Obviously not correct. I have four sets from 1971 to 1998. All -9 for a set
of doubles, and   I checked each and every one of them. Paul, we can not
chase bullshit from web sites. Either believe it or don't, but unless these
morons have changed the tank, and that means a whole series of DOT approvals
for nada, then they fucked up on the web site, or more likely, given that
they are involved in the dive industry, they have no freaking clue what the
tanks do, and of course there is the slim chance you got it wrong. 121 PST's
have exactly the same buoyancy characteristics as the 104's, have them ,
too, 1998 vintage.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Braunbehrens [mailto:Bakalite@ba*.co*]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 1:03 PM
To: Trey; Ian Puleston; techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: RE: OMS vs PST tank specs


Trey wrote:

>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.


Now I'm completely confused!  The pst site has these figures:
LP-104	104 CU.FT.	8.00	26.19	45 LBS	-0.7 LBS

which would make a set of doubles only 1.5 pounds negative!

Are we talking about the same tank?
--
Paul B.

--
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]