Cylinder Specs - what's the dang deal...?

[SeaJay]

Mo2vation once bubbled...
Water capacity, liters, bars, kg? You're killing me, man.

Its not a question of "not believing you" - I'd LOVE to believe someone.... but where I am finding reasonable consistancy with PST, the Faber specs I'm finding are all over the map. Appreciate the link. Cool pics.

The hunt continues.

Liters.

Bars.

KG.



Dude, this is America.

K

Hahahaaa!!! Sorry, man...

The specs are some of the most complete I've found out there... And so I linked them from my site. They're not "mine" in that I didn't make them... But simply a collection that I've found trustworthy.

The specs on there (I'm not sure why you didn't see them) says that Faber LP95's run from -8.5 lbs to +0.6, with the ending weight about a pound and a half different from your HP100's. All measurements on that page are saltwater specs, and you can expect them to be 6% heavier in freshwater.

This information is gathered from the page I cited, near the bottom under a heading called, "Steel Cylinders."

It's important to note that a heading just above that one called, "Scuba Cylinder Chart" shows that Faber makes a steel 95 that's rebadged as a Scubapro cylinder that has a buoyancy of -8.5 to -1.2.

I suspect that the difference between the two cylinders has to do with year of manufacture, or what the actual name is that's stamped on the top. Or... Perhaps the measurements were taken a little differently and came out a bit different due to water salinity, temperature, or what they considered an "empty" tank.

The bottom line is that yes, there appears to be little difference between the buoyancy characteristics of your HP100's and the Faber LP95's.

 

[Mo2vation]

I was feeling a little chippy this morning....

I need to say it again...not just cool pics on that site, inspiring pics.

Dude, I want to go dive with a tank. Great, great pics.

I'm a dry photographer looking for a reason to wet it up - These almost pushed me over the edge this morning. I just cut out to view them again.

For me, its the composition that just rules. Underwater is another world to most dry-people - and without scale its toughfor them to get an idea of what the heck is going on down there.

Filling the screen with a reef fish poking out of a porthole is cute, but doesn't begin to convey what we as divers see as the ship/plane/tank emerges out of the murk in its crusty bigness on our descent, and keeps getting bigger and bigger.

The scale is magnificent, and touches me (as I shoot a lot of big scale stuff...) with the diver in mid column.... anyway, I blather.

They rule. Thanks -

K

 

[SeaJay]

That's flattering.



I'd love to claim them as all my own, but I must give credit where credit is due; the best photographs were donated to the site. Mine are on there as well, but there's no doubt in my mind that the ones you're referencing are the ones that were donated.

...'Cause the first time I saw them, I felt exactly the same way do. Inspiring, aren't they? Especially to someone like you and me that considers "wrecking" to be the most attractive form of diving.

Credits for each photograph are underneath of each. If there's no credit, then the picture is my own... With one exception, where I haven't been able to credit the photographer because the photograph was anonymously donated.

Have you seen the videos section? Talk about inspiring... Of special note is the "Shipwreck!" section in my "Videos" area - to access, go to "Look" then "Videos" then "Shipwreck!"

Those are Michael Barnett's videos... He's a poster here on this board and is well known in the tech diving community. They're all awesome... But my favorite is the "teaser" to the video he sells on his site. It simply rocks like I've seen no video rock before.

Come to think of it, I believe that Michael has had some of his work on Discovery or the History Channel or something like that. Perhaps he'll chime in and tell us a bit more?

 

[bertschb]

I don't know if this link will help but...
Tank specs

 

[Mo2vation]

Its not often I rent - so I don't have my log filled in with correct weighting with the more popular tanks that are out there. Knocking them off one at a time, however.

Tomorrow - its an old school steel 72. I've seen specs ranging from -6 when empty to +3 when empty.

Surely there is reliable data for these someplace.

Thanks

Ken