Interesting. If I am ever a dealer for that brand I'll certainly make it a point to get the exact tools they recomend. Which is of course exactly what I have done for every product we service.
The pros and cons of rebuilding your own regulators...
- Thread starter The Chairman
- Start date
Please register or login
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
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Interesting. If I am ever a dealer for that brand I'll certainly make it a point to get the exact tools they recomend. Which is of course exactly what I have done for every product we service.
Genesis once bubbled...
you don't want to confuse people with FACTS, do 'ya?
Bald (and apparently incorrect!) assertions from LDS owners are much, much more useful, don't 'ya think?
Why would I want to lie? Why would I want to hurt people? Isn't that what your accusing me of? Personal gain? I have gained nothing and doing what you accuse me of wouldn't make it any better.
Why would we invest our entire life just to lie to you?
I think you have a problem. Someone got one up on you and your not dealing with it well.
Gee, GUE doesn't see it this way....
Nor does the logic work this way.
When you start the dive, you're not "a bit" negative. You're negative by the weight of the gas in your tanks (the buoyancy shift). For an AL80, this is about 6lbs.
Now if you're weighted so that there is no squeeze at the surface but the suit is not "balooned", then you have no gas in the wing and are -6lbs buoyant.
You cannot be properly weighted with (1) the suit having no more air in it than necessary to maintain loft of the garmets at the surface, (2) no air in the wing and (3) be neutral with full tanks.
Not possible.
As you decend, the gas in the suit compresses. You can either (1) add that PLUS another 6lbs worth (quite a goodly amount!) or you can (1) add JUST enough to maintain the loft and avoid the squeeze, meaning you compensate ONLY for the compression of the air in the suit with the suit as you decend. Thus, the SUIT's impact on your buoyancy is NIL through the water column - it contributes exactly the same amount of buoyancy at 0' as it contributes at 100' - you make it so with the amount of gas you put in there (or vent off.) In fact, the suit makes that easy, since its exhaust valve is adjustable for exactly how much overpressure you want to have inside the suit, and it will automatically vent the rest (assuming its "up" or close to it.)
I argue the answer to that question is "almost zero."
The REST - your BUOYANCY control - you put in the wing.
Now tell me why you wouldn't do it this way?
I can think of a bunch of reasons NOT to do it the "PADI way", and I'm sure in a couple of weeks I'll come up with a bunch more!
1. If you have an EXTRA 6lbs worth of buoyancy in the suit, and you turn over, you now have a nice bolus of air that goes into the boots. A bolus (and issue) that you could have (mostly) avoided.
2. If your suit burps, you lose an undetermined amount of buoyancy. Your BC won't "burp" (and unexpectedly lose buoyancy.)
3. The suit is WAY more exposed in terms of potential puncture risk (and loss of buoyancy) than your BC is. Never mind that putting more air in it just increases its drag and puncture risk.
4. Air shifts are going to lead to trim shifts, which are undesirable. A BC centers the lift over the center of mass and, with the tank and BP being the majority of your "negativity", also centers it where it needs to be counteracted. The suit contributes to trim shifts and the buoyancy it contributes in that state are undesirable.
I'm not accusing you of trying to hurt people Mike. You're having some reading comprehension trouble here.
I am, however, accusing the "regulators are for techies only" folk (and those who argue that other similar elements are "hard" to understand, to the point that you shouldn't do it but rather pay someone else to) of being highly hypocritical and making assertions that are unsupported by the evidence.
Nor does the logic work this way.
When you start the dive, you're not "a bit" negative. You're negative by the weight of the gas in your tanks (the buoyancy shift). For an AL80, this is about 6lbs.
Now if you're weighted so that there is no squeeze at the surface but the suit is not "balooned", then you have no gas in the wing and are -6lbs buoyant.
You cannot be properly weighted with (1) the suit having no more air in it than necessary to maintain loft of the garmets at the surface, (2) no air in the wing and (3) be neutral with full tanks.
Not possible.
As you decend, the gas in the suit compresses. You can either (1) add that PLUS another 6lbs worth (quite a goodly amount!) or you can (1) add JUST enough to maintain the loft and avoid the squeeze, meaning you compensate ONLY for the compression of the air in the suit with the suit as you decend. Thus, the SUIT's impact on your buoyancy is NIL through the water column - it contributes exactly the same amount of buoyancy at 0' as it contributes at 100' - you make it so with the amount of gas you put in there (or vent off.) In fact, the suit makes that easy, since its exhaust valve is adjustable for exactly how much overpressure you want to have inside the suit, and it will automatically vent the rest (assuming its "up" or close to it.)
I argue the answer to that question is "almost zero."
The REST - your BUOYANCY control - you put in the wing.
Now tell me why you wouldn't do it this way?
I can think of a bunch of reasons NOT to do it the "PADI way", and I'm sure in a couple of weeks I'll come up with a bunch more!
1. If you have an EXTRA 6lbs worth of buoyancy in the suit, and you turn over, you now have a nice bolus of air that goes into the boots. A bolus (and issue) that you could have (mostly) avoided.
2. If your suit burps, you lose an undetermined amount of buoyancy. Your BC won't "burp" (and unexpectedly lose buoyancy.)
3. The suit is WAY more exposed in terms of potential puncture risk (and loss of buoyancy) than your BC is. Never mind that putting more air in it just increases its drag and puncture risk.
4. Air shifts are going to lead to trim shifts, which are undesirable. A BC centers the lift over the center of mass and, with the tank and BP being the majority of your "negativity", also centers it where it needs to be counteracted. The suit contributes to trim shifts and the buoyancy it contributes in that state are undesirable.
I'm not accusing you of trying to hurt people Mike. You're having some reading comprehension trouble here.
I am, however, accusing the "regulators are for techies only" folk (and those who argue that other similar elements are "hard" to understand, to the point that you shouldn't do it but rather pay someone else to) of being highly hypocritical and making assertions that are unsupported by the evidence.
Does anyone really think that in the overall scheme of things as far as pneumatic instrumentation is concerned that this equipment is complicated???
Jeez, I could teach a 10 year old to rebuild it better than your average LDS professional does.
Getting parts is the hardest part due to the lockup the dive industry has here in the states.
Phil
Jeez, I could teach a 10 year old to rebuild it better than your average LDS professional does.
Getting parts is the hardest part due to the lockup the dive industry has here in the states.
Phil
There is exactly NOTHING complicated about these things.
Nor are they hard to service.
The biggest deal is proper CLEANING and mechanical CARE in assembly and disassembly.
The old "if it doesn't fit force it, if it still doesn't get a bigger hammer" chestnut has no place around any kind of precision equipment, and this gear qualifies.
But then again, gorilla tactics are not really helpful in most situations on any kind of machinery.
Nor are they hard to service.
The biggest deal is proper CLEANING and mechanical CARE in assembly and disassembly.
The old "if it doesn't fit force it, if it still doesn't get a bigger hammer" chestnut has no place around any kind of precision equipment, and this gear qualifies.
But then again, gorilla tactics are not really helpful in most situations on any kind of machinery.
That is very correct Genesis,
Since the manufacturers, the distributors and the LDS are so irresponsible as to not give/sell you the service manuals you do have to wing a few things. But the rules for working on instrumentation are simple with cleanliness being right at the top and next is do no damage. Now we do have to guess what the IP should be for a particular regulator, again because of the irresponsible dive industry, but a simple calibrated gage is all you need for that. Now, since the point of scuba regulators is to supply air at, or a little above ambient pressure, what works at one atmosphere should work at 2 or 3. Anyway, I bet your LDS doesnt have the capability to test that more than the average Joe does.
I have heard it said here that some would not trust a regulator they serviced to go deep but the really need thing is ambient pressure is ambient pressure, so it really makes no difference and those that think it does maybe should let the professional with the 4 hour class take care of their equipment.
Just my opinion and I hope that of my congresspersons soon as well.
Phil
Since the manufacturers, the distributors and the LDS are so irresponsible as to not give/sell you the service manuals you do have to wing a few things. But the rules for working on instrumentation are simple with cleanliness being right at the top and next is do no damage. Now we do have to guess what the IP should be for a particular regulator, again because of the irresponsible dive industry, but a simple calibrated gage is all you need for that. Now, since the point of scuba regulators is to supply air at, or a little above ambient pressure, what works at one atmosphere should work at 2 or 3. Anyway, I bet your LDS doesnt have the capability to test that more than the average Joe does.
I have heard it said here that some would not trust a regulator they serviced to go deep but the really need thing is ambient pressure is ambient pressure, so it really makes no difference and those that think it does maybe should let the professional with the 4 hour class take care of their equipment.
Just my opinion and I hope that of my congresspersons soon as well.
Phil
OP
That does not include motive analysis of the person who is disagreeing with you, and it doesn't entail citing every other thread you guys have ever disagreed in.
You guys obviously don't agree and you are repeating yourselves. Saying the same thing 4,000 times does not make it right or wrong. It just makes following the thread a lot harder.
As a former ASE Master Certified Automotive Technician... I would like to point out that ALL fasteners have a torque value. It is usually given in a range, and the vast majority of fasteners do not require the precision of a torque wrench to be tightened correctly. I love watching a guy with a new torque wrench... it can be pretty funny wnat they try to torque down... if they cold get the proper socket (and they do make one) they would be torqueing down the wingnuts on their air cleaners.
Then you see the same guy grow tired of the new "toy" and hand torque something that requires the precision of a torque wrench. NARRRRRRRRRRGH! The trick is to know what really, really needs to be torqued and what doesn't. A lot of that comes with experience and intuition... a lot of people never ever get it. I have never seen a pin wrench that could have a torque wrench applied. I have never seen the need to torque a hose down. I will never see the need to torque each and every fastener in your regulator.
If this bothers you, please don't ask me to service your regs. If you like the work I do, and my prices are within reason because I don't spend an inordinate amount of time torquing that which does not need it, then by all means, I am the man for you. It's a matter of trust... and there are far bigger issues than torquing for me.
You guys obviously don't agree and you are repeating yourselves. Saying the same thing 4,000 times does not make it right or wrong. It just makes following the thread a lot harder.
As a former ASE Master Certified Automotive Technician... I would like to point out that ALL fasteners have a torque value. It is usually given in a range, and the vast majority of fasteners do not require the precision of a torque wrench to be tightened correctly. I love watching a guy with a new torque wrench... it can be pretty funny wnat they try to torque down... if they cold get the proper socket (and they do make one) they would be torqueing down the wingnuts on their air cleaners.
Then you see the same guy grow tired of the new "toy" and hand torque something that requires the precision of a torque wrench. NARRRRRRRRRRGH! The trick is to know what really, really needs to be torqued and what doesn't. A lot of that comes with experience and intuition... a lot of people never ever get it. I have never seen a pin wrench that could have a torque wrench applied. I have never seen the need to torque a hose down. I will never see the need to torque each and every fastener in your regulator.
If this bothers you, please don't ask me to service your regs. If you like the work I do, and my prices are within reason because I don't spend an inordinate amount of time torquing that which does not need it, then by all means, I am the man for you. It's a matter of trust... and there are far bigger issues than torquing for me.
has argued that EVERY nut and cap on a regulator needs torqueing, or that the hoses need to be torqued, or anything of the kind.
But look - there are real torque-sensitive connections on most regulators. Perhaps only one or two, but they're there. For those regs that have LP swivels, the retention bolt is one of the "important" ones. Why? Because its all that holds the entire turret assembly on, and if it fails due to being overtorqued, or backs out due to being undertorqued, you have a catastrophic failure at depth - that's why!
The inlet nut is another one that would be a good idea to torque, although its probably not as critical.
To argue that its 'not necessary' as a categorical statement when both I and others have found torque specs in the manufacturer's service literature is a bit hypocritical, especially when people start talking about "following the instructions to the letter."
Well, NetDoc, if the manufacturer of a device specifies 55-70in-lbs of torque on a particular bolt, exactly how are you going to follow that specification "to the book" without using a torque wrench?!
But look - there are real torque-sensitive connections on most regulators. Perhaps only one or two, but they're there. For those regs that have LP swivels, the retention bolt is one of the "important" ones. Why? Because its all that holds the entire turret assembly on, and if it fails due to being overtorqued, or backs out due to being undertorqued, you have a catastrophic failure at depth - that's why!
The inlet nut is another one that would be a good idea to torque, although its probably not as critical.
To argue that its 'not necessary' as a categorical statement when both I and others have found torque specs in the manufacturer's service literature is a bit hypocritical, especially when people start talking about "following the instructions to the letter."
Well, NetDoc, if the manufacturer of a device specifies 55-70in-lbs of torque on a particular bolt, exactly how are you going to follow that specification "to the book" without using a torque wrench?!
Nobody said they are hard they are easy. Easy to rebuild anyway. You don't even need to understand how they work. I am an LDS an I am not irresponsible for not selling you a manual. I only get one and it is copywrite material so I can't sell it, copy it or what ever. I don't even get one per person sometimes I get one for the store. As for parts well that's not my fault either. I understand you want to work on your reg that's ok but you have no idea who it is who is irresponsible so maybe you shouldn't accuse without knowing.
To the board,
Dispite what Genesis says I follow the written procedures and training that I received as precisely as humanly possible. I own and use the tools and methods that are called out in the manuals and the classes.
Earlier I presented word for word instructions out of the manual for the reg I service most often. Those instructions dealt with the most critical parts. I have others I could present. To do otherwise would be legal suicide if anything went wrong. I have no reason to skimp, cheat or lie about having done it.
On the other hand what is the motive for someone to try to prove me a cheat? I can only wonder.
Similar threads
Question
Regulator recomendation
