What size of steel tank for beginner doubles?

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

So...tell me again why would anyone still choose an LP 95 even in cave country?

Because no one overfills HP tanks in cave country...

Overfilling LP steel tanks for 30+ years has not produced a single rupture. Multiply that by the number of divers, and the number of fills, and the empirical evidence begins to stack up pretty heavily. I'm not saying it WON'T happen, or that it can't happen. I am just saying the evidence supports that it has been immensely successful in practice.
 
If the LP95 was the most common tank and it was usually overfilled to 4000psi, then I would absolutly use an HP119 instead. Exactly the same capacity at the same pressure, same carrying weight, same buoyancy, same size but greater safety due to the stronger steel.

Is the trim the same?
 
You said it!
This thread seems to have gone way off course and gotten into a debate over cave fills, gas planning etc...The OP didnt mention anything about cave diving, deep wreck diving...
This might be his first set of double's, but won't be his last and by no means do these tanks need to follow him thru his whole diving career...Looking at his profile, it looks like he has less than 100 dives, and dives a 7 mil wetsuit...after reading everyone else's posts..I'm still putting in the plug for aluminum 80's..
I agree AL 80's make good starter doubles, especially if you already have a pair of AL 80's.

The manifold in most cases can be used on anything else later and the 7.25" bands are also useful on a reasonable range of doubles (80's 100's and 120's). So if you move up to 100's or 120's, you can use the same bands and manifold and then use the single AL80's as stage bottles, meaning nothing is purchased that ends up useless later.
 
To answer your question however, I dive in the north Florida cave community and LP 95 cylinders are widely used. .

Widely used? Yes. Most commonly used tank? Not by a long shot. The LP95 is shorter than an AL80, and for a man of average height, it tends to make them top heavy. There is a reason the LP104 was a staple for many years, and the LP108 which is roughly the same size, replaced it.

If I stop by Cave Adventurers, Cave Excursions, Dive Outpost, Cave Excursions East, or Extreme Exposure, the LP95 is not the tank I see most often.
 
Because no one overfills HP tanks in cave country...
No one needs to given that size for size you get the same gas without an overfill. And if you get picky, I suspect no one is going to get real concerned about putting an extra 158 psi into a 3442 psi tank to bring it up to a full 3600 psi.

You need a better argument and 30 years of history aside, there are better tanks available now that don't play fast and loose with the DOT regs or the tank's safety margin.
 
No one needs to given that size for size you get the same gas without an overfill. And if you get picky, I suspect no one is going to get real concerned about putting an extra 158 psi into a 3442 psi tank to bring it up to a full 3600 psi.

You need a better argument and 30 years of history aside, there are better tanks available now that don't play fast and loose with the DOT regs or the tank's safety margin.

I am not saying how things "should be", I am only giving a reflection of the way things currently are. HP tanks are a rarity here, and no one seems to be dropping their LP steel tanks in favor of new HP tanks. Of all the cave divers I know who've bought tanks in the past couple of years, only one chose HP.
 
Because no one overfills HP tanks in cave country...

Overfilling LP steel tanks for 30+ years has not produced a single rupture. Multiply that by the number of divers, and the number of fills, and the empirical evidence begins to stack up pretty heavily. I'm not saying it WON'T happen, or that it can't happen. I am just saying the evidence supports that it has been immensely successful in practice.

The definition of "success" is a bit nebulous here. Alot of rather bold statements too...

Perrone are you even 30 years old? How would you know how 2250psi steel 72s were filled in the 60s and 70s? Back then 2400/2640psi "LP" scuba tanks didn't even exist. Most compressors barely even went to 3000psi nevermind the pressures cave divers fill LP tanks to today.

How are you tracking ruptures, hydrostatic failure rates, compressor wear and other parameters of success? Repeated gross overfilling to almost hydrotest pressures definately shortens a tank's lifespan.

I have some single Lp95s and double lp85s I fill them myself to 3000 because I beleive this to be a reasonable balance between actual needed capacity, lifespan, with a decent safety margin.
 
The definition of "success" is a bit nebulous here. Alot of rather bold statements too...

Hmmm

Perrone are you even 30 years old?

Considering I was in college 20 years ago... I'd say yes.


How are you tracking ruptures, hydrostatic failure rates, compressor wear and other parameters of success? Repeated gross overfilling to almost hydrotest pressures definately shortens a tank's lifespan.

Relying on the statistics kept by PSI, and knowledge gained from divers who were diving in that time. Not to mention we have some tanks from the early 70s, that I still dive and that still carry a plus rating. Also information gleaned from writings of cave divers during that era.

I have some single Lp95s and double lp85s I fill them myself to 3000 because I beleive this to be a reasonable balance between actual needed capacity, lifespan, with a decent safety margin.


Amazingly, there are guidelines available for overpressured cylinders. They were discussed during my PSI course. The ~100 year service life when overpressuring seemed to be more than adequate to me.
 
How much over pressurizing were they talking about? 10%, 20% ,cycling the tank to hydro test pressure 10,000 times, or expecting the tank to live at or near the hydro test pressure for a significant portion of its life? All of those are distictly different. Also what works for one particular brand and model of tank using a particular steel does not apply to other brands, models and steels.

Testing to destruction with one tank does not take into account the reasons why safety margins are designed into the tank in the first place - the potential for manufacturing flaws, (inclusions in the steel, etc) and degradation that may occur from a variety of operational causes. At best, divers are using the reserve so to speak, something that would not be acceptable in gas planning, but something that ironically enough seems to be perfectly ok with regard to filling tanks - just because no one has died doing it yet.

I can see this being done in the old days when all you had were large and heavy low pressure tanks where massive overfills were the only way to get the gas required. (although if memory serves, 20% was considered pretty massive back then - 50% to 60% overfills seem to be something that divers have evolved to over time and I would not automatically assume there is a 30 year record of success with that level of overfilling.) However now with the availability of high pressure tanks designed to deliver the same volume of gas at similar pressures in a comparable sized package without breathing hard in terms of exceeeding service limits, it just does not seem to me to be resopnsible to continue promoting massive overfilling of low pressure tanks.

It also begs the question why the practice continues. I suspect some of it is just institutional inertia - the old tanks are what the old divers use and they are what new divers are either referred to or observe and then gravitate to in order to fit in.

Part of it may just be ignorance that both old and new divers are not aware of the favorable numbers comparisons between the old low pressure and the newer 3442 psi tanks - reinforced by such helpful tidbits of information as "shops will not overfill high pressure tanks" (ignoring the fact that an overfill is not even needed with them).

A good example is that a daughter asks her mom why they always cut the end of the ham when they roast it. Mom says "because my mom did it that way". But when the daughter asks her grandma, she says "because my mom did it that way". When the daughter asks her great grandma, she says "I did it that way because I did not have a roaster big enough back then and had to cut the end off to get it to fit." Some traditions continue long after their practical value ceases to exist just because no one ever questions why it was done that way.

I suspect however that some of it may just be a psychological statement. "Look at me - I ignore the regs and the safety limits and massively overfill my tanks to levels that make mere mortals cringe, because I am a CAVE DIVER." It is unfortunately a cave country tradition that divers are proud of and identify with, so they keep whacking the end off the ham even though they now have a large enough roaster.
 
Again, I cannot say why those in cave country still prefer the LP tanks. I know why I chose them. I suspect others here have similar reasons. However, "ignorance" is not a label I'd give to most cave divers I know regarding gear selection. As a rule, most of the cave divers I know tend to be far more savvy about gear than any other collective group of divers. Suggesting that they simply don't understand the benefit of high pressure tanks is pretty far fetched.

But I hope the original poster and others make informed choices on all gear purchases.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom