pescador775
Contributor
- Messages
- 2,652
- Reaction score
- 13
Dry chamber (mk17) or not (mk25)?
- Thread starter Robertp33
- Start date
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
pescador775
Contributor
- Messages
- 2,652
- Reaction score
- 13
The pivoting head on the MK25 is a possible reason. A turret is also available for the MK17 at a hefty price. It may have been mentioned on this thread by a gent in NZ.
beanojones
Contributor
- Messages
- 3,204
- Reaction score
- 349
Also mentioned in the other Mk17/Mk25 thread is the fact that the 25 has the end cap LP port available, which GUE features prominently in the book "Dress for Success". It defintiely allows for more hose routing configurations than most Diaphragm designs.
See next post for link to GUE page showing the end plug being used
See next post for link to GUE page showing the end plug being used
beanojones
Contributor
- Messages
- 3,204
- Reaction score
- 349
Its a chicken versus egg thing. Many technical divers had balanced piston regs with the same layout as the Mk 20/25 so finding a way to get clean hose routing was important.
However, in my experience, the average diaphragm reg with 1 HP and 2 LP ports per side will produce cleaner hose routing than a Mk 25. With a pair of Mk 25's, you end up with criss crossed hoses mostly pointing down but at an angle and all over the place. The same hose routing with balanced diaphragm first stages routes everything pretty much straight down and the hoses that cross do so much cleaner.
In short, I think people read too much into that site which shows a way to get decent hose routing with a Mk 25, but that gets confused with the idea that the Mk 25 and the related hose routing is preferred. Compare the pictures on the site and form your own opinion. I know my own hose routing is much cleaner with Mk 17's than with the Mk 25's I used to use.
However, in my experience, the average diaphragm reg with 1 HP and 2 LP ports per side will produce cleaner hose routing than a Mk 25. With a pair of Mk 25's, you end up with criss crossed hoses mostly pointing down but at an angle and all over the place. The same hose routing with balanced diaphragm first stages routes everything pretty much straight down and the hoses that cross do so much cleaner.
In short, I think people read too much into that site which shows a way to get decent hose routing with a Mk 25, but that gets confused with the idea that the Mk 25 and the related hose routing is preferred. Compare the pictures on the site and form your own opinion. I know my own hose routing is much cleaner with Mk 17's than with the Mk 25's I used to use.
Similar threads
