Looking for used tanks

[diverdoug1]

If you are in SW FL, and can't find any good used deals, Bill Jackson's in St. Pete is the cheapest place to get new 80's.

 

[DaleC]

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.

Also why I asked for clarification.

My understanding is that a vis won't detect SLC's in 6351 alloy but that regular (annual) eddy testing will years before it becomes a problem. My understanding is that the eddy testing works so well in this way that they backed off from the original yearly tesing to every five. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am all for reasonable safety but asking 7 million owners to repurchase tanks because of a situation that has been resolved seems excessive to me. If 6351 tanks continue to fail catastrophically after eddy current testing I can see the point but if regular testing ends the issue then the refusal to fill them is... Not pointing fingers at anyone here but I can't help but notice that the folks refusing to fill the tanks are the same ones selling the new ones which clouds the motivation aspect for me personally. I just returned from a region where they refused to fill 6351's but they also did not want to invest in the eddy current testing equipment (shrugs).

I'm just interested in the facts. As someone who appreciates vintage/antique equipment of all sorts (cars, farm machinery, hand tools, dive gear) it disturbs me when peole want to discard things just because they are old. But I also agree that everybody has the right to evaluate and accept their own risk accordingly. I dive 2 1976 luxfers weekly.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

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.

Correct, an eddy isn't necessarily required unless the cylinder has been hydro'd BUT it is included in our $15 price for annual VIP.

The customer needs to know that if a certain alloy of AL bottles has the potential to kill the FSO they may be expected to pay for additional testing above and beyond DOT.

I don't feel that's unreasonable. If it's that big of a deal go buy a newer cylinder and stop using questionable life support equipment.

Problem solved.

BTW The "Horse Pucky" comment set me off a bit although to your credit you edited it.

The best the customer can be expected to do is be educated about his equipment and understand the concerns his shop may have in regards to safety of both parties. I don't like having to tell customers that there regulators are so damn old we can get parts for them or that their bottle has to be condemned but it's all part of the game. No one is seriously turning down business or pissing off customers for the heck of it.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Also why I asked for clarification.

My understanding is that a vis won't detect SLC's in 6351 alloy but that regular (annual) eddy testing will years before it becomes a problem.

SLC can be viewed with a mirror and a light, it can also be felt with a pick. It is NOT always seen or caught.

My understanding is that the eddy testing works so well in this way that they backed off from the original yearly tesing to every five. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am all for reasonable safety but asking 7 million owners to repurchase tanks because of a situation that has been resolved seems excessive to me

The problem has NOT been solved, it's been IDENTIFIED and certain requirements have been added to cylinders that are used frequently in diving.

. If 6351 tanks continue to fail catastrophically after eddy current testing I can see the point but if regular testing ends the issue then the refusal to fill them is... Not pointing fingers at anyone here but I can't help but notice that the folks refusing to fill the tanks are the same ones selling the new ones which clouds the motivation aspect for me personally. I just returned from a region where they refused to fill 6351's but they also did not want to invest in the eddy current testing equipment (shrugs).

Testing doesn't end any issues. SLC doesn't wait until your next hydro date to be identified. It can occur at anytime and continues to grow over the life of the cylinder hence the additional requirements.

If you don't think a few dead FSO's is more important than 7 million cylinder owners I don't know what to tell you.

I can tell you this, your lousy $5 dollar air fill isn't worth my life and the mark up on new cylinders is about zero.

I'm just interested in the facts. As someone who appreciates vintage/antique equipment of all sorts (cars, farm machinery, hand tools, dive gear) it disturbs me when peole want to discard things just because they are old. But I also agree that everybody has the right to evaluate and accept their own risk accordingly. I dive 2 1976 luxfers weekly.

I wish your FSO the best of luck.

 

[DaleC]

SLC can be viewed with a mirror and a light, it can also be felt with a pick. It is NOT always seen or caught.

My understanding is that pre SLC indicators show up long before a catastrophic failure occurs. These may not be detected visually (by the naked eye or a pick) but can be detected successfully by routinely employing an eddy current test. Again, if there are cases of catastrophic failure in 6351 alloy tanks that undergo eddy current testing please indicate the sources as I am honestly interested.

Testing doesn't end any issues. SLC doesn't wait until your next hydro date to be identified. It can occur at anytime and continues to grow over the life of the cylinder hence the additional requirements.

See above response.

If you don't think a few dead FSO's is more important than 7 million cylinder owners I don't know what to tell you.

Well, let's take the numbers 12 in 7000000 (risk of failure not even death to FSO's) and apply them against a quick google search that shows a 1 in 200000 deaths per dives in the UK (US numbers didn't come up). You are willing to provide air to people incurring that risk (1/200000) but balk at incurring a 12 in 7000000 risk yourself? Pretty coldhearted I'd say.

That's my smarmy response to your inferance that I don't care about someone elses safety.

Now for my reasoned, intelligent response. My point is that a risk was identified (SLC potential in 6351 alloy tanks) and a response was developed (regular eddy current testing) that resolves the issue. Tanks that fail EC testing are pulled from service before a catostrophic failure occurs. If there is evidence to the contrary I would be more than willing to consider it as I strap those puppies to my back each week and last time I checked I'm not suicidal.

I have to measure risks all the time as do all divers. There is the risk of diving itself, The risk of diving as I grow older, the risk of diving while somewhat overweight, the risk of soloing, the risk of getting a bad fill, the risk of a car accident on the way to the dive site, being left at sea, sinking etc... all of which are higher than this risk.

I'm sure from your angle scrapping tanks seems like an easy solution but it needs to be put in a larger context. As a blue collar diver I can't afford to address every perceived risk immediately from my magic money tree. People tell me I'm at risk because I don't have enough dives but I can only afford to dive so often, I'm at risk from undertraining, my yoke adaptors are a risk, I don't have a canlight, I should have my own nitrox analyzer, I should dive larger steel tanks, doubles not a pony etc... Even my drysuit is sub standard in some agencies eyes. In Canada, replacing two of my three Al 80's will cost about $500-$600 retail. That's $500-$600 that I take away from my wife and kids to address a 12? in 7000000 risk that doesn't even exist if I get my tanks eddy tested (again, if it exists after eddy testing let me know).

Am I encouraging people to go out and intentionally buy 6351 tanks - no. Do I think they should be naturally cycled out as divers buy more/newer tanks - yes. Do I think properly tested tanks pose an immediately addressable threat to my safety (compared to the miriad other risks I'm exposed to) - not at this time.

I also respect your right to assess your risks differently and don't criticize you for doing so.

 

[JDMerk]

Maybe you would feel differently if you were the one filling these cylinders knowing what they have done to other fill station operators. The thing about that 12:7000000 risk you are willing to assume is that you are assuming it for someone else. I'm with the other guy on this, your lousy $5 air fill ain't worth my life...or my hand, or whatever else I might lose if your tank lets go.
As a fill station operator and filling several dozen tanks a day I can tell you that some tanks scare the piss out of you. Filling a 4500psi 45cu paintball "hand grenade" tank is one of them...6351's and WK's in particular are the others.
If I never see a pre-1990 AL SCUBA cylinder in my fill station it will be too soon.

 

[DaleC]

Maybe you would feel differently if you were the one filling these cylinders knowing what they have done to other fill station operators. The thing about that 12:7000000 risk you are willing to assume is that you are assuming it for someone else.

Well, I'm usually standing right there too while it's being filled and analyzing the tank and driving around with it in my car and storing it at my house and strapping it on my back so I guess I'm (at least) sharing the risk.

I'm with the other guy on this, your lousy $5 air fill ain't worth my life...or my hand, or whatever else I might lose if your tank lets go.

I was going to say something smarmy but let's keep it on topic.

As a fill station operator and filling several dozen tanks a day I can tell you that some tanks scare the piss out of you. Filling a 4500psi 45cu paintball "hand grenade" tank is one of them...

Do you refuse to fill them too?

If I never see a pre-1990 AL SCUBA cylinder in my fill station it will be too soon.

Does that include pre 1990 Catalina tanks too and if so why?


This reminds me of two things:

First was the time that AIDS first began to makes its presence known on the international stage. I was an EMT at the time and remember many discussions within the field regarding treating patients with HIV/AIDS. Many EMTs even when so far as to (privately) suggest that they would refuse to rescue breath such a patient even though the risk of oral transmission was very low. I always thought that if they were that risk averse they should be in another field. It took a while for the knee jerk reaction to risk to be replaced by a more reasoned examination of the facts.

The other is the response that occurs when a shark rarely attacks somebody. There is the very understandable human reaction of wanting to eliminate the threat so a call goes out to cull every potential man eating shark around. Someone (a dirty cold hearted man hating shark lover no doubt) pipes up and questions the very low risk of actually being attacked by a shark but they are countered by a graphic photo of the victim with their legs bitten off and asked if keeping those lousy sharks around is worth even one human life.

I wish someone could just answer my question about the eddy current testing instead of showing that guy with his legs bitten off (oops) I mean that blown up scuba tank again.

 

[DaleC]

Some other death risks to consider:

Car accident 1:83
Plane crash 1:5000
Drowning 1:1100
Murder 1:210
Struck by lightening 1:80000

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Some other death risks to consider:

Car accident 1:83
Plane crash 1:5000
Drowning 1:1100
Murder 1:210
Struck by lightening 1:80000

So you are saying I as a FSO shouldn't manage risk?

You lost this, "intelligent" conversation when you tried to justify my risk with your damage prone gear.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

If the crack occurs below the threads in the neck wall it won't be detected. Visual Eddy sends current through the threads by means of a probe that is screwed in and out of the valve threads.

SLC that occurs below this is not detected.

Catalina's have not demonstrated SLC.