I think I have been "had" just a bit

[PhilEllis]

Lots of "statistics" being thrown around in this thread. Guys, remember that statistics are a measure of populations based on data. Unfortunately, nobody knows exactly how many of these cylinders were made. Nobody knows how many of these cylinders remain in service. Nobody knows how often these cylinders are filled. Nobody knows the time-progression increase in SLC for those in service. Nobody knows how many of these cylinders have ruptured during filling. In other words, NOBODY knows the data that is used to estimate all of these statistics.

Since we are all just guessing, I am going to GUESS that the failure rate of these cylinders is 1 in 2,314. Oh, I pulled these numbers out of my.....well, you know.

Bottom line. There are arguments for and against keeping these cylinders in service. Both have some merit. NO ONE has the definitive "truth" of what should be done with 6351T6 cylinders.

Phil Ellis
www.divesports.com

 

[Scared Silly]

Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Lots of "statistics" being thrown around in this thread. Guys, remember that statistics are a measure of populations based on data. Unfortunately, nobody knows exactly how many of these cylinders were made. Nobody knows how many of these cylinders remain in service. Nobody knows how often these cylinders are filled. Nobody knows the time-progression increase in SLC for those in service. Nobody knows how many of these cylinders have ruptured during filling. In other words, NOBODY knows the data that is used to estimate all of these statistics.

Since we are all just guessing, I am going to GUESS that the failure rate of these cylinders is 1 in 2,314. Oh, I pulled these numbers out of my.....well, you know.

Bottom line. There are arguments for and against keeping these cylinders in service. Both have some merit. NO ONE has the definitive "truth" of what should be done with 6351T6 cylinders.

Phil Ellis
Discount Scuba Gear at DiveSports.com - Buy Scuba Diving Equipment & Snorkeling Equipment

Luxfer does.

They stopped making them.

 

[DaleC]

They do require that from several shops for tanks in heavy rotation and unfamiliar 6351 bottles that have the propensity to crack. The problem is you have an agenda. You have some old ass tanks, and your not as informed on the subject as you like to think. It's ok that you were wrong here and that you have old tanks No ones counting other than you.

So let's see, in this thread you have stated that posters are full of hooey, personally attacked me and ridiculed the industry for the mere suggestion that your equipment may develop a problem. Does that about sum up the "intelligent" delivery of information in regards to a field you have no actual hands on experience with? Dale, you're not very good at this and you've been wrong more times than right. You believe anything you like about the topic but trying to come across as the reasonable intelligent poster here just isn't in the cards for you.

Ha Ha Ha you make me laugh, thanks for the chuckle.

I've had this debate with you so many times and it always begins and ends the same way:
Someone asks a question related to 6351
You offer your opinion or I offer mine.
We disagree.
You state in various ways that I am: cheap, inconsiderate of human life or uninformed for holding my opinion.
I then offer pages of links that show the science behind my opinions.
You ignore, twist and misrepresent everything I say to somehow make your point.
I spend pages rebutting your nonsense.

I don't have an agenda other than stopping people like you from fearmongering. I don't care if someone holds a contrary opinion. If you want to present your case intelligently, without insult, then I will make my case and you can make yours and the reader can decide their own course of action. I trust others enough to be able to do that.

Page one is the perfect example of the "hooey" spread about on the subject. The "industry" as you say does not support your position. Some fill operators do and through these many threads I have always stated that I respect their right to not fill 6351 tanks. But of course, according to "your agenda" that is not good enough. You have to try to belittle me (and others) for not agreeing with you.

I've never touted myself as a professional. I just base my "risk assessment" on the science and so far the science says my properly inspected tanks are reasonably safe. The many fill operators I deal with also think that as well so, until I replace those tanks, I will continue to dive them. If they accept the risk, and I accept the risk, I don't see what the problem is. Funny how that works.

And yes I am harsh with you. I have a good memory and I don't forget the many innuendos and insults you have slung my way.

I originally put in my two cents worth because I didn't know if the OP could tell fact from fiction. Micheal seems to have the ability to think for himself so I will bow out of the next 20 pages of retoric debate regarding 6351 alloy. It's been done to death (pun intended).

 

[wedivebc]

ST,
Even though I have two 6351 tanks in service at the moment I commend you for putting forward your case in an intelligent and non insulting manner. If some people presented their case in this manner a more civil and meaningful discussion would probably result. Phil Ellis is another poster who presents his issues in a way that, while I may not act on them at the moment, I certainly take the time to consider his POV.

I have one and I am making a lamp out of it.
Oh and I agree with what you said above

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Ha Ha Ha you make me laugh, thanks for the chuckle.

I've had this debate with you so many times and it always begins and ends the same way:
Someone asks a question related to 6351
You offer your opinion or I offer mine.
We disagree.
You state in various ways that I am: cheap, inconsiderate of human life or uninformed for holding my opinion.
I then offer pages of links that show the science behind my opinions.
You ignore, twist and misrepresent everything I say to somehow make your point.
I spend pages rebutting your nonsense.

I don't have an agenda other than stopping people like you from fearmongering. I don't care if someone holds a contrary opinion. If you want to present your case intelligently, without insult, then I will make my case and you can make yours and the reader can decide their own course of action. I trust others enough to be able to do that.

Page one is the perfect example of the "hooey" spread about on the subject. The "industry" as you say does not support your position. Some fill operators do and through these many threads I have always stated that I respect their right to not fill 6351 tanks. But of course, according to "your agenda" that is not good enough. You have to try to belittle me (and others) for not agreeing with you.

I've never touted myself as a professional. I just base my "risk assessment" on the science and so far the science says my properly inspected tanks are reasonably safe. The many fill operators I deal with also think that as well so, until I replace those tanks, I will continue to dive them. If they accept the risk, and I accept the risk, I don't see what the problem is. Funny how that works.

And yes I am harsh with you. I have a good memory and I don't forget the many innuendos and insults you have slung my way.

I originally put in my two cents worth because I didn't know if the OP could tell fact from fiction. Micheal seems to have the ability to think for himself so I will bow out of the next 20 pages of retoric debate regarding 6351 alloy. It's been done to death (pun intended).

Your problem is you want to justify the risk of someone else's life and livelihood based on a monetary budget and not science or acceptable risk.

You don't get to make that choice and it seems abundantly clear that it really pisses you off.

Here's the solution, gather up the names of LDS that don't care what alloy your tank is or care anything about SLC and then offer it up to those that complain they can't get their tanks filled. Everyone wins and you look like a hero instead of a cranky old poster hell bent on defending your Jacque Cousteau hand me downs in light of the dangers that can exist.

On a side note it's funny, I don't see anywhere that I stated a properly inspected 6351 was a problem or shouldn't be used. Only that a shop should verify. That must be your interpretation.

I do agree with one point. We disagree. However I'm in a position to ignore your sage advise and continue to do what more and more FSO's are doing, either charge the customer for a VIP (and sticker it) or refuse to fill possible problematic bottles.

 

[PhilEllis]

This thread........

Recent Thread About 6351T6 Cylinders

contains some pretty good discussion. It might be of interest to some.

Phil Ellis
www.divesports.com

 

[rstofer]

We KNOW that only 2 Luxfer tanks have failed in the US and we KNOW that one of them resulted in injuries. What we DON'T know is how many have failed hydro, viz or eddy current. These tanks didn't fail in a way that would get publicity. But they failed, nevertheless.

But don't kid yourself, steel tanks fail hydro all the time. Or, the tanks last forever - old LP 72's will never die unless they get rusty. I'm not so sure about HP tanks. They haven't been around long enough to have a track record.

There's a mathematical diversion known as Game Theory. One way of looking at the shop attitude re: filling 6351 tanks is this:

Assume a square matrix of 4 squares. Down the left column we label the rows "Pass" and "Accident" and across the top we label the columns "Refused To Fill" and "Agreed To Fill".

Now we put reward values in each square:

Upper left (Refused To Fill, Pass): can't happen put a value of 0
Upper right (Agreed To Fill, Pass): so what? Put a value of 5 for customer satisfaction
Lower left (Refused To Fill, Accident): can't happen put a value of 0
Lower right (Agreed To Fill, Accident): OOPS! Put a value of, say, minus a million (bucks).

We never work in a row or column that has a maximum loss. So, we never agree to fill the tank and we will never have the accident. At most we lose a small reward.

In general, the scheme is more useful because there aren't exclusions to outcomes. The classic being: Use A Consultant/Do It Yourself and Project Is A Success/Project Is A Failure. You NEVER work in the "Do It Yourself" column because it has a row "Project Is A Failure" and the reward is HIGHLY negative. Given the opportunity, spread the blame. If the project is a failure, but you used a consultant, then your loss will be less because you were smart enough to know you were out of your league.

Incidentally, you never want to put another person in a position where their only options are to lose small or lose big. The results can be unpredictable!

This above is from "The Ropes To Skip and The Ropes To Know" by Ritti and Levy - a VERY popular text in MBA programs.

Richard

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

This thread........

Recent Thread About 6351T6 Cylinders

contains some pretty good discussion. It might be of interest to some.

Phil Ellis
Discount Scuba Gear at DiveSports.com - Buy Scuba Diving Equipment & Snorkeling Equipment

Wow. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Here's another thread with a similar feel. Funny how one "actor" remains constant. Hmm..


http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/tanks-valves-bands/301118-how-identify-luxfer-6351-tank.html