My club has both Luxfer AL80s and AL80Ns, however we fill them both to 3000psi. As the rated pressure on the 80N is 3300psi, I was concerned that the 80N has less air for me.
The 80N isn't on the standard table that gets linked about, but XS SCUBA has a table here: http://www.xsscuba.com/downloads/cylinder_specs/luxfer.pdf
If I look on the imperial chart, I see the 80 and the 80N service pressures as 3000psi and 3300psi respectively, and their capacities as both 77.4cuft. If I consider that the 80N is a quarter inch shorter and weights four pounds more, it would make sense that they internal volume would be less. So based on this chart, I assume that with both cylinders at 3000psi, the 80 has 77.4 and the 80N has 70.4cuft.
If I jump down to the metric chart, a few surprises await me. The metric chart lists the internal volumes as 11.1L and 10.3L, so as we expected the neutral is about 10% smaller internally. However, it lists the 'true capacity' as 2192L and 2172L, which translate to 77.4cuft and 76.7cuft. The imperial table lists them both at 77.4. What's the cause of this disagreement?
Oddly, the 2010 VW Eos has 77.4cuft of interior passenger space, yet the 2000 Acura LS has 76.4cuft. I suppose my question is whether my 80N @ 3300psi can fill the Eos, or whether I should stick to the Acura.
The 80N isn't on the standard table that gets linked about, but XS SCUBA has a table here: http://www.xsscuba.com/downloads/cylinder_specs/luxfer.pdf
If I look on the imperial chart, I see the 80 and the 80N service pressures as 3000psi and 3300psi respectively, and their capacities as both 77.4cuft. If I consider that the 80N is a quarter inch shorter and weights four pounds more, it would make sense that they internal volume would be less. So based on this chart, I assume that with both cylinders at 3000psi, the 80 has 77.4 and the 80N has 70.4cuft.
If I jump down to the metric chart, a few surprises await me. The metric chart lists the internal volumes as 11.1L and 10.3L, so as we expected the neutral is about 10% smaller internally. However, it lists the 'true capacity' as 2192L and 2172L, which translate to 77.4cuft and 76.7cuft. The imperial table lists them both at 77.4. What's the cause of this disagreement?
Oddly, the 2010 VW Eos has 77.4cuft of interior passenger space, yet the 2000 Acura LS has 76.4cuft. I suppose my question is whether my 80N @ 3300psi can fill the Eos, or whether I should stick to the Acura.
Last edited:
