LP72s Inner Lining

[halocline]

It is not what I think but what the standards are. That said, when it comes to the scuba industry they often do what ever …

There seem to be two sets of "standards", one (the scuba industry's) is that anything over 40% requires O2 protocol, and the other, more recent, seems to be based on some language from the CGA that specifies O2 protocol for anything over 23%, effectively lumping recreational nitrox into technical diving use of high concentrations of O2. Or am I missing something? There is a great deal of confusion and mis-information about O2 handling in the scuba industry, I'm shocked, shocked to find...(as I'm sure you are)

The problem with adopting the 23% standard is that this means that nobody could ever use a non-O2 clean regulator for nitrox, and once that regulator is used for a standard air fill, game over...time to O2 clean that reg again. This is simply not practical for the vast majority of nitrox users.

That said, I would be hesitant to store even banked nitrox in a lined tank. That's ALOT of potential fuel, and since the tank interior is exposed to the gas constantly (not just during diving) there could be a risk of degradation of plastic due to high concentration of O2. Not knowing anything about the compound of the lining I would just avoid the whole mess and stick with air in that tank.

 

[redacted]

The epoxy liner is a contradiction for anything above 23.5% O2. It does not mater how it got it in there. As such, Air only.

BTW - I had a pair with perfect liners. After hydro the liner got pooched cause they did not get the cylinder dried. Once the liner gets compromised they can not pass a VIS unless you tumble it out.

How is the presence of that liner recognized from the outside of such a tank that is in service?

 

[cool_hardware52]

How is the presence of that liner recognized from the outside of such a tank that is in service?

X ray vision.

Tobin

 

[halocline]

Liner-sniffing dogs.

 

[Scared Silly]

There seem to be two sets of "standards", one (the scuba industry's) is that anything over 40% requires O2 protocol, and the other, more recent, seems to be based on some language from the CGA that specifies O2 protocol for anything over 23%, effectively lumping recreational nitrox into technical diving use of high concentrations of O2. Or am I missing something? There is a great deal of confusion and mis-information about O2 handling in the scuba industry, I'm shocked, shocked to find...(as I'm sure you are)

I think you need to swap the order the CGA rules have been in place for some time. The scuba industry has then made the decision to pick and chose which they follow. Shocked ? not in the least bit. For an industry that likes to prompt self regulation they are full crap. They promote it when it serves their (financial) interests.

The problem with adopting the 23% standard is that this means that nobody could ever use a non-O2 clean regulator for nitrox, and once that regulator is used for a standard air fill, game over...time to O2 clean that reg again. This is simply not practical for the vast majority of nitrox users.

The 23% rule is a DOT that applies to cylinders not regulators. And that is where things start getting mucky because otherwise there are no rules except on the commercial side via OSHA and others.

That said, I would be hesitant to store even banked nitrox in a lined tank. That's ALOT of potential fuel, and since the tank interior is exposed to the gas constantly (not just during diving) there could be a risk of degradation of plastic due to high concentration of O2. Not knowing anything about the compound of the lining I would just avoid the whole mess and stick with air in that tank.

When mine got fubar'ed I sent them off a board member to use for his cylinder inspection classes.

 

[redacted]

The problem is that OSHA and much of the scuba industry have been using the higher percentage for years with no safety related problems. The only folks I see pushing a 23.5 % requirement is the PP blenders. Shocked???

 

[halocline]

Shocked ? not in the least bit. For an industry that likes to prompt self regulation they are full crap. They promote it when it serves their (financial) interests.

Did you ever see Casablanca? "I'm shocked, shocked to see that gambling is going on..."

That's the kind of shocked I was referring to.

 

[Scared Silly]

The problem is that OSHA and much of the scuba industry have been using the higher percentage for years with no safety related problems. The only folks I see pushing a 23.5 % requirement is the PP blenders. Shocked???

Is it "No safety related problems" or "No reported safety related problems"?

Did you ever see Casablanca? "I'm shocked, shocked to see that gambling is going on..."

That's the kind of shocked I was referring to.

Whoosh (though I have seen Casablanca)

 

[redacted]

Is it "No safety related problems" or "No reported safety related problems"?

What difference does it make unless you are just trying to scare people into paying for unnecessary O2 cleaning, Silly?

 

[BRT]

Is it "No safety related problems" or "No reported safety related problems"?

Would you tell us of some of the cases where there have been problems with banked or CB'd nitrox in scuba tanks at a concentration below 60% O2? Usually explosions, fires and people getting deathly sick or dying make the news.