Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Allen, there are only a couple of us who use OMS tanks, and
that is a function of the fact that Griffeths was the first guy to get
the big tanks a few years ago. We mostly use the 104's. When using OMS,
you must add a v weight and or their steel backplate to compensate for
the bouyancy (+1 lb empty with manifold vs - 9 for the 104's).
Genesis tanks are basicly useless - they are neutral when empty,
and they require 3500 psi to get the rated capacity. Low pressure tanks
are easier on the regs - I would rather have 3300 in 104's than 4000
in genesis 120's, which is what it would take to even get close to equal.
The manifold is a different subject - you are right about the o-ring
for the scuba pro/dive rite/sea elite Swedish-made manifolds. We have no
OMS manifolds, so I do not know what their design is. - G
On Fri, 5 Jan 1996, biped@ix*.ne*.co* (L. Allen Beard ) wrote:
>What are the advantages of LP (OMS) v. HP (ex:Genesis) tanks for
>doubles?
>Why does WKPP use OMS tanks?
>I have heard that because of OMS's o-ring design on the
>manifold-to-valve-post connection that they are not as sound as a
>barrell-type o-ring configuration (ex:diverite manifold) and thus could
>more easily suffer a failure. If this were true than I suppose that
>WKPP would not be using them...but I just had to ask - Allen
>--
>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@terra.net'.
>Send subscription/archive requests to `techdiver-request@terra.net'.
>
>
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]