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
Great, I always wanted to see flow rates at 300 PSI. Which is basically giving me the worst case scenario. Do we have flow rates at low tank pressure for MK17, Atomic etc as well? (and I assume that is Mk10 standard, not plus?). And as Rob pointed out in the seminar, the IP drop at 300 PSI and full inhalation is also worth considering.
I have multiple of MK17, MK17 Evo and MK19 Evo first stages and unless you definitely need a turret, MK17 Evo will do just fine.
Thank you!
. Makes me feel right at home knowing I'm not the only one who saves old catalogues. Notice the stated drop in flow of the mk5 at 300. At 3000 I believe they are both over 100 scfm. So the mk10 was marketed as more stable even though the mk5 had better flow at higher pressures. The mk10 being substantially better at lower pressure.I believe Scubapro States the mk17 /19 at 6500lm and the Newer MK17 / 19 EVO at 6900lm also claiming better balancing. Again from recollection and not personally measured.
My figures were from a very experienced SP technician who said he measured the MK10 around 110 SCFM at 3000 supply and the MK5 around 105 at 3000. But honestly as we both know, it doesn't really matter. There's no doubt, just looking at the two pistons, that the MK10 is less restricted in terms of aerodynamics. Supposedly, the MK10 was made smaller because it allowed SP to machine the entire HP and ambient chambers out of one billet of brass, which ensured that the piston head and piston shaft journals were precisely concentric, and they were able to improve the tolerances around the HP o-ring. I'm not sure how well that worked; they went back to the 2 piece design for the MK15/20/25.
