LP 95 vs. HP 100

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I'm surprised a HP hose would fail at such a low pressure, all of mine are rated to 5000psi. How old was that hose?
I am not surprised at all.

There is rated pressure then there is the burst pressure.

Then there are the normally expected manufacturing defects and the degradation that occurs in service, which is why yuou always want to maintain a healthy margin between service and test pressures.

As you push the pressure higher, you reduce the engineering safety margin and the little detaile like that become important as they determine when, not if, but when the failure will occur.
 
That would correspond with my experience with HP tanks with a 3800 ish fill that cools to 3600.

I agree the math is easier at 3600. But then again, if I have 3400 or 3500, I round down to the first number divisible by 3, which would be 3300 and turn the dive after 1100 psi is used (in this case the turn pressure is 2400 psi.) that is technically a bit less than thirds, but its on the safe side and as you indicate, violating thirds is one of the big 5 reasons people die.

You are however incorrect. People do not die because they violate thirds, they die because of poor gas planning and/or failure to turn the dive when they are supposed to.

Thirds is often not adequate, but it is often over relied on as a generic planning figure. Having bigger thirds is nice, but it does not address the real issue. Having more gas along does not reduce that risk as the risk is in the gas planning, not in the volume.

It's a lot like saying that a car with a 40 gallon tank is twice as safe as a car with a 20 gallon gas tank for a driver who runs out of gas a lot. The bigger gas tank does not solve the underlying problem that the driver forgets to check the gauge and get more gas when needed. It may reduce the frequency of running out of gas on a given route, but it does not solve the problem.

I also agree with you that tank explosion is not a big killer, but I guarentee the first time a massively overfilled LP 95 one blows up in a dive shop, a parking lot or in a cave or spring, people will die, more people will get sued and rules will get enforced. Will it happen today, next year, within the next decade? Who knows.

But it is safe bet statistically that if the cave community continues to push tanks to their full test limit with zero safety margin, eventually a tank with an inclusion or other pre or post certification defect is going to explode under that kind of no margin for error pressure.

There are also other issues and practices that come into play.

1. Many of the regs I see in use are regs that are known to have issues with high pressure o-ring pinching at pressures in excess of 3500 psi. In most cases the leaks starts out slow - just a few bubbles out the ambient chamber or a blown seal in a sealed chamber reg. But the potential for a much larger leak is there and if you dive two regs with simiolar service life and history. it is not uncommon to expect them both to fail around the same time. That screws with the idea of having reliable equipment and potentially reduces your redundancy.

2. Doubling burst discs can be exceptionally problematic. No burst disc assemblies are actually designed to be doubled so you have issues with limited thread engagement and you have issues with the disc being stressed outside the design limits as it has neither the flexibility nor the ability to be properly torqued and washered as intended. I've seen doubled burst discs blow and I'd argue they are FAR more likely to do so than a properly rated single disc. If you have to have 4000 psi pressure, use a burst disc designed for 4350 psi tanks - they are available and are much safer than doubling the discs.

3. Cave divers are exceptionally safe and many will have a fit over a thing like a 2" fastex quick release buckle. But in stark contrast, the community as a whole seems to take a total departure from common sense on the issue of tank fills in the quest for a little more gas to allow a bit more penetration. As a result they invite a whole cascade of potential failure issues (tank, burst disc, regulator, HP hoses, etc) that are 100% preventable as they have the option of just using a larger set of doubles and/or stage bottles.

I can't quite decide if number 3 is due to a collective ego thing, huberis, ignorance, or the fact that it has not yet shown up in accident analysis as a leading cause of death in cave diving - although I'd love to do statistical research on reg and burst disc failures to see if their is a correlation between fill pressure and risk of failure.

Either way, beyond certain limits that I personally think we have already passed at about 3500 psi, the safest way to address the need for more gas volume is to use larger tanks and/or stage bottles rather than to pump tanks to their test limits. Some day that practice is literally going to blow up in someone's face. If I were sure it would just be the offending diver who got killed or mained I'd be ok with that - kinda like I am ok with base jumping where the only potential victim is the guy who chose to jump. But the odds are that it will be an innocent bystander and potentially even a child who ends up injured or killed and I have no tolerance for that.

I also don't see the need. For any LP tank you can find a properly rated HP steel tank that will carry nearly the same volume at a 3500-3800 psi pressure in a similar sized package. Other than already owning one and other than the whole cave community thinking it is ok to overfill LP tanks to 3500-4000 psi because everyone does it and no one has died (yet) there is just not much reason to go the LP route, especially if you are buying a new tank. They may be slightly cheaper, but given the costs of cave diving the extra $50 for an HP tank tank is minimal

If anyone can enlighten me with a solid argument, other than the seriously flawed and rather ignorant "it has not happened - yet" argument, why any cave diver should be ok with a fill to a tank's test limit, despite the potential risks and consequences, I am all ears.
Well said, sir!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So why not dive Hp119's or Hp130's, and when you get underfilled, you still are diving with the same, or more gas as an Lp95 filled to that pressure, but you aren't pressing the safety factor of the tanks, and you can still get 3500PSI fills at the shops that refuse to overfill Lp tanks.

Because those tanks weren't listed as options by the OP.
 
I believe Faber said that their tanks are good to 10,000 fills to test pressure. So, according to Faber if you filled one of their tanks to test pressure once a day it would take 27.6 years till it was no good.
 
That's not just Faber. All cylinders sold in the US have to pass that test, including aluminum cylinders...
 
I believe Faber said that their tanks are good to 10,000 fills to test pressure. So, according to Faber if you filled one of their tanks to test pressure once a day it would take 27.6 years till it was no good.



That is what they are design to…and in a perfect world there is no need for a safety factor, since there are never any flaws or variations from one item to the next.

There is a reason we do have safety factors…
 
I believe Faber said that their tanks are good to 10,000 fills to test pressure. So, according to Faber if you filled one of their tanks to test pressure once a day it would take 27.6 years till it was no good.
Lets look at it another way...

You could dive halves in a spring. If everything goes as planned, you'll use less gas on the way out than on the way in due to the flow and it will work just fine. And assuming all goes well you could do it 10,000 times and get away with it.

But if just one time everything does not go well, for you or you buddy, that practice would most likely kill you and/or your buddy as it leaves very little margin for error and no significant reserve to deal with things that eventually happen. That's why no one dives halves in an overhead environment.

Now apply that philosophy to tank fills.

Faber says their LP tanks pass 10,000 cycles to a test pressure of 4000 psi. That test is done with water rather than air and the time that pressure is maintained is very brief for each cycle so it is not an apples to apples comparision. The test does not involve heat from compression so it is not exactly apples to apples. Also Faber does not say they test there tanks at 4000 psi continuous pressure for any significant period of time with air so again the test is not apples to apples. The test also does not involve a tank that is 1, 5, 10 or even 20 years old that has seen knocks dings, a little rust, some tumbling, etc. So again it is not apples to apples. All it says is that a particular new tank randomly selected from a production batch passed a test of 10,000 cycles. Faber does not say how many of those tanks/batches of tanks failed that test either.

The many differences between testing and the real world, including what happens to your particular tank during or after production, is the reason you always want a safety margin.

However that is not quite the case in North Florida. Despite the lack of apples to apples comparision and the need for an enormous degree of faith in probability and statistics that are at best only valid 99.99 percent of the time, divers are willing to stake their lives on Faber's statement with no margin for error and no significant reserve. Does that make sense and is it consistent with the larger philosophy underlying safety in cave diving?

If you think so, you just as well start diving halves.

That is my confusion as to why a community that is so safety conscious willingly takes such a contrasting view when it comes to tank fills. What drives that? Ego? Hubris? Ignorance? Being too cheap to buy bigger tanks or a stage? Or just the fact that it has not yet shown up as a factor in an accident analysis? Makes you wonder who's "dying" to be first.

And again the tradgedy is that the risk is 100% unneccesary and 100% preventable.
 
Lets look at it another way...

You could dive halves in a spring. If everything goes as planned, you'll use less gas on the way out than on the way in due to the flow and it will work just fine. And assuming all goes well you could do it 10,000 times and get away with it.

But if just one time everything does not go well, for you or you buddy, that practice would most likely kill you and/or your buddy as it leaves very little margin for error and no significant reserve to deal with things that eventually happen. That's why no one dives halves in an overhead environment.

Now apply that philosophy to tank fills.

Faber says their LP tanks pass 10,000 cycles to a test pressure of 4000 psi. That test is done with water rather than air and the time that pressure is maintained is very brief for each cycle so it is not an apples to apples comparision. The test does not involve heat from compression so it is not exactly apples to apples. Also Faber does not say they test there tanks at 4000 psi continuous pressure for any significant period of time with air so again the test is not apples to apples. The test also does not involve a tank that is 1, 5, 10 or even 20 years old that has seen knocks dings, a little rust, some tumbling, etc. So again it is not apples to apples. All it says is that a particular new tank randomly selected from a production batch passed a test of 10,000 cycles. Faber does not say how many of those tanks/batches of tanks failed that test either.

The many differences between testing and the real world, including what happens to your particular tank during or after production, is the reason you always want a safety margin.

However that is not quite the case in North Florida. Despite the lack of apples to apples comparision and the need for an enormous degree of faith in probability and statistics that are at best only valid 99.99 percent of the time, divers are willing to stake their lives on Faber's statement with no margin for error and no significant reserve. Does that make sense and is it consistent with the larger philosophy underlying safety in cave diving?

If you think so, you just as well start diving halves.

That is my confusion as to why a community that is so safety conscious willingly takes such a contrasting view when it comes to tank fills. What drives that? Ego? Hubris? Ignorance? Being too cheap to buy bigger tanks or a stage? Or just the fact that it has not yet shown up as a factor in an accident analysis? Makes you wonder who's "dying" to be first.

And again the tradgedy is that the risk is 100% unneccesary and 100% preventable.


Do you ever make a short post? :D I love reading what you post and have learned a lot but most of the time I skip the last half.
 
That is my confusion as to why a community that is so safety conscious willingly takes such a contrasting view when it comes to tank fills. What drives that? Ego? Hubris? Ignorance?

There was a myth about the LP's and overfills going around Florida a few years ago.

It went:
"These are 5000psi cylinders in Europe. US Government employees and regulations limit these tanks to 2400+, here." Even the dive shop owner in my town was saying this as true.

Faber's importer said "myth" on this board. A 5000psi pressure vessel for under $300?

Hmmm.
 
Do you ever make a short post? :D I love reading what you post and have learned a lot but most of the time I skip the last half.

I submit that you are doing yourself a dis-service by skipping the last half of DA Aquamasters replies. That is where he wraps it up into a meaningful piece of information.:D
 

Back
Top Bottom