LP vs HP tanks on doubles...
- Thread starter DC53
- 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
I guess you are surfing the net on 10 year old computer too?
There is this thing called progress if you have not heard it.
HP at 3600psi is less then 5% overfill. LP at that pressure is 50% overfill.
HP at 3600psi is 72% of the test pressure. LP at same pressure is at 90% of the test pressure.
LOL, tell that to the families who got to share in the wonderful outcomes of poor alloys in the early '90's. How many bombs did that alloy create exactly? That was progress too. I personally know two dive shops that reported casualties from those tanks. Yup, i'll stick to the tried and true dinosaur that has and is continuing to work. Thanks!
And your math is wrong. It's a minor point, but 5/3's 2640 is 4400.
Steel alloys? Or are you bringing in AL into the mix just to mix apples and oranges?
Well LP = 2400 LP+ = 2640.
HP at 3600psi is less then 5% overfill. LP at that pressure is 50% overfill. LP+ is 36% overfill.
HP at 3600psi is 72% of the test pressure. LP at same pressure is at 90% of the test pressure. LP+ is 82% of the test pressure.
Yeah, I was making a point about the "progress" of alloys. My comment focus'd on the aluminum alloy, but you can certainly see how that might relate to the latest and greatest HP steel tanks.
It quite some time before aluminum tanks started exploding after the introduction of the poor alloy. Quite honestly, not enough time has passed on the new HP Steels to know what's going to happen to them.
Progress isn't always good. Only time will tell. And it's hard to argue with 40+ years of stability. But, some people will try anyway.
It quite some time before aluminum tanks started exploding after the introduction of the poor alloy. Quite honestly, not enough time has passed on the new HP Steels to know what's going to happen to them.
Progress isn't always good. Only time will tell. And it's hard to argue with 40+ years of stability. But, some people will try anyway.
XS Scuba Worthington Steel Cylinder Specifications
LP95 - 41.9 lb 23.7 in
HP119 - 42.0 lb 24.0 in
So LP95 is 0.1 lbs lighter and 0.3 inches shorter. Sure it makes small difference but would probably not be noticeable.
So you are right, they are 0.1 lb lighter and 0.3 shorter. Let's put this in perspective:
LPs are 99.76% of the weight of HP and 98.75% of the length of HP. (LP95 vs HP119)
You overfill them to 3600psi you overfill HP for 5% and LP by 50% of their nominal pressure. 1000% bigger overfill for savings of 0.23% in weight and 1.25% in height.
Or if we are talking about LP+ 720% bigger overfill compared to HP.
Your math is wrong again. You are looking at Worthington tanks and for the third time -- I have Fabers. They are lighter 37.2lbs. x 2 that's nearly 10lb difference. Add in my Steel LP 85 stage bottles and that's nearly 12lbs difference total. Still don't think that's worth mentioning? And this is getting old. Look em up for yourself. Scuba Cylinder Specifications from Tech Diving Limited - 928-855-9400
All that being said. We still don't know how these tanks are going to perform 10, 20 or 40 years from now. I'm done! Argue with yourself.
All that being said. We still don't know how these tanks are going to perform 10, 20 or 40 years from now. I'm done! Argue with yourself.
Your tanks are 40 years old?
Faber LP95 vs Faber HP117.
37.2 lb vs 38.9 (+1.7 lb) +5%
23.8 in vs. 24.91 in (+1.11 in) +5%
37.2 lb vs 38.9 (+1.7 lb) +5%
23.8 in vs. 24.91 in (+1.11 in) +5%
SkimFisher
Contributor
Similar threads
