Likelihood of gear malfunctions?

[LeadTurn_SD]

I am absolutely certain that things like o-rings and seats have a lifespan. I am sure that it is better to replace those things before they fail. I am also sure that not everyone who services scuba equipment is well-trained or meticulous. (The most annoying malfunction we've had was after a reg got serviced . . . )

As a result of the above paragraph, one of my 2009 goals is to learn to service my own equipment, so I can do it at intervals that suit me, and I know the person working on the stuff, even if she's a bit inexperienced, has my best interests totally at heart

Welcome to the dark side!!

Well, maybe the "enlightened" side is a better description


Best wishes.

 

[Teamcasa]

Extreme heat is one major factor, as is metal to metal contract and the need for lubricated bearings ... need I continue?.

Sure, please do.
Other than extreme heat, both are machines and as such, require a level of maintenace.

The entire question of "mechanical experience" is, as I observed, a logical fallacy known as an "appeal to authority."

So what? Just because the argument is an "appeal to authority" does not make the arugument itself any less true.

...the other is extrapolation way outside of the experiential data set, internal combustion engines have little more in common with regulators beyond both being mechanical and having cast and machined parts.

Modern automobiles are far more complex than any SCUBA gear. However, the engineering and physics of building both is the same.

 

[Thalassamania]

Sure, please do.
Other than extreme heat, both are machines and as such, require a level of maintenace.

No one has ever said that regulators do not require some level of maintenance. The question on the table is what should that maintenance be; and is there any supporting rationale for a yearly rebuild?

So what? Just because the argument is an "appeal to authority" does not make the argument itself any less true.

Please read about logical fallacies; the use of which neither proves nor disproves the question, it just muddies the water.

Modern automobiles are far more complex than any SCUBA gear. However, the engineering and physics of building both is the same.

Ipso facto the moon is constructed of green cheese. Asbestos and gold bullion are both made from mineral deposits, how about an asbestos crown for your tooth? A foolish argument I'll grant you, but while more extreme for clarity, basically the same as your engine/regulator construct.

 

[Hoomi]

Okay; it appears here we do have a certain amount of misunderstanding, and I'm not just pointing at everyone else and excluding myself.

"Regular maintenance", at least in my job, does not always mean "replacing parts". Maintenance involves inspection and testing that determines whether parts need to be replaced. An o-ring that is starting to dry rot, for example, is going to have tell-tale evidence of that upon close inspection, and should be replaced. One that is still in excellent shape is also likely to be evident upon close inspection.

I was not necessarily advocating a yearly rebuild, but rather the regular inspection and appropriate service of the equipment as determined by the inspection. Here is where my comment about a reputable shop is important; a shop that is only in it for the quick buck is going to try and sell you far more service than you need. Rather than replacing the schrader valve in the BC inflator, they'll sell you the whole inflator tube assembly, even if the rest of the assembly is still in good shape. (or worse, they'll try and convince you to buy an entire new BC)

While I know the comparison of auto shops to dive shops isn't perfect, there are some common traits. We have a chain of tire shops here in Tucson that has an excellent reputation for ethical practices. In all the times we have taken our vehicles there, they have never tried to sell us service we didn't need, they've never pulled the "bait and switch", and have always been completely up-front about any work they do on our vehicles. We trust them, and when they tell me a part is worn and needs replaced, I don't start wondering if it's really bad, or just a high-profit repair they can stick me with.

This is what we want from the techs at the Dive Shops we deal with; if the tech tells us the regulator needs rebuilt, we should be able to trust that this is really the case, and it's not just a quick buck for the tech and the shop. So far, in the small amount of dealing with the tech at our LDS, this is the feeling I've gotten. He could have sold me more service, especially since I'm a noob at the scuba stuff and would probably not know better. He didn't; he serviced the BC for a very reasonable cost, and it worked great on our dive trip.

The real risk is from people who take the attitude with their equipment (as many people do with their automobiles) that, as long as it's working, it never needs to visit a shop or have any maintenance.

You know; like those folks mentioned that get the blank look when asked about rinsing the regulator after a dive. Think they bother to take it in for an annual inspection either, so long as it works when they try it?

 

[Teamcasa]

Sure, please do.
Other than extreme heat, both are machines and as such, require a level of maintenence.

No one has ever said that regulators do not require some level of maintenance. The question on the table is what should that maintenance be; and is there any supporting rationale for a yearly rebuild?

The frequency is dependant on the condition of the regulator. The issue seems to be a diver, not trained to inspect and determine first hand wether the reg needs service has to rely on the expertise of others. Ergo, what would be a good schedule for this?
For me, if I was unable to service it myself, once a year is no big deal. If the reg only saw a few dozen dives that year, I'd skip it and wait till next year.

So what? Just because the argument is an "appeal to authority" does not make the argument itself any less true.

Please read about logical fallacies; the use of which neither proves nor disproves the question,

I did, thirty years ago... But you are the one that keeps bringing it up.
It seems that when someone brings up the logical fallacy argument they just want to play rope-a-dope with the issue rather than making a salient point.
See below.

Modern automobiles are far more complex than any SCUBA gear. However, the engineering and physics of building both is the same.

Ipso facto the moon is constructed of green cheese. Asbestos and gold bullion are both made from mineral deposits, how about an asbestos crown for your tooth? A foolish argument I'll grant you, but while more extreme for clarity, basically the same as your engine/regulator construct.

Hardly. But since you have trouble making the connection, we can move on.

 

[Thalassamania]

The frequency is dependant on the condition of the regulator. The issue seems to be a diver, not trained to inspect and determine first hand wether the reg needs service has to rely on the expertise of others. Ergo, what would be a good schedule for this?
For me, if I was unable to service it myself, once a year is no big deal. If the reg only saw a few dozen dives that year, I'd skip it and wait till next year.

First: all divers should know how to o a full prediive check of their regulator, that is all that is required for a diver to be "trained to inspect and determine first hand whether the regulator needs service."

Second: the manufacturers and shops try to lock everyone into the once a year rebuild, I understand that for the manufacturers that is a way to cut their liability, but for the shops I feel it is just another way to carve a new life out of the diving public.

I did, thirty years ago... But you are the one that keeps bringing it up.

Only because despite learning about them thirty years ago you continue to flagrantly use logical fallacies to attempt to make your arguments.

It seems that when someone brings up the logical fallacy argument they just want to play rope-a-dope with the issue rather than making a salient point.

The salient point that you seem to be missing is that your salient point isn't.

Hardly. But since you have trouble making the connection, we can move on.

I'm not having trouble seeing the connection that you are attempting to make, I'm merely the messenger pointing out to you that the connection you'd like to infer is invalid, and now you'd like to ignore that reality, accuse me of playing games, and move on. If I were in your situation I'd love to move on too.