Old steels denied fills due to store "policy"

[markmud]

According to the article it passed hydro but who really knows unless someone can dig up an accident report not sure which agency in Israel would do that

Hi Jiminy,

I would like to stick-up for DD at this point. The hydro is a snapshot in time; a picture of what the tank's condition was on that date. That tank may have been rolling around an oily, stinky, salty, bilge for a year or two after its last hydro.

I owe it to the tech filling my tanks, and to myself, to take care of a tank and to inform the tech of any issues that are known to me. The tech should be trained enough to visually inspect all tanks for external patent defects. That tank was in poor condition. The tech should have requested a new visual and possibly a new hydro. No new inspections, no fills for you!

I always tell a tech that my tank may have been filled with questionable gas if it is an O2 clean tank. If he/she deems it necessary to pop the cork and look/test inside, well, I need to pay him/her for that service. That tech will be pumping aviation grade O2 in that tank; they should be informed.

Junk is junk. My tanks are not junk. Two of them look brand new. They have mostly been used at Lake Tahoe. The galvanizing on the outside is still shiny silver and not dull grey. The insides look the same.

They have been re-visually inspected after questionable fills from dive boats. We found droplets of water in one after one of these questionable fills. It was promptly cleaned and a new O2 clean vis sticker was glued to the tank. One tank was re-vizzed 2 weeks after it received a visual inspection at the same shop because I wanted to make sure a little water did not get in my tank.

My tanks are not crap.

We have three PST 100 E7 and two PST 80 E7 tanks.

cheers,
markm

 

[Jonny Wishbone]

what was their purpose in the video for putting over 4640 psi in that tank? the last number in bar seen on the gauge was 320. were they testing the containment box and chose a tank that failed hydro to blow it up on purpose or what?

 

[JackD342]

ah ok I didnt realize they are the same thing


According to the article it passed hydro but who really knows unless someone can dig up an accident report not sure which agency in Israel would do that. I suppose if they had salt water intrusion in the cylinder some how that would be enough time

My interpretation of the photo is that we are seeing the rusted and perforated bottom of the cylinder, viewed from the outside. So all that visible damage is from the outside, inside is unknown.

 

[Wookie]

what was their purpose in the video for putting over 4640 psi in that tank? the last number in bar seen on the gauge was 320. were they testing the containment box and chose a tank that failed hydro to blow it up on purpose or what?

Yes. When you test a containment fill station, you test a cylinder to failure. That way you know you can stand beside one when the SHTF.

 

[rhwestfall]

what was their purpose in the video for putting over 4640 psi in that tank? the last number in bar seen on the gauge was 320. were they testing the containment box and chose a tank that failed hydro to blow it up on purpose or what?

There is a reason it is called destructive testing.... That is purely a marketing video (though likely studied for improvements in design of the containment).

 

[rhwestfall]

Frank types faster....

 

[kelemvor]

what was their purpose in the video for putting over 4640 psi in that tank? the last number in bar seen on the gauge was 320. were they testing the containment box and chose a tank that failed hydro to blow it up on purpose or what?

It's a sales video produced by the company that sells the containment boxes (Lenhardt & Wagner)... I can't think of a better way to show that their product does what it says it does.

 

[rhwestfall]

I would have loved to have had a video if what happened inside... yeah, it would have destroyed the camera & light, but hopefully the camera card could have survived...

 

[Bob DBF]

I would have loved to have had a video if what happened inside... yeah, it would have destroyed the camera & light, but hopefully the camera card could have survived...

Wire in a camera like I have on the top of my computer, $30 gone, but if there was room to focus on the tank it would be worth it.


Bob

 

[Diving Dubai]

We found droplets of water in one after one of these questionable fills. It was promptly cleaned and a new O2 clean vis sticker was glued to the tank

Good, well done

Here's a couple of Doc for information.

Diving cylinders – the danger of internal corrosion Bear in mind this is UK centric where Vis is only required every 2.5 years (lets not open that can of worms) But it does highlight how little moisture is need to create a substantial loss of wall thickness in a short period of time. Corrosion can happen 100x faster in a compress gas environment

Cylinder Corrosion and Prevention Techniques Is a slightly longer info document - still worth a read

One from Undercurrent Incident, months post inspection

The Truth About Cracks and Scuba Tanks (I Think...) Be very careful not to jump to conclusions on this one. Read a couple of times, the devil is in the detail on this one