PST closing?

[StSomewhere]

Methinks there is more than one sockpuppet in this little one act play.

 

[gtcpl2]

What I don't understand is if the tank was made to spec's and it passes visuals and hydro's how can the tank be declared no good just because a company went belly up?

I read the letter stating that they are relocating not going under but that tank should be good to go until it fails the tests and inspections. Companies go under all the time and someone else usually picks up or buys patents to continue to make parts and keep things going.

So if they did go under or if they did not renew with DOT wouldn't another company pick up for them.

Also why would you not be able to at the bare min. have a HP119 fill with low pressure

 

[roakey]

What I don't understand is if the tank was made to spec's and it passes visuals and hydro's how can the tank be declared no good just because a company went belly up?

Because we have a legal system, not a justice system.

Roak

 

[SDAnderson]

What I don't understand is if the tank was made to spec's and it passes visuals and hydro's how can the tank be declared no good just because a company went belly up?

The key is that the spec is probationary - an exemption from the normal procedures to manufacture/fill/transport/inspect the tanks is given so that there will be some tanks out there in the real world to check against all the engineering theory. Until there is sufficient statistical data, Uncle Sam wants a chance every so often to reconsider the approval.

I read the letter stating that they are relocating not going under but that tank should be good to go until it fails the tests and inspections. Companies go under all the time and someone else usually picks up or buys patents to continue to make parts and keep things going.

The exemption isn't a patent but you've brought up a good point: it's possible that someone could buy up the rights to the tanks and apply to continue the exemption. I think one of the concerns is that their competitors already have tanks in production and might see this as an opportunity to sell a whole potful of their existing models to those of us replacing PST tanks. Does it make economic sense for Worthington or Faber to purchase the assets needed to continue a line that canibalizes what they've already invested? You and I probably don't have the information to be able to answer this question.

So if they did go under or if they did not renew with DOT wouldn't another company pick up for them.

The Great Unknown. It might happen. It might not. Right now, nobody knows.

Also why would you not be able to at the bare min. have a HP119 fill with low pressure

Because there isn't a sort-of okay to this process - the tanks are either legal or they aren't. It's an all-or-nothing proposition and if the exemption expires the tanks no longer qualify for much more than curios.

 

[gtcpl2]

Thank you for those answers.

Well I hope all goes well for PST as I like many others here just bought 2 E8 119's four weeks ago. Being new and these were my first tanks purchased I at least now know what to look for when buying tanks in the future.

 

[Inspector]

I wonder if it's within the realm of infinite possibilities that the DOT may decide to assign a standard specification to these cylinders. For example: 3AAA or something. After all, the E9791 series has been in production for >10 years; one would think the DOT could make a decision on it by now eh?

 

[ClevelandDiver]

They got a two year extension.

http://www.pstscuba.com/cgi-bin/nlcurrent.cgi

I guess I'll keep my E8-130s.

 

[cmalinowski]

They got a two year extension.

http://www.pstscuba.com/cgi-bin/nlcurrent.cgi

I guess I'll keep my E8-130s.

sweet.

 

[SDAnderson]

I wonder if it's within the realm of infinite possibilities that the DOT may decide to assign a standard specification to these cylinders. For example: 3AAA or something. After all, the E9791 series has been in production for >10 years; one would think the DOT could make a decision on it by now eh?

Ten years?