elan
Contributor
So 3AA tanks do just fine ? I just ordered a set of LP108s ....
Hello everyone! Got a question regarding Worthington HP 120 tanks
- Thread starter Diverd503
- 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
Rick Christ
Contributor
There is a manufacturing problem with them, many are failing first hydro
Rick Christ
Contributor
Why two hydros in five years?
Rick Christ
Contributor
augk
Contributor
well glad i saw this since ill be brining my 120 in for a hydro soon.
Rick Christ
Contributor
oxyhacker
Guest
- Messages
- 1,314
- Reaction score
- 36
The story I am hearing is that Worthington has found hot dipping tanks a lot fussier than they had anticipated (Worthington wasn't doing galvanized until they started making scuba tanks in 2005 or so), and the process has required some fine tuning. Current tanks are supposed to be OK, but the early ones may fail hydro unless the prestress procedure is observed, and may fail even if it is. But none of tanks have failed catastrophically, and XS and Worthington say the problem has to do with the test protocol and not the actual safety of the tanks. They are standing behind the tanks, so anyone who has had any fail hydro should be sure to contact them and see what they can do - even if the tanks were our of warranty or the prestress cycle was not done when the tank was hydroed.
BTW the PST and Worthington prestress bulletins apply to 3AA and SP tanks equally, thought 3AA tanks seem less effected by the hot dip.
I personally wouldn't let this stop me from buying a galvanized tank. I would be happy to put up with a slightly higher failure rate, in return for the benefits of hot dip.
BTW the PST and Worthington prestress bulletins apply to 3AA and SP tanks equally, thought 3AA tanks seem less effected by the hot dip.
I personally wouldn't let this stop me from buying a galvanized tank. I would be happy to put up with a slightly higher failure rate, in return for the benefits of hot dip.
Last edited:
Rick Christ
Contributor
“Current tanks are supposed to be OK” This is conjecture and uncorroborated, the current ones up for testing are failing in alarming numbers!!
Last Thursday Worthington Cylinder meet with the DOT and asked to change the test protocol on E14157. If I could have tested the ones that have failed by this other method, all would have passed. If Worthington wants to change the test protocol, this tells me the new ones are not fixed!!!
The Pres of Worthington Cylinder has said that the company will replace the premature failures. I believe this to be true!! The fly in the mix maybe XSScuba. I believe XS the marketer does not want to pay for freight. If you have a premature failure call XS, you may have to fight for the shipping.
Rick Christ
Contributor
How many of you out there have had a Worthington E14157 fail???
oxyhacker
Guest
- Messages
- 1,314
- Reaction score
- 36
You will note I said "supposed to be" not "are"! What kind of a failure rate are you seeing on these tanks?
The current explanation that I have been hearing is that the zinc coating (and the mixed zinc/steel layer several thou thick that froms between the zinc layer and the steel) is less elastic that the steel, and inhibits the tank wall's return to the prepressurized state, so that the tank shows too much permanent expansion. The rumor I have heard is that Worthington wants to test the tanks on the basis of elastic rather than permanent expansion, which would mean putting REEs on the tanks. Have your heard anything different? I would be nice if they can work something out, so any special procedure can be DOT-mandated, rather than the situation we have now where Worthington and PST have a procedure, but the hydroshop doesn't have to do it.
On the other hand, I had a guy at one of the largest US vendors of these tanks swear to me the other day that the problem had nothing to do with the metallurgy or construction of the tanks, but only the fact that the rough zinc coating held more bubbles on the outside of the tank than a painted surface, and these were enough to skew the test results! Said he had gotten this directly from Worthington, and PST had told him the same thing years ago.
The current explanation that I have been hearing is that the zinc coating (and the mixed zinc/steel layer several thou thick that froms between the zinc layer and the steel) is less elastic that the steel, and inhibits the tank wall's return to the prepressurized state, so that the tank shows too much permanent expansion. The rumor I have heard is that Worthington wants to test the tanks on the basis of elastic rather than permanent expansion, which would mean putting REEs on the tanks. Have your heard anything different? I would be nice if they can work something out, so any special procedure can be DOT-mandated, rather than the situation we have now where Worthington and PST have a procedure, but the hydroshop doesn't have to do it.
On the other hand, I had a guy at one of the largest US vendors of these tanks swear to me the other day that the problem had nothing to do with the metallurgy or construction of the tanks, but only the fact that the rough zinc coating held more bubbles on the outside of the tank than a painted surface, and these were enough to skew the test results! Said he had gotten this directly from Worthington, and PST had told him the same thing years ago.
Similar threads
