Information about the Luxfer recall / exchange 6351 alloy
Welcome to ScubaBoard, an online scuba diving forum community where you can join over 205,000 divers diving from around the world. If the topic is related to scuba diving, this is the place to find divers talking about it. To gain full access to ScubaBoard (and make this large box go away) you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
Participate in over 500 dive topic forums and browse from over 5,500,000 posts.
Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
Post your own photos or view from well over 100,000 user submitted images.
Gain access to our free classifieds marketplace to buy, sell and trade gear, travel and services.
Use the calendar to organize your events and enroll in other members' events.
Find a dive buddy or communicate directly with scuba equipment manufacturers.
All this and much more is available to you absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
NEW for 2014 Access SBlogbook for members. It allows you to directly upload data from your dive computer, validate your logs digitally, link your dives to photos, videos, dive centers (9,000 on file), fishes (14,000 on file) and much more.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact the ScubaBoard Support Team.
I recently purchased a few tanks used, and ended up with Luxfers dated 1982, 1988, and 1993 (got a really good price on them, so...) I know that there was a problem with the alloy used in some of the tanks from the 80's, but I can't find the exact date ranges anywhere. Does anyone know when the problem tanks started and ended production? If one (or two) of the tanks that I have fall in the date range, what would be the responsible course of action - to err on the side of caution and make wind chimes out of them (in which case I still got a good deal on the one or two remaining, so not a big loss) or to continue using them and cross my fingers that I don't end up being responsible for blowing half of my LDS apart if one of them unzips on them during fill?
A short lesson in Luxfer tanks is...not short enough to post here and I don't want the liability to your estate, anyway. ;}
Take the tanks in for a visual inspection and tell them that you just bought the tanks and that you want to make certain that they're okay. They can check for withdrawn certifications as part of the VIP. Don't be suprised if they order a hydro.
Or, you can visit the Luxfer Gas Cylinders website and see what information they have posted. You may have to email them with serial numbers and tank specs to get a definitive answer.
6351 is not dangerous, "misunderstood" is a better word...
6351 is the older alloy that has a shorter life span than the newer 6061 alloy, at least in theory since 6061 hasn’t been around nearly as long as 6351.
6351 is not dangerous, if it was the DOT would pull the permit for it to be used in the US.
The reason it’s not dangerous is that impending failure can be detected literally years in advance by a good visual inspection (note the word “good” in that sentence). The stress cracks in the neck can be seen and the cylinder removed from service long before it kabooms. A Visual Plus isn’t even necessary, but does make the inspection process easier.
To answer your question, the 82 is 6351, the 88 is probably 6351 (I’d give it a 99% chance, since I think the transition for 6351 to 6061 for Luxfer AL80s were in the 89-90 range) and the 93 is 6061.
Ps. I’m assuming that these are AL80s.
Last edited by roakey; August 5th, 2002 at 12:20 AM.
They are AL80's - the tanks were hydro'd and viz+'d before they were shipped to me, and I did have my LDS do another viz when they got here - interestingly enough, he said that the two older tanks looked brand new, it was the newer tank that had a small spot of corrosion on the bottom and a little in the threads (the neck was brass-brushed and all was good with that.) Thanks for the replies!
...detracts from this $50. Looking at some of the threads here, it seems that the dive shops who refuse to fill these old tanks (even though they are fit for use) may become even more stingy as time goes on. Maybe the $50 is better than keeping an un-fillable tank around.:hour: