting, but as always I'd appreciate your input. There's a question you might be able to help with - there's a table of symptoms in the section Signs and symptoms, and I can't see where it was sourced from. Does it look familiar to you? --RexxS (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

DCS has now made Good Article, but as usual, you deserve the real credit as your references make up the major part of the article! That's the big 3 promoted. Next step for DCS will be new sections on Research and In animals, but I'm going to wait for you, as your expertise will be needed. Hope all is well with you and yours --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Good job! It's funny because I just got back in town from the Office of Naval Research annual program review. One of the projects I volunteered to help with was collecting information for a review of all the animal air saturation dive data sets. I'll write the Doc in charge of the study and see if we can use his proposal for editing this section. It will be the best information available and well referenced. ;) --Gene Hobbs (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Pneumothorax

Jfdwolff, an editor of whom I have a very high regard, has nominated Pneumothorax for Good Article. I've made a few comments at the review, Talk:Pneumothorax/GA1, particularly concerning diving. JDW has excellent general medical sources, but lacks anything diving-related, so seems uncertain about whether the condition is more than anecdotal in the diving setting. I've mentioned Bennett & Elliott, and a couple of online sources that prove the concern is real, but I thought I'd ask you what are the best sources that discuss pneumothorax in the context of diving, as I have no doubt you're much better than I in suggesting quality sources. It would be great if you can find the time to comment there. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The barotrauma article is one that has been on my list to revisit but you know how often I have been on here lately. <g> Diving should be covered a little better in that article given that a history of spontaneous pneumothorax is an absolute contraindication to diving.

Barotrauma should be specifically named in the "Clinical subtypes" section as this type of "over expansion injury" is the trauma that also occurs in mechanical ventilation.

As for diving related comments and references:

• There is a whole chapter on pneumothorax in the last Fitness to dive workshop from the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society (starting on page 60). --Vorosmarti, James; Linaweaver, Paul G (eds) (1987). "Fitness to Dive". 34th Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Workshop. UHMS Publication Number 70(WS-WD)5-1-87. Bethesda: Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society: 116 pages. Retrieved 2010-08-16. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• This is also a huge concern for submarine escape. This is from my post to ScubaBoard in 2007: Following a series of 'burst lung' cases following Submarine escape drills, the RN decided to look at information on pressures in the lung. Given that this can not be done on live subjects, five fresh, unchilled cadavers were used. They repeated observations made by Polak and Adams (1932) that dogs with bound chests and abdomens could tolerate high intrathacheal pressures. The cadavers used were from persons aged from 27 to 64 years. One was unbound, one had abdominal binding and the other three had both abdominal and thoracic binding. It was found that the lungs on the unbound and abdominal only bound cadavers ruptured at approximately the same time. Appox. 80 mm Hg. (keep in mind this is fresh cadavers and that any lung pathology will also make a difference) --Malhotra and Wright (1961). "The effects of a raised intrapulmonary pressure on the lungs of fresh unchilled cadavers". The Journal of pathology and bacteriology. PMID 13765778.

I can probably expand these some later but my copy of the more recent assessment book is at home.

It would also be nice to see something on the quality of life of people with a pneumothorax. Are there any other sports that require follow-up or have a spontaneous pneumothorax listed as a contraindication?

Hope this helps! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, found a copy in the lab downstairs… It offers no additional information than that already covered in the workshop posted earlier.

I also pulled a copy of Hyperbaric Medicine Practice. Under Kindwall's chapter on "Contraindications and side effects to hyperbaric oxygen treatment", he lists an untreated pneumothorax as contraindication to HBO treatment. A history of spontaneous pneumothorax is a relative contraindication to treatment and the treating physician should be prepared to treat a recurring event inside the chamber. (my note: this is obviously a larger problem should it occur in a monoplace chamber where the staff has no access to the patient while at depth.) --Kindwall, Eric P.; Whelan, Harry T. (1999). Hyperbaric Medicine Practice (2 ed.). Best Publishing Company. ISBN 0-941332-78-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) on pages 89-90.

Let me know if this is not enough for now. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gene, I know I can always rely on you to come up with the goods. I've alerted JFW to your comments, and I'm sure he'll come back if he wants more. All the best --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Gene and RexxS, could I request that one of you adds a few sentences on the most relevant points? The difficulty is that I have no easy access to most of the above sources, but I reckon Bennett & Elliott are WP:MEDRS, as well as any professional textbook. Barotrauma is only really discussed vis a vis mechanical ventilation and blast injury, but it could be discussed in a separate sentence in the content about traumatic pneumothorax. JFW | T@lk 20:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year, Gene! Here's hoping it's a great one for you and yours, best wishes --RexxS (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well! My resolution was to spend more time on adding references and expanding articles. Been too long since I've been productive here. Take care! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Standard diving dress

		The Citation Barnstar
		You deserve hundreds of these Gene, but this case was really exceptional. RexxS (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man! Nice to feel useful...  ;) --Gene Hobbs (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

QRSS

Hi Gene! I'm not sure whether your recent edit to Quintana Roo Speleological Survey is in the right place. Since the pit Hoyo Negro is within the Sistema Aktun Hu I would suggest to move this section to Sistema Sac Actun. Aktun Hu was connected to Sac Actun on January 30, 2011 (see [2], [3]).
Unfortunatelly we have no article Sistema Naranjal yet (Cenote Naharon aka Cenote Cristal is one of the access points to the cave); maybe the last sentence (about Eve of Naharon) can go to Cenotes in the meantime? Alfie↑↓© 11:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Alfie. I was a little off then. Since you are significantly more familiar with the topic, please feel free to correct my errors. I was thinking of Quintana Roo as a region and not the cave. Did not know the group was so specific. Not being familiar with the topic would probably lead to me making another error.

I was planning to harass Danny this weekend for a few of those nice photos in the NatGeo article. Those would be nice additions to the articles in here but I'll wait on my request until I see where and what we need. They were nice enough to make three of their articles available to the public for me a while back. I wanted some references here that could be used for further information since the article was so short. I'll bet they will consider a photo or two.

Thanks for staying on top of this. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gene! Hopefully you are succesful with some photos. Many cave divers are reluctant when it comes to the license issue. It tried in the recent past to get some photos from the 'pioneers', namely Jim Coke and Steve Gerrard but to no avail. If you can convice anybody, great – I could help with the license issues at Commons. BTW, do you have access to Quest? Would make for a better reference than a blog, IMHO. Alfie↑↓© 16:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I did write Danny a few minutes ago about a photo used in one of the articles I referenced. We will see if that comes through in the next few days. Rather than fighting through the release issues here, I created a page and release them through Rubicon first. That was easier for me than learning how to do it here. If that does not work, I am sure I can find one with a quick post to the boards.

I don't have access to Quest anymore but if you need that article, I can probably get it for you to read (email) or confirm the info myself and use it as the first reference. I do like the idea of keeping the blog since it is available to the public and Quest is not. This is one of those times when I would probably use both as references anyway. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

PS - Have you seen this? --Gene Hobbs (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Great! I just sent you an e-mail. I would also keep the blog as a reference; there are some nice options (laysummary, laysource, laydate) in the {{cite journal}} template. By using them one can have both a link to the original article as well as the one to the blog within the same reference. I routinely use these options in my pharmacology-related articles – so don't worry about learning the syntax. Ref. your PS: yes ;-) Alfie↑↓© 18:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Got the email. Thanks for that text, I'll hold on to that for future requests. I know Danny so that should be an easier "sell" on the need this time. <g> I have a request for the article submitted, I should have something for you before too long. Thanks again! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Divers Alert Network

Help Gene! While checking on this diff[4] – which suspiciously removed mention of Duke Uni – I looked at the source cited, http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/rcagrant.asp - only to find that our section on RCAP is almost word-for-word identical.

The Wikipedia section was added here[5] on 2 January 2007 as the only contribution by 152.16.27.210 (which is a Duke Uni IP). Is it possible that the IP is you, or the author of the 'Recompression Chamber Assistance Program' page on the DAN site (or both)?

I have to remove the section for now as a copyvio of the DAN site (which was last updated 2 December 2003, so is older and is copyright DAN).

What's best? If we have permission to make use of that DAN page verbatim, it needs OTRS confirmation. Optionally, as I guess you know more about it than anyone, would you be able to write the section for our article without it being a copyvio of the DAN page? Or do you want me to try?

Best wishes to all of you, --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, yes it is a Duke address but it was not me. I had sent the link over to DAN's President and marketing folks that day but I obviously did not do my due diligence after that text was added. I can not tell you how many times I have tried to get them to update and expand the information there. I hit them again after I added the reference by Dick Vann and again, nothing... I'll keep it on my "to-do" list but given the lack of help that I have been able to get, finding the information to get the DCS article to FA is a higher priority. If you do decide to work on this article... shoot me an email, I have more info that should be included. Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW - This older version is where it came from. Similar comparisons of other pages and you will see almost all reference to Duke gone now. (per Duke's request about a month ago) --Gene Hobbs (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for "Harvey" mannequin

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't get cocky...

Rebreathers were invented in France (Touboulic in 1808 and Saint Simon Sicard in 1849). The first practical, as you say, was the one from Saint Simon Sicard. It must be pointed out... Kintaro (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Practical can be interpreted differently by different people. If it was never put into production and considered by experts (Christian J. Lambertsen for one) to be the first practical rebreather, it was just another interesting invention in my mind. This could go on and on forever since really, Aristotle's bag or bell (depending on translation) was a rebreathing device. Bohaddin related a "bellows" in the 12th century. Neither of these removed CO2 but they do recycle exhaled gas...

Either way, telling people in the page history to check an article and reference text that was placed there by you, sounds a bit cocky. I may not be getting much sleep so I'll go with the fact that it was not to tone you were tying to convey.

Great updates lately! It has been nice to see your interest in the topic. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't sound cocky since I brought a reference for my claims. In any case, the first rebreathing system by means of carbon dioxide absorption was invented in 1808 by Sieur Touboulic (no prototype having been manufactured, apparently). Saint Simon Sicard's invention (1849) was manufactured but, apparently, no mass production started. Were Henry Fleuss' rebreathers mass produced? If not, then the first mass produced rebreather is the Davis apparatus (1910), or the Dräger apparatus (the Tauchretter rebreather, 1912). I talk about mass production because I consider it a good criterion to establish which invention was the first to be really relevant. Touboulic's invention, in any case, was the first to be based on carbonic dioxide absorption, which is, in fact, the basic principle of an oxygen rebreather. By the way, thank you for your compliment, feel free to edit the article. Regards! Kintaro (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to go with Davis but too many others (including Davis himself) referred to the Fleuss unit as the "first practical" unit. (Their term, not mine) I am guessing his ties to the patent had something to do with his opinion but who really knows now. The Fleuss unit was produced and sold but I can find no reliable estimate on how many were made. Either way, it's all history... :) Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Decompression sickness: A thermodynamic approach arising from a study on Torres Strait diving techniques

Hi Gene, I am looking for a copy of this paper by LeMessurier, D.H. and B.A. Hills: 1965. I cant fid it on Rubicon. Do you know where I can get it? Thanks Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter, Can you take a 5.5mb file in your email? (I have your address here somewhere) --Gene Hobbs (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Got it, Thanks, I am developing an article on decompression which is nearly ready to bring into article space, which I intend to merge a few minor related articles into to help clean up the WP:Scuba. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Revised graph

Hi Gene, I am not sure I understand your message correctly. Is this what you had in mind? I got the info from Hills 1978 A FUNDAMENTAL APPROACH TO THE PREVENTION OF DECOMPRESSION SICKNESS fig 10 which I got from RRR. Are you saying Hills got it from Moon in Benham and Elliott? There is no mention I could find in Hills. I would have thought something like partial pressure in tissues is something that would have been measured fairly often by a number of researchers, but then again it is not my field, and I have no idea how it would be done. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That is much better! The N2 would take up the additional space though. I am at my in-laws tonight so no refs to send. I'll see if someone can pull the revised version and send it to me while I am at DEMA. It seems more likely that Moon and Hills made the same transcription error. Funny how this one has grown so big but it makes since... The H2O you see in the alveolar space there accounts for the vapor pressure of water. There is not a similar pressure in blood (the liquid). I'll find a clean one for you ASAP. That is a great picture for that place.

I also need to say, EXCELLENT job on the article! I am out of time today but started working on the refs. I am cleaning the ones you placed first and will try to add more to fill in your tags after that. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple of questions, Please bear with me as I am not a physiologist.

1. Is the second bar correct, with the ppH20 in the alveolar gas. It make sense to my engineering understanding of gas laws. This and the CO2 will dilute the air to reduce ppNs to the level shown, and presumably measured by someone.
2. If so, then the ppN2 of alveolar air is reduced as shown. Hopefully to scale.
3. If the ppN2 in alveolar air is as shown, the equilibrium condition in arterial ppN2 should be the same, and this trend should continue all the way down. I dont see how the ppN2 in an equilibrium condition could increase above the alveolar state. There is nowhere for it to come from. Agreed, this (black area)is where it would go during ascent to reduce the undersaturation , while being eliminated in dissolved phase, but that is not an equilibrium state.
4. Do you have any numbers for the gas tensions in tissues at any other conditions for comparison? It would be nice to have a graph to compare the oxygen window at surface, 10m on air, 20m on air, 20m on Nitrox 50 etc.

The article is a long way from complete, but should at least be useful, without too many obvious holes. But hey, this is Wikipedia, nothing is ever complete.

I am working on an animation of tissue tensions during a Trimix dive with Nitrox and Oxygen deco gases, which should be both pretty and informative. I hope I can get it to work.

Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks great Peter! I am still looking for real numbers that could be used to "scale" the bars for you. Don't give up on me yet! ;) --Gene Hobbs (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bob Halstead

Hi Gene

Well, I finally got the Bob Halstead profile done... though there are several loose ends... and knowing myself, there's got to be some grammatical clangers in it. I would love to get a usable photo, and a few more personal details. Photos are so very difficult to get on to Wikipedia IMHO. I have been after a photo of of a hero mathematician of mine for over six months now - spent more time chasing the photo than writing the article. Anyhow I've asked Halstead himself if he could release one on Wikipedias required open usage criteria.

Thanks VERY much for the links, very very helpful! I must say I've developed an extra respect and even fondness for Bob Halstead from getting to know him a bit better.... if only ALL buddies were as capable and entertaining as Bob who would need solodiving?

Cheers

Howie--HowieKor (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decompression curve

Hi Gene, If you have the time could you take a look and comment on this AfD discussion. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Adjunction request -to Gene Hobbs

Rexx has suggested (and I concur) that I ask you to adjudicate a somewhat heated controversy over a subsection of the Doing It Right article, where I have authored a fair percentage of the Controversies and Criticism section. I had already taken onboard change suggestions from Peter Southwood, but you might want to check with him on how totally well I have responded to his sourcing requests etc. Rexx is now editing the section I wrote. The cuts are what I would call extreme, and I feel they are uncalled for under the Wikipedia editing policies. Rexx says not. Perhaps you can set us both some guidance on this matter. I have posted my position the DIR discussion page and my own talk page - Rexx has his on the DIR discussion page - so whichever you find most useful

Thanks for your guidance on this

--HowieKor (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)