Looking for used tanks

[syntaxerrorsix]

Just for giggles.

Same alloy same SLC.




About the Scuba Tank that Exploded

How much energy is there in a filled scuba tank

Fill at your own risk, but at least be KNOWLEDGEABLE that there is a risk.

 

[divinginn]

Is that four visuals a year rule something new? I hate getting one visual a year esp. when they want 25 dollars for it and do not look as close at it as I do,most just slap a sticker on it and call it good.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Is that four visuals a year rule something new? I hate getting one visual a year esp. when they want 25 dollars for it and do not look as close at it as I do,most just slap a sticker on it and call it good.

It's a manufacturer's recommendation for the 6351 alloy AL tanks, and it's 3 times I typoed. If you have an '89 or older AL Luxfer you may want to be aware of it.

It's for the safety of the fill operator more so than the diver. Some folks look past that for some reason.

We charge $15 for a VIP/VE/air fill and $30 for Hydro/VIP/Air fill. Each shop sets it's own price so shop around.

 

[mike_s]

The 6351 alloys are required to have 4 visuals per year if in service. Most just won't fill them like you mentioned. The sustained load crack may occur DURING hydro upon release of the pressure which is why we visually inspect before AND after. Most reputable facilities will also use eddy current testing to check for cracks in the threads.

.

There is no requirement to visually inspect a tank 4 times a year. I've read the DOT requirements for 6351T tanks and it's visual every year (with eddy).

Luxfer might reccomend 4 times a year, but it's not a requirement.

and how the heck would want to use a tank that required it being serviced 4 times a year to see if it's going to explode?

you sure wouldn't want to do that using the tank commercially. Imagine the liability.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

There is no requirement to visually inspect a tank 4 times a year. I've read the DOT requirements for 6351T tanks and it's visual every year (with eddy).

Luxfer might reccomend 4 times a year, but it's not a requirement.

and how the heck would want to use a tank that required it being serviced 4 times a year to see if it's going to explode?

you sure wouldn't want to do that using the tank commercially. Imagine the liability.

The manufacturers recommendation for its 6351 tanks is VIP 3 times a year not 4, it was a typo.

DOT requirements to not take into consideration how many times the tank is filled and emptied which is what causes the stress in the bottles. Luxfer however does and if we don't know the history of the bottle we won't fill it unless those requirements have been met.

 

[DaleC]

Just for giggles.

Same alloy same SLC.




About the Scuba Tank that Exploded

How much energy is there in a filled scuba tank

Fill at your own risk, but at least be KNOWLEDGEABLE that there is a risk.

According to that article/webpage the odds were 3 in 7 million (or 1 in 2.33 million). Any other incidents since then or with cylinders that have undergone eddy current testing?

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

According to that article/webpage the odds were 3 in 7 million (or 1 in 2.33 million). Any other incidents since then or with cylinders that have undergone eddy current testing?

A grand total of twelve that were reported.

According to PSI President less than ten were reported in NA.

http://www.luxfercylinders.com/news/releases/19991028.shtml

 

[mike_s]

A grand total of twelve that were reported.

let me add a little more to your statement. If I'm not mistaken, it's 12 that have had a castrophic failure in that article.... Others have been found that were cracked due to SLC. They aren't consider part of that twelve. (they have to blow up to be part of that "12". The cracked ones aren't...)


that 12 is also since 1999. A 6351T tank stored in a shed in Australia ruptured since then. I think one other in south Florida did also.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

let me add a little more to your statement. If I'm not mistaken, it's 12 that have had a castrophic failure in that article.... Others have been found that were cracked due to SLC. They aren't consider part of that twelve. (they have to blow up to be part of that "12". The cracked ones aren't...)


that 12 is also since 1999. A 6351T tank stored in a shed in Australia ruptured since then. I think one other in south Florida did also.

Quite right.

 

[Scared Silly]

I'm not sure whats worse sometimes, the Dive Shop BS or the SB BS.

Are we talking with or without eddy current testing??? Your post blended visual inspections with eddy-current testing. Thus my original comment - though now edited.

If I am correct the inspection every 4 months for heavily used cylinders is a visual only (i.e no eddy current test). Similarly the annual visual inspection is also visual only. It is only at 2.5 year interval that a visual inspection along with an eddy-current test is "required" by luxfer.

Now that DOT has come out with new requirements for 6351 (eddy-current test once every 5 years at the time of requal), to my knowledge Luxfer has not commented on them in regards to their recommendations. Which there in is the problem. Dive shops have been known to make up their own rules such as eddy current tests every year. As such, what is a customer to know what is BS or truth.