I don't think this was a ball bust. Most people, Paul included, know I know
exactly what I am talking about. In any event, the advice I gave Paul makes
this all a moot point. Check your own stuff to be sure. With stages, you
have to be even more careful since they do have a good deal of latitude in
the alloy they use, so you could get anything from a Walter Kidde , which is
neutral empty like a Faber steel, to a Catalina brick, a Catalina floater,
or several variations of Luxfer buoyancies, although Luxfer is the most
consistent.

The other piece of advice that I can give you with no reservations: if you
hear it in an dive shop or from the "dive industry", ignore it. The number
of exceptions to this rule are statistically insignificant.



-----Original Message-----
From: Marv [mailto:ajmarve@op*.ne*]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 11:35 PM
To: Trey
Cc: Paul Braunbehrens; Ian Puleston; techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: Re: OMS vs PST tank specs


You know if you guys ever stopped busting Georges balls about the
internet tank chart numbers that dont match reality, you might manage to
get into the water where youd discover that not only is he right about
the numbers, he is also right about the aluminum tanks being the best
for ocean.

Marv


Trey wrote:

> 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'.
>
>
>

--
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]