Don,
I agree that it is not that big a money deal, goodness knows I spend a lot more on equipment each year, but it just bothers me for everyone to jump on the 6351 bashing bandwagon. The risk associated with these tanks is minimal when cared for properly and serviced appropriately. Bringing it closer to home for you, I know that you feel strongly about CO testing of tanks. There are a lot more people injured/killed from CO poisoning each year than 6351 failures in the last decade. However, you are one of the few that says anything about CO monitoring.
Sparkle,
That was a good article. However, if you will look it is pointed out that eddy current testing was not done on these tanks. This would have and does catch the cracks before they blow.
I did not bring this up as a hijack but rather to pose the question that even if the tank involved in this instance was currently VIS Plus would the chance of a developing crack made it structually deficient to the point that a drop would set it off. Could this be the result of the in-between time of the crack developing but not to the point of being caught with VIS Plus and would not have failed on filling but could have with trauma?
Just food for thought (and discussion)
I agree that it is not that big a money deal, goodness knows I spend a lot more on equipment each year, but it just bothers me for everyone to jump on the 6351 bashing bandwagon. The risk associated with these tanks is minimal when cared for properly and serviced appropriately. Bringing it closer to home for you, I know that you feel strongly about CO testing of tanks. There are a lot more people injured/killed from CO poisoning each year than 6351 failures in the last decade. However, you are one of the few that says anything about CO monitoring.
Sparkle,
That was a good article. However, if you will look it is pointed out that eddy current testing was not done on these tanks. This would have and does catch the cracks before they blow.
I did not bring this up as a hijack but rather to pose the question that even if the tank involved in this instance was currently VIS Plus would the chance of a developing crack made it structually deficient to the point that a drop would set it off. Could this be the result of the in-between time of the crack developing but not to the point of being caught with VIS Plus and would not have failed on filling but could have with trauma?
Just food for thought (and discussion)