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!!
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!!
"Is this thing on?"
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.Originally Posted by Jay
Me tooOriginally Posted by tj
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.
It's bad luck to be superstitious.
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.Originally Posted by billyf
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
"Learning the techniques of others does not interfere with the discovery of techniques of one's own." B.F. Skinner, 1970.
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.Originally Posted by rjack
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.![]()
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
An independent diver.
Thanks for the info.Originally Posted by bletso
Mike M
Bookmarks