Article: Are you Diving with the Right Tank?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Biggest problem with Aluminum cylinders is their life expectancy. Compared to a steel cylinder the aluminum is and always will come up short. 10,000 verses 100,000, I know what cylinder I rather dive.

Secondly, Work Safe Australia, 8 months ago deemed that all Aluminum Cylinders made before 1990 are not to be tested, nor shall they be filled. So what does this really say about aluminum cylinders?

Steel cylinders maybe heavy, but they are the better choice out of all cylinders.
 
Sheri,

Your article neglected to mention a significant downside of diving with PST, Worthington, and Faber (and other) high pressure steel cylinders. A recreational, open water diver should be weighted such that, with a full cylinder and a completely empty BCD, he or she should be able to establish *positive* buoyancy at the surface by simply dropping his or her weight belt. However, when full, these high pressure steel cylinders are so negatively buoyant that a diver just might not be able to do this—especially if he or she is wearing a thin, or no, wetsuit.

And, of course, this has obvious implications for recovering a non-responsive diver from depth, too.

Note: This is less of a concern when using the old steel USD (PST) 72's (71.2 cu ft at 2,250+10%=2,475 psig)—especially when diving in salt water.

Safe Diving,

rx7diver

Agree 100%. If im not wearing a suit and i dive my steels, i am already nuetral without having any weight at all on my belt/BC pockets. There would be no way to perform a bouyant emergency ascent.
 
I started using HP steels when I first got certified back in 1999. How are they new?
 
Biggest problem with Aluminum cylinders is their life expectancy. Compared to a steel cylinder the aluminum is and always will come up short. 10,000 verses 100,000, I know what cylinder I rather dive.

Secondly, Work Safe Australia, 8 months ago deemed that all Aluminum Cylinders made before 1990 are not to be tested, nor shall they be filled. So what does this really say about aluminum cylinders?

Steel cylinders maybe heavy, but they are the better choice out of all cylinders.

Not exactly correct, first off, life expectancy of both types is equally long, if taken care of properly, or equally short if allowed to corrode or rust.

Second, the other issue about tanks made before 1990 is a well known issue pertaining to tanks made with a certain aluminum alloy (6351-T6). NOT all tanks and not necessarily made before 1990 although that is a good approximate date. These tanks CAN still be used and filled however they should be subjected to a visual plus electromagnetic inspection of the tank threads at least once per year. There are a few threads about this on Scubaboard if anyone is intrested in finding out more.
 
Great information,

I went to diving Din 120 steel and never looked back! Unless my buoyancy needs change, not loading extra lead weight has been great.
 
Secondly, Work Safe Australia, 8 months ago deemed that all Aluminum Cylinders made before 1990 are not to be tested, nor shall they be filled. So what does this really say about aluminum cylinders?

I think it says more about the Australian Nanny state than it does about Aluminium cylinders.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom