Pee Valve Coupling Question

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!

Rick Inman

Advisor
ScubaBoard Supporter
Scuba Instructor
Divemaster
Messages
9,468
Reaction score
38
Location
Spokane, WA
Now that I have a few... ah, dives on my pee valve, the quick disconnect seems like a good idea. My question is, the parts from McMaster-Carr (5012K83 & 5012K72) would appear to decrease the inside diameter size, thus constricting the outbound flow.

Am I wrong about this? It doesn't seem like the best idea to restrict flow and put back-pressure on the system.

Please enlighten me.
 
I wish I could help you since I consider myself an expert in anything that has to do with taking a leak underwater...

I do remember seeing a Halcyon balanced p-valve that was modified to be a quick-disconnect. There were some couplings that were shrink wrapped and the guy had cut open the shrink wrap and used the couplings as a quick disconnect. more details- the couplings were red and would compress and twist to mate and were part of the original p-valve, so nothing was added, and only the shrink wrap was removed.

yes, around here, when we're not diving, we sit around drinking beers and comparing p-valves. 32 hours straight on scubaboard has gone to my head... (at least that's my excuse!)
 
Here's the picture of Cali68's:
attachment.php
 
Rick Inman:
Now that I have a few... ah, dives on my pee valve, the quick disconnect seems like a good idea.
What makes you think it is a good idea?

What problem are you trying to Solve?

Adds an extra part that could fail (and I know I wouldn't want piss all over myself)
Makes it easier to "forget" or lose a piece of the valve (rendering it useless)
 
JeffG:
What makes you think it is a good idea?

What problem are you trying to Solve?

Adds an extra part that could fail? (and I know I wouldn't want piss all over myself)
Makes it easier to "forget" or lose a piece of the valve (rendering it useless)

It stops you from dripping pee on the inside of your suit when you disconnect.

Makes your suit smell better (Just B.O. not pee & B.O.)

Maybe I just need a longer hose or better skill.:05:
 
it's starting to ring a bell. on the other guy's p-valve, he cut open the shrink wrap above the dump, but below the T. It should look like the red check valve on the balance side. The disadvantage would be that you would be wearing most of the hose, rather than having a short stub in your pants. I know that sounds bad, but you'll figure out what I mean...
 
onfloat:
It stops you from dripping pee on the inside of your suit when you disconnect.
For a backzip I guess I could see that, but I haven't had that problem with my front zip. Just let pete hang out while I disconnect.
 
JeffG:
What problem are you trying to Solve?
Ten minutes with my hand down my drysuit in the dark fumbling around before the dive.

You think the quick connect is the wrong answer?
 
Rick Inman:
Ten minutes with my hand down my drysuit in the dark fumbling around before the dive.

You think the quick connect is the wrong answer?
You still have to put the rubber on and attach the hose to it, so unless you put all of that on before you put on your suit, you will still have your hand down your suit for the 10 minutes. And no matter what, you would still have to attach the quick disconnect together "in the dark". Did it get hooked up right?

Anyways, thats not the biggest issue in my mind ( because I haven't spent more than 1 min getting myself all hooked up), but IIRC Cali68 lost 1/2 of his pee-valve before a dive. Thats a bigger issue to me.
 

Back
Top Bottom