Taking a PT-010 to 160 feet

[fpoole]

Yeah, I would think the O-ring Buttons would be the first to go by using them. OK,maybe, if left alone,but then what's the point eh?

130' I would think it's just a safe limit to put there for a few reasons, rec depth as FLL mentioned, probably within safe usage limits whereas 175 might not be, "Could?" cause leaks so instead of trying to be exact, it obviously wouldn't last at 300, so they just made it a simple-safe 130' where they KNOW (or hope anyway) it won't leak.
I'd guess it'd be a push at 150+ work several times and then flood.. or not??
Wouldn't make a habit of using it at that level, again for the button o-rings. Pretty strong case, along the lines of other Rec Guages, dive lights etc..
heheh.. but then I could be completely out of whack here... LOL... nothing new on this end..

 

[sharpenu]

I had a PT-10 that flooded two years ago in Cozumel and destroyed my 3030. We were only in 65 fsw. I replaced the O-ring and took it back down to 130 ffw stuffed full of tissue paper, no leaks. Go figure.

 

[KeyLargoBrent]

Two quickies -
The gel, being flexible and not actually part of the housing, will do nothing from a structural standpoint to enable the housing to go deeper.
Static and non-static o-rings are typically used in high pressure applications (like 3000 psi). The housing material & design are the limiting factors that restrict depth.
Maybe 3 quickies -
I would strongly recommend a test dive to a moderate depth with an empty housing where all the controls are operated several times. It is possible for a housing to pass a static pressure test (like in a tank), but operating a control under pressure could result in a leak. Small chance, but I had it happen once. The o-ring was accidently nicked during installation & the housing passed the static test.

but I believe the gel thing has merit. If I fill my mask with water at the surface, and then descend, will I experience mask squeeze. I don't think so. Water (or gel) is not nearly as compressible as air. Does less squeeze result in lower leak potential. Probably!

I'd be more than happy to test this theory. Just send me your u/w housings (along with a complete liability release)!

 

[jcclink]

The difference being your mask is presumably full of water. The housing is not full of gel according to the pic. Your mask is also very flexible compared to a housing - pressure will equalize.

 

[O2Addict]

Several things here,

1) the O-Rings are designed to compress more under pressure making the seal better.
2) The housing is relatively thin, how many of you have felt the housings "pop" when coming up from about 130ft. This is because the housing compresses, and the material flexes.
3) I would expect the housing to leak as the result of the housing distorting under pressure and the main seals leaking.
4) Gel would have no effect, there will still be air spaces within the camera. If the housing was full of gel with no airspaces it would probably be able to withstand far higher pressure, but with airspaces, it would not help.
5) I expect they say it is limited to 133ft, as it is designed to withstand 5 atms pressure while being used.
6) Remember that there is static pressure rating and a design depth. Take a 50m Casio watch, this is designed to be water proof to 50m under static conditions, ie place a watch in water and pressurise it to 50m and it should not leak. However move the watch at this pressure and it is likely to leak. I suspect that the housings will be good to a lot deeper than 133ft but only under static conditions, ie may leak if moved violently or knocked in to something, etc.

My advice is to limit use to 130ft, make sure seals are lubricated and cleaned. Venture deeper than 130ft at your own risk. Also the number 1 cause of housing floods are sand or dirt on the O-Rings, or an O-Ring that is not properly seated.