Sherwood Genesis HP120 fails hydro after only 10 years

[NAM001]

onterio diver

agree with you completely. i was suggesting that there mey be more than one standard and perhaps the wrong wne was used. i had read that somewhere a group of tanks were failed because of using the wrong procedure or used the wrong failure criteria. the correct testing criteria was in the dot manual for compressed air bottles as a excepted deviation to the stanard testing unique to that menufacturer of tank. the tanks ultimately passed once the correct process was followed. its been tooo long for me to remember the details. for example i would think that the criteria would be different for an aluminum tank vs a reinforced aluminum tank. perhaps not though. i know very little about the hydro process other than the basics. it seems strange that a cylendar would fail so soon assuming proper care and fills were done.

kws

 

[Ontario Diver]

KWS

I think I remember the situation that you refer to. If I remember correctly - they were fiber wrapped SCBA cylinders. The tanks were failing and then the manufacturer released new testing criteria.

The industry and the government agencies would rather see a tonne of "false positives" (the tank is really OK but it failed hydro and so it is condemed) that let one get through testing and hurt someone.

 

[drbill]

In my case (as I believe I mentioned earlier) the DOT 9791 exemption so the testing facility did the right thing. The old Sherwood Genesis HP120's were indeed manufactured by PST although the newer ones (after 94?) are not.

I've bitten the bullet and ordered a PST E8 130 to replace the failed tank. I thought about the E8 149 (three dives on one tank!!), but decided against the extra weight. It will be my Christmas present to myself.

Dr. Bill