HI gang. I have been reading and this has been the most productive forum so far that I can find on the issue and in search of some answers. I hope you don't mind me coming into your world to ask these questions.
My dept had sent in 8 bottles to be checked and all 8 come back condemned for sustained-load cracking ( SLC ).This bottles are made of 6351 alloy and have has been known to develop cracking in the threads.After the bottles were returned I sent in 4 of my newer bottles and they also come back condemned for SLC failures. Now these bottles are made of 6061 alloy and have no known problems for SLC.
It is possible although highly unlikely all of these really failed. I have heard on numerous occasions at local dive shops "All of XYZ" tanks will be condemned. While I stand on the side of getting unsafe cylinders off the street, particularly for what we would all consider severe duty/environment and to protect the safety of paid and volunteer firefighters. If you look at it from a negligence lawsuit perspective, it will be cheaper to replace them anyway than take a risk of a death or injury lawsuit.
As most fire departments would of done I moved on and notified my city council due to this problem and what this cost this would do to my very small budget. I could not accept that 10 bottles from our dept were bad.
Why would departments not plan replacement of certain equipment anyway. If you have ten tanks, and want to keep them a maximum of ten years, replace 1 a year, then you will never have a tank older than ten years. The department can then sell them as used on the open market, or dispose of them. The difference is running the risk of having to replace 100% of the item in question at once, or a small budgeted amount annually.
My next step was to talk to Luxfer and in detail he reassured me that 6061 alloy bottles should not have been condemned and that it was highly unlikely that ours and the other Dept's bottles would have had condemned bottles as the have done many test on 6351 bottles. Luxfer is stating 3 things
1) person doing test does not know what he is doing 2) That they were using outdated software to perform test or 3) just trying to sell new bottles.
On point 3, does the hydro facility also sell bottles? If so do they have an agreement with Luxfer or someone else. Why would you throw away 10 Luxfers, and by 10 more Luxfers?
Luxfer recommended taking bad bottles in for a 3rd party test.Which is were they are now at a scuba shop in des moines.When I dropped them off this tech stated that there is no way other vendor could of have done test as dirty as the threads were and spent 5 minutes cleaning one bottle that had 12 cracks in the threads as reported from other vendor.When he was done his white rag looked like he had just changed his motor oil. He could not perform test as his probe had been broken and he awaits new probe.
As I suspected, automatic condemnation. However, I still personally feel these should not be used in your environment, let alone scuba... your safety is not worth saving a few bucks.
So while waiting for results it was eating at me that possibly it was the software so I called Visual Plus and again they also stated that there is no way 10 out of 12 bottles could have SLC failure and again said what Luxfer had told me about use of outdated software and that a updated version had been released,
Remember when they told us computers would make our life easier, our work weeks shorter, utopia..
So I call vendor and ask directly for the tech.Tech claims they changed testing due to a new DOT requirement using visual eddy current.
Stranger things have happened...
Tech also claims they update software in January and July and my tests were done in May.The other known Dept's also had testing done earlier this year.
I asked for my SCBA bottles files and yet have received them.
Now they have to figure out how to forge them.
Now we have two issue's here 6351 bottles and 6061 alloy bottles.
Luxfer states in the FAQ section of the website that 6061 should not be failing for SLC and this is what vendor is claiming this is what is wrong with bottles.So why is vendor failing bottles when manufacturer said they should not be ? I also need to point out that our 6061 bottles were still under warranty but had to wait 2 months for replacement bottles then charged a $15.00 shipping charge.
Let's hope their houses do not catch on fire in the mean time, tell them to pull their head out of their axx. As to speak with the regional rep, or the company rep.
Luxfer also states in FAQ page "On Luxfer 6061-alloy cylinders, eddy-current devices sometimes show harmless "indications" that lead to "false-positive" readings for SLC. Well it's may not be harmless to them but our Dept and comsumers need not have to pay for devices mistakes by buying repalcement bottles.
shipping, well, nobody eats shipping problems, no matter who's problem it is for the most part.
6351 bottles have a low failure rate per Luxfer but has no warranty as Luxfer discontinued use of 6351 alloy in June 1988.
If these 6351 were actually good they are not now due to dot #'s being stamped out and can never be refilled giving us no choice but to buy replacement bottles.
Nobody is perfect, everyone makes mistakes, it is the response to the mistake that makes the difference.
So who is right on this issue ? You are
Is vendor just trying to sell bottles ? Maybe, doubt it, change brands.
Luxfer covering their butt ? Always
Software company having a known flawed product. What else is new, bet it runs on a windows computer.
All the above ? YES
If this is happening here what is happening across America at fire departments and scuba divers expense. It certainly could be a racket to target vulnerable Fire Departments and increase the bottom line in a tough economy.
