Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Terry writes: >They are a set of two small cylinders set up as twins each holding about >44CuF at 300bar (4410psi), they are very comfrotable in the water as they >sit snug and flat into your back. Their Hydro test pressure is on the >order of 5400psi so we are getting close to the pressure that I want. >... >I don`t think that these tanks would be any more of a danger than the >existing tanks at least here in Australia where we have yearly hydro >tests (I don't think a 5 year interval is reasonable for any tank). I hate this topic. It isn't that simple. This is a very dangerous assumption regarding near-Hydro pressures, Hydro inspection interval and the nature of the Hydro test methodology due how they all related to metallurgical fatigue failure concerns. Know that fatigue theory has a plethora of variables that make this whole thing a big statistical crapshoot - just like DCS theory. If you're still considering raising your basic operational pressure at all, please have a qualified professional (USA: a Certified Professional Engineer; PE) do the calculations and establish use parameters and WHEN you will have to _destroy_ the tank (ie, before it blows on its own). Also, in the archives, see my post entitled '"tight" fills', which covers some of what I consider the necessary implimentation safety constraints. Needless to say, the price you pay for this performance is money. The "forced retirement" of tanks get expensive quick, and the R&D needed to get this far is a lot of work...the gain is very limited for those who could opt to use a larger capacity tank (and for those who're maxed out, they're probably looking at rebreathers anyway). Back to lurker status, -Hugh Huntzinger <huntzing@pi*.ar*.mi*>
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]