From the thread indicated where we first met on the issue:
Here you make an outrageous statement, without any caveat, that catches some people off guard:
The 6351 alloys are required to have 3 visuals per year if in service.
When called on it you clarify with this:
For cylinders in heavy use (for example, those filled five or more times a week), Luxfer recommends visual inspection every four months.
At the time I wonder why you would default to the absolute worst case scenario (what non commercial diver fills their tank 5 or more times a week on a regular basis). In the same post you add:
Like I SAID, MOST shops that know what they are looking at will not fill them.
Including ours.
Now I'm confused because you say you will fill a 6351 tank and then you say you won't.
It's a manufacturer's recommendation for the 6351 alloy AL tanks, and it's 3 times I typoed.
Even when it's been pointed out that you are quoting a worst case scenario you continue to promote it. It appears most others are content with a yearly Vis but not you.
The manufacturers recommendation for its 6351 tanks is VIP 3 times a year not 4, it was a typo.
DOT requirements to not take into consideration how many times the tank is filled and emptied which is what causes the stress in the bottles. Luxfer however does and if we don't know the history of the bottle we won't fill it unless those requirements have been met.
Now I understand. You treat all 6351 bottles of unknown origin as though they have been filled 5 or more times a week. I have to admit I'm still confused though because once you've done the first Vis it's not unknown anymore but you still plan to do 3 vis's a year. I will concede I may have this point wrong but your "fuzzy" logic is beginning to stump me.
Yawn, like I said. If WE aren't familiar with the bottle and it's history we don't fill them.
Again, in the same thread you say you will fill them... and then you won't. Hell, forget the same thread - you do it in the same post!
When we get unfamiliar bottles made from questionable materials we explain to the customer that we would be happy to fill it just as long as they allow us to hydro it and vip it.
I am curious that no one else has called you on the fact that you insist on a hydro (irregardless of the stamped due date). From my "meager" understanding this is considered unnecessary destructive testing (but I could be misinformed and am willing to stand corrected on the point). Pehaps someone in the industry other than you can clarify that one for me.
Anyways, I am glad you are consistant in your posting. I would welcome anyone to read the thread for themselves to see if I've intentionally misquoted you.
It might also be interesting to see how I "spoke" in the thread, and how you "responded" (as a supposed professional) as you keep questioning my credability. Credability, I might add, I've never said I had. I'm an amatuer diver who happens to own two 6351 tanks. One day I woke up and realised that there was some contraversy surrounding them and since then I have tried to educate myself on the issue. Fortunately I have the brains and b_lls to call BS when I hear it.
I do, however, appreciate when posters like Phil Ellis and others chip in even though we come from differing POV's presently. This is a complex issue to me with many players, motivations and courses of action to consider and I'm not oblivious to that fact.
