Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
--part1_cf.20c826.27765114_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit When I started to dive in open water with deco bottles, I owned a steel 46 cu-ft bottle I used for oxygen in caves. That tank was placed near the cave entrance at 20'. I did not swim with it. I also owned an aluminum 30 I used to carry with me as a pony bottle (emergency use only) on deeper recreational dives. My trimix course had us using aluminum 40's. These were well balanced and comfortable to use, even for a newbie. I needed to have two deco bottles now for some of the diving I would do, so I experimented before buying more cylinders. I was also practicing to get used to diving with stage bottles and double 80's. (I got a lot of funny looks on the dive boats on shallow reef dives where I was practicing.) I had hoped I could avoid spending more money on cylinders and find a way to make my exisiting ones work. That was not the case. I tried the alum. 30, the steel 46, and then both together. The alum 30 was fine, although a little small even for a 70' bottle. The steel tank was horrible on the dive, particularly when I did my first post-training tech dive and the only cylinder the dive operator could loan me for a second stage was also a steel 46. Four pounds each might not seem like much, but I was fighting to keep my trim during the whole dive, and most of the deco. I never used the steels for anything other than leaving in a cave entrance again. Maybe you can compensate for all of the weight pulling you down on the left side, but I hated it. When the tank empties, you start having the opposite problem if you have weighted the right side to compensate initially. One dive that way made it completely obvious that was not a good choice. Buy the right thing the first time: get aluminum 40's. The aluminum tanks are almost not noticable during the dive. The steels were a pain the whole time. JS In a message dated 12/23/00 5:20:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, surlyc@al*.ne* writes: > As far as I have been able to read, Al stage bottles are "good" and steel > stage bottles are "bad" because steel bottles are supposedly relatively > "too heavy for diving and comfort" and "unsafe". I checked the specs for > the size of cylinder that would be appropriate for my open water diving. > Here they are: > > Luxfer 48.4 cu.ft./3000 psi > 21.15 lbs. empty > -2.4 lbs. buoyancy full / +1.3 lbs. empty in salt water > > OMS 46 cu.ft. / 2640 psi > 17.6 lbs. empty with valve > -4.0 ...lbs. buoyancy full / 0.00 lbs. empty > > For approximately the same volume, the steel cylinder is lighter and > neutral when empty, so I don't need extra weight to be balanced. The steel > cylinder is lighter. > > So, is this just a unique example of the steel cylinder being the better > choice, or am I missing something here? > --part1_cf.20c826.27765114_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT COLOR="#a0247e" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SCRIPT" FACE="Comic Sans MS" LANG="0">When I started to dive in open water with deco bottles, I owned a steel 46 <BR>cu-ft bottle I used for oxygen in caves. That tank was placed near the cave <BR>entrance at 20'. I did not swim with it. I also owned an aluminum 30 I used <BR>to carry with me as a pony bottle (emergency use only) on deeper recreational <BR>dives. <BR> <BR>My trimix course had us using aluminum 40's. These were well balanced and <BR>comfortable to use, even for a newbie. <BR> <BR>I needed to have two deco bottles now for some of the diving I would do, so I <BR>experimented before buying more cylinders. I was also practicing to get used <BR>to diving with stage bottles and double 80's. (I got a lot of funny looks on <BR>the dive boats on shallow reef dives where I was practicing.) I had hoped I <BR>could avoid spending more money on cylinders and find a way to make my <BR>exisiting ones work. That was not the case. <BR> <BR>I tried the alum. 30, the steel 46, and then both together. The alum 30 was <BR>fine, although a little small even for a 70' bottle. The steel tank was <BR>horrible on the dive, particularly when I did my first post-training tech <BR>dive and the only cylinder the dive operator could loan me for a second stage <BR>was also a steel 46. <BR> <BR>Four pounds each might not seem like much, but I was fighting to keep my trim <BR>during the whole dive, and most of the deco. I never used the steels for <BR>anything other than leaving in a cave entrance again. <BR> <BR>Maybe you can compensate for all of the weight pulling you down on the left <BR>side, but I hated it. When the tank empties, you start having the opposite <BR>problem if you have weighted the right side to compensate initially. <BR> <BR>One dive that way made it completely obvious that was not a good choice. Buy <BR>the right thing the first time: get aluminum 40's. The aluminum tanks are <BR>almost not noticable during the dive. The steels were a pain the whole time. <BR> <BR>JS <BR> <BR>In a message dated 12/23/00 5:20:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, <BR>surlyc@al*.ne* writes: <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">As far as I have been able to read, Al stage bottles are "good" and steel <BR>stage bottles are "bad" because steel bottles are supposedly relatively <BR>"too heavy for diving and comfort" and "unsafe". I checked the specs for <BR>the size of cylinder that would be appropriate for my open water diving. <BR>Here they are:</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Luxfer 48.4 cu.ft./3000 psi</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">21.15 lbs. empty</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">-2.4 lbs. buoyancy full / +1.3 lbs. empty in salt water</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">OMS 46 cu.ft. / 2640 psi</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">17.6 lbs. empty with valve</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">-4.0 ...lbs. buoyancy full / 0.00 lbs. empty</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">For approximately the same volume, the steel cylinder is lighter and <BR>neutral when empty, so I don't need extra weight to be balanced. The steel <BR>cylinder is lighter.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">So, is this just a unique example of the steel cylinder being the better <BR>choice, or am I missing something here?</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#a0247e" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SCRIPT" FACE="Comic Sans MS" LANG="0"> <BR></FONT></HTML> --part1_cf.20c826.27765114_boundary-- -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
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]