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
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