Is the Eddy-current test REALLY necessary?
- Thread starter grouchyturtle
- 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
YES they absolutely need it! Search for 6351 deaths or incidents. You will come across some very disturbing info. A man was severely injured or killed (forgive me I have read too many articles) by a 6351 tank a few years ago. DOT was notified so they investigated as usual. Here's where it gets weird.
Two Luxfer employees, one being a lawyer, also showed up very quickly. Luxfer quickly pointed fingers at the fill station operator "he must have filled the tank too quickly" followed by "the DOT investigation was not conclusive on whether or not the cylinder was a Luxfer". DOT does not guess when investigating.
This suspicious behavior combined with the fact that manufacturers - not DOT pushed for and helped create Eddy current machines should tell you all you need to know. Luxfer has millions and millions of cylinders out there. Recalling these cylinders would cost them a fortune so they created a machine instead.
Note that eddy currents are required because of 'sustained load cracking' in 6351 tanks. That means at any time under pressure, a crack can form and it can GROW. Not just at hydro or while filling but ANY time. Don't take my word for it. Look up the incident in Florida where a tank blew up in a guys closet. All doors were knocked off their hinges and the ceiling was caved in. Glass was found across a nearby parking lot from the force of the blast.
The best you can hope for if you're near one of these tanks is temporary hearing loss. I don't need to tell you what the worst is.
One more thing, Luxfer insists that these tanks will develop a slow leak from the crack and will 'vent'. People have died and lost limbs because of the slow, controlled venting these cylinders exhibit. I would recommend paying for the eddy current or getting new tanks. Personally I would choose the latter.
---------- Post added October 14th, 2014 at 11:15 PM ----------
6351 please read!
YES they absolutely need it! Search for 6351 deaths or incidents. You will come across some very disturbing info. A man was severely injured or killed (forgive me I have read too many articles) by a 6351 tank a few years ago. DOT was notified so they investigated as usual. Here's where it gets weird.
Two Luxfer employees, one being a lawyer, also showed up very quickly. Luxfer quickly pointed fingers at the fill station operator "he must have filled the tank too quickly" followed by "the DOT investigation was not conclusive on whether or not the cylinder was a Luxfer". DOT does not guess when investigating.
This suspicious behavior combined with the fact that manufacturers - not DOT pushed for and helped create Eddy current machines should tell you all you need to know. Luxfer has millions and millions of cylinders out there. Recalling these cylinders would cost them a fortune so they created a machine instead.
Note that eddy currents are required because of 'sustained load cracking' in 6351 tanks. That means at any time under pressure, a crack can form and it can GROW. Not just at hydro or while filling but ANY time. Don't take my word for it. Look up the incident in Florida where a tank blew up in a guys closet. All doors were knocked off their hinges and the ceiling was caved in. Glass was found across a nearby parking lot from the force of the blast.
The best you can hope for if you're near one of these tanks is temporary hearing loss. I don't need to tell you what the worst is.
One more thing, Luxfer insists that these tanks will develop a slow leak from the crack and will 'vent'. People have died and lost limbs because of the slow, controlled venting these cylinders exhibit. I would recommend paying for the eddy current or getting new tanks. Personally I would choose the latter.
---------- Post added October 14th, 2014 at 11:15 PM ----------
6351 please read!
YES they absolutely need it! Search for 6351 deaths or incidents. You will come across some very disturbing info. A man was severely injured or killed (forgive me I have read too many articles) by a 6351 tank a few years ago. DOT was notified so they investigated as usual. Here's where it gets weird.
Two Luxfer employees, one being a lawyer, also showed up very quickly. Luxfer quickly pointed fingers at the fill station operator "he must have filled the tank too quickly" followed by "the DOT investigation was not conclusive on whether or not the cylinder was a Luxfer". DOT does not guess when investigating.
This suspicious behavior combined with the fact that manufacturers - not DOT pushed for and helped create Eddy current machines should tell you all you need to know. Luxfer has millions and millions of cylinders out there. Recalling these cylinders would cost them a fortune so they created a machine instead.
Note that eddy currents are required because of 'sustained load cracking' in 6351 tanks. That means at any time under pressure, a crack can form and it can GROW. Not just at hydro or while filling but ANY time. Don't take my word for it. Look up the incident in Florida where a tank blew up in a guys closet. All doors were knocked off their hinges and the ceiling was caved in. Glass was found across a nearby parking lot from the force of the blast.
The best you can hope for if you're near one of these tanks is temporary hearing loss. I don't need to tell you what the worst is.
One more thing, Luxfer insists that these tanks will develop a slow leak from the crack and will 'vent'. People have died and lost limbs because of the slow, controlled venting these cylinders exhibit. I would recommend paying for the eddy current or getting new tanks. Personally I would choose the latter.
---------- Post added October 15th, 2014 at 08:13 PM ----------
Unnecessarily failing cylinders according to who?
Two Luxfer employees, one being a lawyer, also showed up very quickly. Luxfer quickly pointed fingers at the fill station operator "he must have filled the tank too quickly" followed by "the DOT investigation was not conclusive on whether or not the cylinder was a Luxfer". DOT does not guess when investigating.
This suspicious behavior combined with the fact that manufacturers - not DOT pushed for and helped create Eddy current machines should tell you all you need to know. Luxfer has millions and millions of cylinders out there. Recalling these cylinders would cost them a fortune so they created a machine instead.
Note that eddy currents are required because of 'sustained load cracking' in 6351 tanks. That means at any time under pressure, a crack can form and it can GROW. Not just at hydro or while filling but ANY time. Don't take my word for it. Look up the incident in Florida where a tank blew up in a guys closet. All doors were knocked off their hinges and the ceiling was caved in. Glass was found across a nearby parking lot from the force of the blast.
The best you can hope for if you're near one of these tanks is temporary hearing loss. I don't need to tell you what the worst is.
One more thing, Luxfer insists that these tanks will develop a slow leak from the crack and will 'vent'. People have died and lost limbs because of the slow, controlled venting these cylinders exhibit. I would recommend paying for the eddy current or getting new tanks. Personally I would choose the latter.
---------- Post added October 14th, 2014 at 11:15 PM ----------
6351 please read!
YES they absolutely need it! Search for 6351 deaths or incidents. You will come across some very disturbing info. A man was severely injured or killed (forgive me I have read too many articles) by a 6351 tank a few years ago. DOT was notified so they investigated as usual. Here's where it gets weird.
Two Luxfer employees, one being a lawyer, also showed up very quickly. Luxfer quickly pointed fingers at the fill station operator "he must have filled the tank too quickly" followed by "the DOT investigation was not conclusive on whether or not the cylinder was a Luxfer". DOT does not guess when investigating.
This suspicious behavior combined with the fact that manufacturers - not DOT pushed for and helped create Eddy current machines should tell you all you need to know. Luxfer has millions and millions of cylinders out there. Recalling these cylinders would cost them a fortune so they created a machine instead.
Note that eddy currents are required because of 'sustained load cracking' in 6351 tanks. That means at any time under pressure, a crack can form and it can GROW. Not just at hydro or while filling but ANY time. Don't take my word for it. Look up the incident in Florida where a tank blew up in a guys closet. All doors were knocked off their hinges and the ceiling was caved in. Glass was found across a nearby parking lot from the force of the blast.
The best you can hope for if you're near one of these tanks is temporary hearing loss. I don't need to tell you what the worst is.
One more thing, Luxfer insists that these tanks will develop a slow leak from the crack and will 'vent'. People have died and lost limbs because of the slow, controlled venting these cylinders exhibit. I would recommend paying for the eddy current or getting new tanks. Personally I would choose the latter.
---------- Post added October 14th, 2014 at 11:15 PM ----------
6351 please read!
YES they absolutely need it! Search for 6351 deaths or incidents. You will come across some very disturbing info. A man was severely injured or killed (forgive me I have read too many articles) by a 6351 tank a few years ago. DOT was notified so they investigated as usual. Here's where it gets weird.
Two Luxfer employees, one being a lawyer, also showed up very quickly. Luxfer quickly pointed fingers at the fill station operator "he must have filled the tank too quickly" followed by "the DOT investigation was not conclusive on whether or not the cylinder was a Luxfer". DOT does not guess when investigating.
This suspicious behavior combined with the fact that manufacturers - not DOT pushed for and helped create Eddy current machines should tell you all you need to know. Luxfer has millions and millions of cylinders out there. Recalling these cylinders would cost them a fortune so they created a machine instead.
Note that eddy currents are required because of 'sustained load cracking' in 6351 tanks. That means at any time under pressure, a crack can form and it can GROW. Not just at hydro or while filling but ANY time. Don't take my word for it. Look up the incident in Florida where a tank blew up in a guys closet. All doors were knocked off their hinges and the ceiling was caved in. Glass was found across a nearby parking lot from the force of the blast.
The best you can hope for if you're near one of these tanks is temporary hearing loss. I don't need to tell you what the worst is.
One more thing, Luxfer insists that these tanks will develop a slow leak from the crack and will 'vent'. People have died and lost limbs because of the slow, controlled venting these cylinders exhibit. I would recommend paying for the eddy current or getting new tanks. Personally I would choose the latter.
---------- Post added October 15th, 2014 at 08:13 PM ----------
Unnecessarily failing cylinders according to who?
I had a tank come back condemned for failing the NDI - the tank was only a few years old! Sometimes when you go testing things that don't need to be tested, you end up finding more than you wanted to know. It's the same reason not all patients in a hospital wear a cardiac monitors - a non-cardiac paient might have a hiccup that causes a false reading and the doctor will have a false diagnosis.
I agree there are tanks out there that NEED the test but there's no need to run an eddy current on an aluminum tank made in 2010 and failing it.
I agree there are tanks out there that NEED the test but there's no need to run an eddy current on an aluminum tank made in 2010 and failing it.
xtremesk8ter314, go back to the shop that did your 'eddy current' test. DEMAND your money back for the test immediately. Eddy current tests are not required for any tank that is not 6351-T6 alloy. A 2010 tank is definitely not 6351. Not only is the test not required for your cylinder, but the test is not designed for that type of aluminum alloy.
If they don't want to give you your money back, ask if the shop has a RIN number. They are not legally allowed to condemn a cylinder without one. In fact, they cannot even MARK the cylinder. You can (and should) report them to DOT. This shows evidence that they have no idea what they are doing. Don't feel bad at all for turning this incident in to DOT. Any company that has this little knowledge is probably putting the public at risk, or at the very least, adding unnecessary expenses for divers like you. (Did they also try to sell you a new tank?)
You should also be reimbursed for your tank. Any 2010 tank is not even due for hydrotesting for another year. If any of these routes fail you (they won't), send your cylinder to the manufacturer and ask for clarification. They will tell you the same thing I did.
R
redacted
Guest
It might take a very long time to amortize the cost of an eddy tester if you could only charge owners of 6351 tank for the service.
It might take a very long time to amortize the cost of an eddy tester if you could only charge owners of 6351 tank for the service.
Careful, awap, you're going to put LDS's out of business! Seriously tho, all the invention of the eddy current did was save Luxfer and Walter-Kidde money. And placed the financial burden on LDS's in the form of an overpriced machine. The alternative would've been recalling all 6351 tanks - but then we'd have nothing to talk about.
I just did my PSI update. I dont fool with al tanks but as i recall teh 6351's were made from 71-89, Tanks made in years 81 and 82 are the problem tanks. Those years the complany procured thier tank material from a different vender in which the alloy was not correct. other than that the 6351 tanks ore ok. As a one rule fits all solution 6351's require testing. 6061s have not had a confirmed failure on record. PSI's position is that 6061's will not suffer sustained load cracking. The eddy machine does not work on steel tanks. The AL's are still subject to stress related corrosion.
swimmer_spe
Contributor
A diving tank is a pressure vessel.
A propane tank is a pressure vessel.
A oxy acetylene tank are pressure vessels.
A boiler is a pressure vessel.
The regulations are for pressure vessels. The fact that we use one is why they have to be inspected.
A propane tank is a pressure vessel.
A oxy acetylene tank are pressure vessels.
A boiler is a pressure vessel.
The regulations are for pressure vessels. The fact that we use one is why they have to be inspected.
First of all eddy test is more accurate than, VISUAL, or failure because of manufacture date or because it is a 6351 tank.
Second false failings on 6061's are atributed to imporper equipment or the of use of or the wrong software.
Example: there is a magnafying glass used to inspect the inside neck for signs of cracking, use of a 2x is ok but a 4x gives the allusion of folds being cracks. Kind of like saying your tv screen is not solid white cause there are red blue and green dots all over it. When the tank is made the neck is rolled to round the top into shape. folds in the metel may be misinterpreted as cracks. Then there are those that believe it or not, try to eddy current steel tanks or using the wrong software REV in the eddy machine.. Another issue is not being able to visually distinguish between cracks and the marks left by the tap that threaded the neck. According to PSI/PCI there have been ZERO crack failures in any 6061 tanks and the majority of 6351 failures were on tanks that were made in 81 and 82. Eddy tasting is required on 6351 tanks and is OPTIONAL on all 6061 tanks and never done on steel tanks.
Second false failings on 6061's are atributed to imporper equipment or the of use of or the wrong software.
Example: there is a magnafying glass used to inspect the inside neck for signs of cracking, use of a 2x is ok but a 4x gives the allusion of folds being cracks. Kind of like saying your tv screen is not solid white cause there are red blue and green dots all over it. When the tank is made the neck is rolled to round the top into shape. folds in the metel may be misinterpreted as cracks. Then there are those that believe it or not, try to eddy current steel tanks or using the wrong software REV in the eddy machine.. Another issue is not being able to visually distinguish between cracks and the marks left by the tap that threaded the neck. According to PSI/PCI there have been ZERO crack failures in any 6061 tanks and the majority of 6351 failures were on tanks that were made in 81 and 82. Eddy tasting is required on 6351 tanks and is OPTIONAL on all 6061 tanks and never done on steel tanks.
Similar threads
