halocline
Contributor
I understand. But, I often see posts around here regarding old regs that people have been using for 10 or more years without any service. Are those all piston regs then? I'm not saying I would want to, but if a good piston reg COULD reasonably go 10 years without expecting a catastrophic failure (versus a failure with slow onset) and a diaphragm regular cannot do that, then I would chalk it up as an advantage to a piston reg.
Probably the most reliable regulator design, as demonstrated by many decades of service from the USD royal aquamaster on through the decades of conshelfs and then titans, is the old USD balanced diaphragm design. Right on it's heels is the MK5 balanced piston design, and the sherwood/MK2 flow by piston design.
Each of these simple, classic regulators has literally many millions of dives without problems. I really don't think you can characterize 'diaphragm' as being more or less reliable than 'piston', nor can you successfully argue that one is more prone to sudden failure than the other.
Once you get your Harlow book and start reading up on the designs I think you'll see that each has failure points and strengths. The conshelf has 1 o-ring on the interior of the reg; ONE! The MK2 is designed so that no dynamic (moving) o-ring is subjected to HP air, another remarkably reliable design.