The Difference Between LP and HP

[tbone1004]

actually quite a few dealers still have Worthingtons in stock, and many people are purchasing used. Worthington has also mentioned the possibility of bringing their scuba division back, so point still stands, mention faber when you make that comment and all is well, but don't make a broad statement because of the prevalence of the other two brands on the used market especially as the Worthingtons are still in stock at many dealers. Also goes to point that if someone comes and reads this thread, and someone brings back hot-dipped galvanizing to the process, that the tanks will be similar specs to the Worthingtons and PST's, proven by the general similarity between the two, so how hard is it to add Faber to your statement and remove any possibility of confusion?

 

[Leadking]

actually quite a few dealers still have Worthingtons in stock, and many people are purchasing used. Worthington has also mentioned the possibility of bringing their scuba division back, so point still stands, mention faber when you make that comment and all is well, but don't make a broad statement because of the prevalence of the other two brands on the used market especially as the Worthingtons are still in stock at many dealers. Also goes to point that if someone comes and reads this thread, and someone brings back hot-dipped galvanizing to the process, that the tanks will be similar specs to the Worthingtons and PST's, proven by the general similarity between the two, so how hard is it to add Faber to your statement and remove any possibility of confusion?

My being in the dive industry for over 35 years and distributing Luxfer, Faber, and designing with Worthington, the LP and X Series cylinders and selling in excess of 100,000 cylinders, I must bow to your superior intellect and connections in the dive cylinder market.

 

[Storker]

i have never seen this on any 300b whip in the states. [...] Any whip I see is like the 200b but the thread leignth of the 300. It is hard to find a male din that is not 300 bar.

I was away from my club's compressor when we had this discussion, but since I took a trip down there today to fill a couple of tanks, I snapped some pics.

200/232 bar fill fitting from the side. Note the short unthreaded section on the front and the short length of the protruding section:


200/232 bar fill fitting from the front. Note the large diameter of the protruding section:


300 bar fill fitting from the side. Note the long unthreaded section on the front and the long length of the protruding section:


300 bar fill fitting from the front. Note the small diameter of the protruding section:


Trying to fit a 300 bar fill fitting into a 200 bar tank valve. The threads on the fill whip won't engage in the tank valve due to the length of the unthreaded section of the 300 bar fill whip:



Like I said, it's physically impossible to screw a 300 bar fill whip onto a 200 or 232 bar tank valve. I'll concede, though, that it's not possible to fill a 300 bar tank from a 200/232 bar fill whip. On that point, my memory proved unreliable.

Finally, a 200/232 bar adapter (with a 225 bar safety valve) on a 300 bar fill whip, enabling the filling of a 200 or 232 bar tank from a 300 bar fill whip:



BTW, I didn't take any pics of our DIN-to-yoke adapter. But after checking, I can guarantee that it will only fit on a 200/232 bar fill fitting.

 

[tbone1004]

super interesting, thanks for posting! we dont' have 200bar fill adapters here and only rarely do you see 200bar regulators. Our fill adapters are identical to the regulator threads so we don't have the protrusion. Do you guys have different neck threads on your bottles for the pressures? I.e. what is to keep you from putting a 300bar valve on a 200/232bar tank?

 

[Storker]

A 300 bar 1st stage goes on a 200 bar tank valve, no problem at all (why should there be? there's no safety issues with screwing a 300 bar reg onto a 200 bar tank). The 1st stage fitting doesn't have the long non-threaded section, and the narrow protrusion is short enough to fit in the wide/shallow recessed part of a 200 bar tank valve. The only difference from fitting the 1st stage on a 300 bar tank valve is that a couple of threads on the reg are exposed.

 

[TotDoc]

All this talk about folks having worthingtons in stock - someone find me an x7-120 then! ...please?! I need a match for my lonely tank...

 

[SubAquatix]

The only X's available new, that I am aware of, are the X7-65. The information I have rec'd from Worthington, directly, is that steel tanks are off the board for now, but hey, anyone can say anything.

 

[SubAquatix]

similar observations Rob, but I thought the DoT rule was the burst discs must not exceed hydro pressure, but it can't be less than like 110% of the rated pressure, or more than 80% of the burst pressure *not sure what these are on the tanks, but it is well over hydro pressure*. So in that case, all of the 2400 bottles would be able to take 4000psi burst discs, and in that case, they are still fully legal according to the DoT, and as long as the valve is rated to pressures higher than the burst disc, then no issues.

Bugged me so I tool a minute to look it up today!!

DoT 49 CFR 180.20.c.4 States: For a specification 3, 3A, 3AA, 3AL, 3AX, 3AXX, 3B, 3BN, or 3T cylinder filled with gases in other than Division 2.2, from the first requalification due on or after December 31, 2003, the burst pressure of a CG-1, CG-4, or CG-5 pressure relief device must be at test pressure with a tolerance of plus zero to minus 10%. An additional 5% tolerance is allowed when a combined rupture disc is placed inside a holder. This requirement does not apply if a CG-2, CG-3 or CG-9 thermally activated relief device or a CG-7 reclosing pressure valve is used on the cylinder.

Also, in another post, I stated Fabers were made here in NC- I meant to say Luxfer. Sorry!!!