E-119 (Pro's - Con's)

[JeffG]

A 130 is the same tank as LP104 just with a higher psi rating? Not sure how you can get more air in a LP104 with less pressure.

Almost..Not quite...They are a bit different. (The buoyancy stats are a bit different as well. The LP's are 2lbs (IIRC) heavier)

LP104 @3442 gives ~149 cu ft - if I've done my math right

 

[msandler]

What's the difference between taking a 2400 psi tank and overfilling it to 3400 psi and just giving that same tank a 3400 psi rating?

You can no longer overfill it?

The old Lp95 and new E8119 are almost identical, save for the rating. What's the problem?

Its not a problem at all. What I am pointing out is, the E8119 is 120cuft at 3440psi. Over filling it to get more air would require exceptional pressures. It is realistic to overfill a LP cylinder by 30%. On an 3440 psi rated cylinder that would be 4400+ psi ! - good luck... Simply, you can't "jam" much more into it. A nice compact 95 can effectively (<read> "effective") hold the same 120cuft, is easier on the 1st stage, costs less and more importantly weighs less and be less negative when full. Its in the rating.

 

[msandler]

LP104 @3442 gives ~149 cu ft - if I've done my math right

And a LP120 can hold 160cuft easily! The OMS 125 is a real high volume tank when jammed. try to do that with your E8-130.

LP is the ticket.

 

[jonnythan]

Almost..Not quite...They are a bit different. (The buoyancy stats are a bit different as well. The LP's are 2lbs (IIRC) heavier)

LP104 @3442 gives ~149 cu ft - if I've done my math right

It's not correct. The LP tanks are rated at 2640 psi, not 2400 psi. The LP104 only holds 135.5 cf at 3442, compared to 130cf for the E8-130 which has the same dimensions.


edit: Oh, and as for the weight, yes they're closer to neutral when empty and therefore about two pounds lighter in the water. They're also about 5 pounds lighter out of the water though, so you can replace that weight with lead or steel and still be lighter on the surface.

 

[jonnythan]

Its not a problem at all. What I am pointing out is, the E8119 is 120cuft at 3440psi. Over filling it to get more air would require exceptional pressures. It is realistic to overfill a LP cylinder by 30%. On an 3440 psi rated cylinder that would be 4400+ psi ! - good luck... Simply, you can't "jam" much more into it. A nice compact 95 can effectively (<read> "effective") hold the same 120cuft, is easier on the 1st stage, costs less and more importantly weighs less and be less negative when full. Its in the rating.

OK, so overfill an LP95 to 3442, and it holds under 124 cf. Now slap a sticker on the side that says its service pressure is 3442 psi. You have the E8-119.

It't not an issue that you can't overfill it. You just took the same tank and changed the "working pressure" stamp on the side of it.

You *DO* realize that the LP95 and E8-119 are almost identical save for the stamp on the side, right? You're saying that the E8-119 is therefore inferior simply because you can't overfill it. Er, you don't need to overfill it anymore since the working pressure is high enough.

 

[JeffG]

It's not correct. The LP tanks are rated at 2640 psi, not 2400 psi. The LP104 only holds 135.5 cf at 3442, compared to 130cf for the E8-130 which has the same dimensions.


edit: Oh, and as for the weight, yes they're closer to neutral when empty and therefore about two pounds lighter in the water. They're also about 5 pounds lighter out of the water though, so you can replace that weight with lead or steel and still be lighter on the surface.

See...thats why the disclaimer

But my point is still correct...They are not the same tanks with different pressure ratings

135 <> 130 and LP104 Weight <> E8-130 Weight

 

[jonnythan]

See...thats why the disclaimer

But my point is still correct...They are not the same tanks with different pressure ratings

135 <> 130 and LP104 Weight <> E8-130 Weight

You're right in that the only major difference between them is a couple of pounds. Msandler still seems to be missing the point that the 130 is very very close to what the 104 is in both size and weight. Just because you can't overfill the 130 doesn't mean it's a problem.. overfilling a 104 to the working pressure of a 130 doesn't make the 104 better, when they're the same size.

 

[JeffG]

You're right in that the only major difference between them is a couple of pounds. Msandler still seems to be missing the point that the 130 is very very close to what the 104 is in both size and weight. Just because you can't overfill the 130 doesn't mean it's a problem.. overfilling a 104 to the working pressure of a 130 doesn't make the 104 better, when they're the same size.

I agree 100%...I bought 130's just because they are around. 104's are not very common in Alberta.

 

[msandler]

ok I concede. I guess the extra $100/tank is worth it if your lds won't "fill" your tank. no, I am not missing the point, I guess it comes down to marketing...

peace

 

[msandler]

jonnythan, I am surprised at you though. You are typically a stickler for details like small differences in tank specs. The 95 specs are better (psi rating aside). What sources are you using for the comparison. many sources I have found often conflict.