How to identify a Luxfer 6351 tank?

[WD8CDH]

Vendor already said the would demand bottles be tested a 3rd time from another tester.
I'm leaving it up to Luxfer now as it is their product and name.

Did you find out anything about this "new" DOT requirement?

And why did they perform a Visual Eddy on the 6061 tanks?

 

[FredT]

The reason they do it on a 6061 tank is because the tester is either not actually reading or being trained on the spec? Not an unusual occurrence, especially if the tester is affiliated with a dive shop.

The new DOT spec requires a NDT procedure of either eddy current or ultrasonic testing be done and the date of that test to be stamped into the shoulder of the tank, along with the hydro stamp.

None of the re-tester shops in my area are tooled up to do either NDT test, so they won't address a 6351 tank at all.

BTW my certs are current through Hazardous Materials Management, not PSI, as I have to contend with a lot more than just pressure bottles. I have however taken a PSI course from Bill back in the before Katrina dark ages.

More details here: http://www.firehydro.com/3al_advisory.pdf

 

[Leadking]

This thread is going to hell!!! What's with all the posts dealing with FACTS?

 

[WD8CDH]

The reason they do it on a 6061 tank is because the tester is either not actually reading or being trained on the spec? Not an unusual occurrence, especially if the tester is affiliated with a dive shop.

The new DOT spec requires a NDT procedure of either eddy current or ultrasonic testing be done and the date of that test to be stamped into the shoulder of the tank, along with the hydro stamp.

None of the re-tester shops in my area are tooled up to do either NDT test, so they won't address a 6351 tank at all.

BTW my certs are current through Hazardous Materials Management, not PSI, as I have to contend with a lot more than just pressure bottles. I have however taken a PSI course from Bill back in the before Katrina dark ages.

More details here: http://www.firehydro.com/3al_advisory.pdf

Part of the problem appears to be the vendor is applying the DOT requirement of Visual Eddy testing 6351 tanks to 6061 tanks also. That's why I asked mtndew2112 to ask the vendor what specific "new" DOT rule they were following.

 

[mtndew2112]

Part of the problem appears to be the vendor is applying the DOT requirement of Visual Eddy testing 6351 tanks to 6061 tanks also. That's why I asked mtndew2112 to ask the vendor what specific "new" DOT rule they were following.

Update

Yes WD you are correct and that it is the eddy current they are referring too. They stated it is their company policy to do a eddy current test on both 6351 and 6061 bottles. Now that I know that they do this on 6061 and eddy current testing is not required I will be going to the local diver shop to have hydro's done in the future.

More updates on my 8 condemned 6351 cylinders. After another retest from another vendor (dive shop) 7 of the 8 have tested for NO CRACKS ! 1st vendor is demanding a 3rd party test be done. So their wish will come true as the 3rd tester has been contacted and that won't like who it is (men in black).

Since the first vendor has a RIN and has already proved that they don't have a clue
on what test are needed and that they condemned 6061 bottles for SLC and several other issue's (cleaning threads before doing test) condemning just from the vp3 test results and not do the next step in the testing process
(visually confirming the cracks) and condemning hundreds of bottles which there was 20 bottles just within a five mile radius all have thrown up the red flags. Heck my cylinders even say on them "condemned visual Plus 12 cracks" and so fourth for rest of tanks.


Now the only thing I can't get across to anyone is the software flaw in VP3 which was fixed with the July update.
If USDOT requires a hydro,eddy current test and visual. Everyone blames the tester but if the tools that DOT approved for the test have problems then something is wrong and just took a testing tool out of the testers hand and needs some answers as to why it did not go any further then the maker of testing equipment. It's not right.

 

[DaleC]

Now the only thing I can't get across to anyone is the software flaw in VP3 which was fixed with the July update.
If USDOT requires a hydro,eddy current test and visual. Everyone blames the tester but if the tools that DOT approved for the test have problems then something is wrong and just took a testing tool out of the testers hand and needs some answers as to why it did not go any further then the maker of testing equipment. It's not right.

Thanks for the update mtndew.

Can you just clarify your last paragraph. I'm interested in your experiences but don't quite get what you're saying there.

 

[mtndew2112]

Thanks for the update mtndew.

Can you just clarify your last paragraph. I'm interested in your experiences but don't quite get what you're saying there.

Luxfer has stated there was a flaw in the current software ( Feb 09) that was calling everything a crack. Luxfer had notified VP3( AIT) on Luxfer findings and the new software update did not come out until July 17,2009.
So why did AIT not inform the end users of the problem. Granted the tester must not rely solely on the software or instrument,but with the flaw in software it has made the required testing machine useless.
Is it not the purpose of the eddy current test to help found cracks that can't be seen with a man eye's ?

 

[Scared Silly]

Hmm, sounds like new software was installed but no calibration tests were run on known samples??

Mtn, who paid for the second set of tests? Who is paying for the third set, or is someone in a black limo showing up to receive them? To be safe get a receipt ;-).

 

[mtndew2112]

Hmm, sounds like new software was installed but no calibration tests were run on known samples??

Mtn, who paid for the second set of tests? Who is paying for the third set, or is someone in a black limo showing up to receive them? To be safe get a receipt ;-).

All I know isLuxfer and AIT knew of the flaw in software and never passed the information on to the vendors all while they were condemning tanks left and right due to software showing "everything being a crack". So riddle me this ? If software shows cracks, but visually does verify crack how can you condemn the tank ? Granted I know of the SLC issue and doesn't need to be revisited, but now instrument is useless when flaw was in place.prior to July 17th.

My department paid for the retest by 2nd party. The 3rd test is going to be done by the US DOT in control of testing or do it themselves.the manufacturer wanted these tanks,but I am hesitate to give up chain of custody of these bottles and have turned it over to US DOT as it is their job to figure it out now.

As for legal issues that is up to US DOT and the Fire departments lawyer to figure out.
My concern was how and why Dept's were having hundred's of bottles condemned and Now know I have a better idea as to why...

 

[Leadking]

This just goes to prove the hysteria and BS that has gone through the industry without fact. Re-testers like this cause a lot of unnecessary problems.

Thank you mtndew2110 for keeping us posted !!!!