Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Thanks. You actually told me exactly what I wanted to hear - I dive dry and currently use dual LP steel 80s, but am now starting to look at bigger tanks as I'm soon to be getting the training to start doing deeper dives. Because of the quality issues I've been planning to get the PST 104s, but the recent thread I referred to had me worried that they'd be too heavy for ocean use. Ian > -----Original Message----- > From: Trey [mailto:trey@ne*.co*] > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 3:41 AM > To: Ian Puleston; techdiver@aquanaut.com > Subject: RE: OMS vs PST tank specs > > > > volume is volume, so that part you have right. Obviously you do > not want to > hear the rest, but I will tell you anyway. For ocean or cave or anything > else, only a moron dives steel with a wetsuit, Faber or PST. > There is no way > to balance the rig like this, and the compression of the body at > depth will > negate any perceived surface buoyancy characteristics, and that is a fact. > Aluminum has a pos to neg swing that allows a belt to be used to > offset and > drop in an emergency ( or the light ). Double 80's with a stage > is the same > as 104's gas wise, and far more sensible not only diving with a wetsuit , > but walking around on a boat or getting in and our of the water. > > For dry suit diving anywhere, the PST offers a better buoyancy > fit as a pair > are -9 in fresh vs neutral for the Faber. To offset a proper > shell suit with > insulation takes between 20 and 26 pounds, and that is achieved by the > tanks, the plate, the light, and the regs, leaving the diver > neutral at all > depths with little or no gas, and negative by the amount of the gas when > full, plus or minus a little depending on the insulation and the > diver, with > the light being droppable in an emergency to get up. > > For Faber diving, one needs to make the Faber more negative by a > steel plate > or wedge under the plate. The Fabers are otherwise lighter. I use > Fabers as > doubles with my rebreather as that device has buoyancy > characteristics which > allow the lighter tanks. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Puleston [mailto:ian@un*.co*] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 2:08 AM > To: techdiver@aquanaut.com > Subject: OMS vs PST tank specs > > > I was looking at the tank specs for OMS and PST tanks LP tanks the other > day. PST say their 104 has a capacity of 104 cu ft at 2640psi, and weighs > 45lbs without valve. OMS say their 108 has a capacity of 112 cu ft at > 2640psi, and weighs 41lbs with valve. Both state a liquid capacity of 17 > litres. > > Firstly, two tanks with the same liquid capacity cannot have different air > capacities at the same pressure, so someone ain't telling the > whole truth - > anyone know how the volumes really compare. > > Secondly, the significantly lower weight of the OMS tank seems to > make it a > better choice for ocean diving, but up to now I've been lead to > believe that > the PSTs are a better choice. Anyone have any opinions between the two for > ocean diving? > > I got the specs from the manufacturers brochures, but FYI they're > also to be > found at: > > OMS: > http://www.h2oadventuregear.com/productinfo/tanks.html (note the PST specs > here are wrong). > > PST: > http://scubadiving.com/gear/27tanktips/stats.shtml > http://www.pstscuba.com/aaspo.htm (not much detail) > > Ian > > P.S. - I know there was a recent thread about ALs for ocean so don't start > that over again - I just want to know how these two compare for ocean use. > > -- > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. > Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. > -- 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]