Have you ever dove with a bomb ? (6351 Alloy Tanks)

I took the challenge from Skip to start a new thread about these tanks.

I don't know how many of them are still in use & was wondering if anybody who posts on this forum has any & also if they have been refused fills when they went to a certain shop.

I own 2 & have no problem using them, (I haven't turned them into wind chimes just yet) I know other people who have heard all the horror stories of them blowing up on the fill operators, it keeps any of them from wanting to use them if I offer it to them free of charge, if they don't have a tank.

The talk about these tanks seems to have quelled a little & I think it's because there has not been an accident with them in a long time, or is it because people have gotten rid of them from the hysteria of owning a tank that might explode on their back.

The thing is, They won't explode on your back, it is a filling problem only & was very random.

If they pass hydro (hydro mainly tests the side walls) & visual eddy(which checks the neck), then they should be treated as any other tank & be filled , but that's up to the shop & the fill operator & they should be doing a some what exterior visual inspection on every tank before they fill it, but if you have 20 people waiting for fills, this ain't gonna' happen.

Luxfer started making these tanks with ALCAN 6351 alloy aluminum in 1971 & Water Kiddie introduced them in 1979.

In 1986, they started seeing cracks in the necks of these tanks & in 1988 Luxfer changed to 6061 alloy, Walter Kiddie ceased production of these tanks in 1989, the problem is these tanks have a higher lead content & are more brittle.

The tanks in question that have a problem were made from 1984 to 1988,
Actually the problem ended in August of 1987, but any shop that won't fill them is not going to split hairs over 4 months, they just won't fill them.

I have never turned either of these tanks into a stage bottle, only because I had newer tanks to do this with & kept these if I ever wanted to do a single tank dive sometime, which I never have done, mainly because if we do a single tank dive, we started using steel 125's or 130's to get more bottom time.

My tanks were manufactured in 1986, dead in the middle of this mess, but they pass hydro & visual eddy every time, only thing is, visual eddy cost a little more than VIP, which I can do myself for free (I chose not to do vis. eddy class because the equipment used is too expensive for two tanks).

Let me know what you think?
Would you use these tanks to dive with or better yet, as a stage bottle?

Mike M

I used them for years with no problems. I have never had any shop refuse to fill them, but some do insist on the VIP+ test, and some won't put O2 in them.

You could get your own compressor :-)

I've got a couple. One belongs to my brother who doesn't dive anymore, the other I bought second hand about 8 years ago before the recall. I've got two others that are not on recall, total 4.

To be perfectly honest, I own 4 Faber 85's and 6 Faber 95's (one set doubled), and I never have a need for the AL80's anymore. I am positive they are all, or soon to be all, out of hydro.

They are just taking up space in my storage barn.

Two of my five 80s that get used for OW stuff and one 50 used for deco are pre 87 I've only had a few skeerdy cat shops not fill them. The retard part of it is that the same shop that wont fill my older tanks will fill an LP tank to 3500+.

Owned 2 for years, they still pass hydro and VIP. They are used for screwing around locally, not "real" diving. I fill my own, but only put 2000-2200 in those two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike

The thing is, They won't explode on your back, it is a filling problem only & was very random.

---

Yeah, but I'm the poor sap that they'll blow up on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gibby

The retard part of it is that the same shop that wont fill my older tanks will fill an LP tank to 3500+.

---

That's because there are no documented cases of problems taking LP steels to 3500psi.

Here's the deal: There's maybe a one in 10,000 chance of it blowing up while I'm filling it. That's a chance I choose not to take. I won't fill one.

For gosh sakes, you've got a thousand dollar computer on your wrist, and wearing a $2,000 dry suit. Pony up $75 for a used 6061.

Keith (user: Arnie) just had one blow up one night in his shop just weeks ago. Maybe he can give details if he gets online one day soon. It took out the concrete wall and moved the building a bit. No one was present thank goodness. I trashed the 2 I had laying around after that.

With the cost of scrap aluminum the way it is right now, you can get about $20 for that 20 year old tank. Add that to the cost of buying a slightly newer 80 and you'll have less invested than a single tri-mix fill. No wories about who will or won't fill it.

All the Walter Kidde 6351 cylinders should be out of service since their special permits were not renewed.

For a risk management prespective, I don't see a good reason to keep these old cylinders around. They may rarely go, but they cause a heck of alot of damage when they do. A used 6061 tank is cheap compared to the building/equipment/life that's shattered by a tank explosion.

I stopped using mine long ago but I had not been able to get my husband who owns three of those tanks to give them up. :roll: I was chewing my nails every time he went off to get a fill. Finally, last year the LDSs started refusing his fills and would not hydo. Last time I called the recycling place was shortly after the hurricanes so the waiting line to return for scrap was a couple of hours long. Things have settle down so at $15-20 a pop, I'll take them down soon.

I just don't think it's worth it to hang on to those tanks. Why live with the worry and used tanks 'not' of questionable alloy are far too cheap.

No but ihave retrieved a live 3" shell! :)


I agree 100% with the idea that it is not worth the risk. They are cheap to replace.

I have a friend that keeps bitching about his. I don't get it.

TJ,

I hope Keith and the shop are doing alright!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay

TJ, I hope Keith and the shop are doing alright!!

---

He is fine, and its been a while since I was by there. He has probably fixed everything... but I don't think he is using any more of those old tanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tj

Keith (user: Arnie) just had one blow up one night in his shop just weeks ago. Maybe he can give details if he gets online one day soon. It took out the concrete wall and moved the building a bit. No one was present thank goodness. I trashed the 2 I had laying around after that.

---

Me too

I hate to admit that I actually owned and drove a '73 Pinto (I could be off on the exact year) at one time. If y'all remember there was a pretty serious recall on these "bombs". I could fill'er up on Monday and after driving all week, still have enough for a sizable explosion.

Some of the shops in the Orlando area have stopped filling any aluminum tanks older then 1990!
I had a 1989 tank and couldn’t get it filled; I even had the documentation from Luxfer that showed that it was a 6061 and the shops still wouldn’t fill it!!!
PSI has been doing a big push to remove and tank older than 1990.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyf

Some of the shops in the Orlando area have stopped filling any aluminum tanks older then 1990!
I had a 1989 tank and couldn’t get it filled; I even had the documentation from Luxfer that showed that it was a 6061 and the shops still wouldn’t fill it!!!
PSI has been doing a big push to remove and tank older than 1990.

---

I am very worried that the current inspection protocol's are not sufficient to uncover potential problems. Never mind that people freak out when it happens to them or a friend (does not matter if it's 1 in a million if you are the one). What concerns me is that divers and dive shops do not trust the current safety protocols. First it's a specific alloy, then it's age, and then it's going to be number of times used that decides if it's a bomb.

Maybe it's time to review the 5-year hydro and the 1 year viz and replace them with a more sensitive test (although getting more sensitive than visual eddy iii would be pretty tough). If we can't trust the tests, well then, why do them on any tanks? Time for more accurate tests.

My "feeling" is that the visual eddy test is so much more sensitive, specific to that alloy, than any visual inspection done on other tanks, that my old luxfer's (no walter kidde) are safer than your PST's!

Also, the only data I've seen (from luxfer) shows that your chances of getting hit by lightening is better than getting hit by an exploding tank (the old alloy). Very few cases, but in an evironment where even one is rare.

-skip


-skip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjack

All the Walter Kidde 6351 cylinders should be out of service since their special permits were not renewed.

---

Actually not true. The permits were rolled into the 3AL specification. An E or SP 6498 is now a 3AL. There were several SP's that were put into the 3AL norm. Only a hydro facility can stamp them. It is illeagal to fill one if it isn't stamped 3AL above the exemption number.

Point not well known is that a 6351 cyl can pass hydro and still leak air. Think about it. As of 1 Jan 2007, all 6351 cyls must also be eddy current checked along with the visual at the 5 year hydro. That is all except those used for CO2 use.

I do use them, but not for O2. I will fill them if I did the inspections.

Dale

I was close on the date when Luxfer stopped making the 6351's, but after taking a closer look at their site this came about for different tanks over a few months.
The Al80's were not stopped until Jan. 1988.

S30, S63 / 5-88
S40 / 6-88
S50, S92 / 4-88
S72, S100 / 8-87
S80 / 1-88
S808 / 5-87

I have enjoyed seeing the different opinions on this subject, I do see both sides.
Although I don't use these tanks, but once every now & then, I will be the one filling them when I do.
Maybe I'll short fill myself next time. :-D

Mike M

If anyone is interested, the DOT list of converted SP and E cylinders to 3AL is in this DOT file;

http://hazmat.dot.gov/sp_app/special...000/E06498.pdf

Dale

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bletso

If anyone is interested, the DOT list of converted SP and E cylinders to 3AL is in this DOT file;

http://hazmat.dot.gov/sp_app/special...000/E06498.pdf

Dale

---

Thanks for the info.

Mike M

Hey Mike, everyone seems to have forgotten but Bill Reneker had a lady killed in his shop about 3-5 years ago filling an alum tank of the old alloy. You should be able to find the thread here somewhere. about july 03, maybe 04

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bullfrog

filling an alum tank of the old alloy

---

That's not correct. She dropped an aluminum cylinder (filled with 100% oxygen) on the concrete, valve-first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmcauliffe

I hate to admit that I actually owned and drove a '73 Pinto (I could be off on the exact year) at one time. If y'all remember there was a pretty serious recall on these "bombs". I could fill'er up on Monday and after driving all week, still have enough for a sizable explosion.

---

I owned and drove a 1971 Pinto for 10 yrs. Would have been longer but someone ran a red light and hit me. I was devistated at the time.

I had a pair as doubles, I loved them for ocean solo dives. They sat for a year full to 3300, normal for S.Fla. I used them on a dive. Before Fill express would refill Mark did a VIP. WELL.... each one had 5-6 crackes mostly where they curved at the top. So a friend cut off the top on one of them which Mark uses as a teaching tool and Ricky uses in the shop to hold valves when he workes on them. The bottom is in my kitchen with fake flowers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slüdge

That's not correct. She dropped an aluminum cylinder (filled with 100% oxygen) on the concrete, valve-first.

---

Even so. it was not worth the money saved 'just' in case the alloy was NOT the problem. This is one of those cases that being cheap is penny wise but dollar foolish. I've purged my stock. Why bother with something that is so easily and cheaply corrected. We all KNOW that we pay far more for other necessities associated with this type of diving. It's comparatively nothing to replace the questionable tanks. Get over it. Move on.

Current thread over at scubatoys - the OP *****ing about someone not filling his tanks

http://forum.scubatoys.com/complaint...ill-tanks.html
I know larry refuses to fill these tanks at his shop

The going price for AL80s is $115-$150 What is you or the your shop worth. Dive Station in Orlando had one go overnight and took out a wall and other stuff. Salvage on an old tank is about $15-$18 and no one gets hurt.

Excellent points. Thank you.

...........................
Chamika
srilanka latest news

We got rid of ours after the incident at Rennaker's. We probably would have done so earlier but that was the first time the details on the alloy and it's faults came to light and I read some documentation on it.

VIP+ was invented because of those tanks / alloy. It is a requirement to keep them in service. Other Aluminum tanks VIP+ is a good idea but not required (if I understand correctly).

I wouldn't blame someone for refusing to fill ANY tank they had doubts about. That should include any of those old tanks IMO. I wouldn't want to fill them myself and I wouldn't ask anyone else to either. It's not worth the risk and replacement is cheap.

Too bad this thread was so late getting started. Luxfer had a recall on the older tanks a few years ago, and was taking them in exchange for new tanks for only $50. That included a DIN valve with "donut". Heck, the valve was worth almost $50!

FWIW, I replaced all four of my stages at that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary

VIP+ was invented because of those tanks / alloy. It is a requirement to keep them in service. Other Aluminum tanks VIP+ is a good idea but not required (if I understand correctly).

---

Gary knows so much more about diving than me that I feel like a real goober correcting him, but this is one of my areas of expertise, so...

First, the nomenclature is incorrect. VIP+ is a visual inspection coupled with a valve rebuild, first trademarked by NASDS and assumed by SSI in the merger (although SSI allowed the trademark to expire). The eddy current test sold by Advanced Inspection Technologies is called "VisualPlus." Sounds similar, but not the same.

Second, in the instruction manual for the VisualPlus, it specifically states that it is not to be done on 6061 aluminum (the current alloy Luxfer and Catalina use), as it may cause false positives.

We have a dandy little device for looking for cracks in necks that is a lighted magnifier/mirror. I use it on all visuals, even steel cylinders. Only the 6351 and 6495 cylinders get inspected by the VisualPlus. If you ask my opinion, they should be sold for scrap, but the bossman tells customers we'll do them, and it's ten bucks for me. Here's the clincher, though: I'll fill them right after I inspect one, but not again unless I inspect it again. We have enough divemasters hanging around the shop that do fills. (I know, that's irresponsible, but my hands are tied. I personally advise the customer to trash it, but people are idiots.)

I am in the hydro business and in the SCUBA business. I have visited 100's of shops over the years and my observations are damning to the SCUBA industry as a whole.

1. I have seen shops do the 2 min visual. open the cyl, poke a light in and charge you at the time 12-15$. Well reputed shops didn't even have the proper equipment to do a proper thread inspection. If I am asked to fill fill an older cylinder, I refuse if I didn't do the inspection. I have little faith in the VIP inspection program of scuba shops in general. I don't care if their inspectors are trained by PSI, TDI, PADI, NAUI, or not. (I authored to whole TDI VIP program). The test is only as good as the individual performing it.

If shops had been attentive and doing their jobs, an in-effective eddy current test would never have had to be done. I would like to point out that the vast number of cracks I have found over the years originated in the shoulder area, an area most shops aren't equipped to inspect properly. Eddy current can not inspect this area. It still requires a diligent visual inspection. All the leakers I have found in hydro, leaked in the shoulder. BTW, VERY IMPORTANT, a cylinder can pass hydro and leak from a crack. (Hydro pressure is only maintained for 30 seconds and water is very dense as compared to a gas.)

2. Far more SCBA's have failed than SCUBA. The SCUBA industry went proactive and then banned (up to individual shops) older cylinders.

3. They (shops) require an eddy current inspection on all cylinders, even though 6061 material has NEVER been implicated in the 6351 stress cracking problem. (EXCUSE MEEE, Sustained load cracking) The DOT does not require an EC test on any 6061 material and this includes older Catalina cylinders. (Catalina never manufactured cyls from 6351 material.)

Luxfer, realizing they had a problem, aided in the design of the visual + machine to simply CYA and PR. They offered sweet heart deals to dive shops the try and find the problem cylinders. When this was brought to light, they divested themselves of their investment in that company)

In the mean time congress got into the act and developed regulations to address the problem which had been really blown out of proportion. (typical) If it wasn't for me and my company and only a dozen gas industry respondents the regs would have been far more burdensome even to the point of requiring specific eddy current machines to be used. (we also manufacture a competing EC unit)

Luxfer maintains that a cylinder hydro tested and eddy current inspected once every five years is sufficient. They say a crack takes 5 -7 years to progress to a state of probable failure. They also say any crack less than 2 threads in length is an acceptable condition.
Having worked in the metals industry for over thirty years, in a stress area such as a cylinder under pressure, or aircraft, I disagree and condemn a cylinder if any crack is found.

There was a proposal for a 40 yr life on these cylinders, Air Liquide and the CGA (Compressed Gas Association), opposed this and the DOT dropped this requirement.

I guess I agree with shops refusing to fill older cylinders, but I don't agree with their rational. I heard a shop/destination owner tell a customer last week, "We don't fill older cylinders because they are exploding on us". Now that was an out and out fabrication. He does profit by renting them replacement cylinders.

I also strongly disagree with the now accepted industry standard to require EC on all aluminum cylinders, regardless of age. It is just a way to justify higher prices for VIP's or rent more cylinders.

Flame on all,

Dale

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slüdge

in the instruction manual for the VisualPlus, it specifically states that it is not to be done on 6061 aluminum (the current alloy Luxfer and Catalina use), as it may cause false positives.

---

This was the VisualPlus machine we got in 2001. I went up to the other shop I work in, which has a VisualPlus 3 machine from 2005, and the manual says it can be used on 6061.

Although I've never heard anyone say 6061 cylinders need to be ultrasonically tested.