Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Steve, Too Funny You may be absolutely correct on all accounts. The figure I use is one that I read in a DOT article about thirty years ago before everyone became a calculus expert. I am not sure exactly how they came to their conclusion way back then, but it etched an idea in my feeble mind that has obviously remained ever since. Whether you or they are correct is of little significance. What is important is that everyone recognizes that there are inherent dangers associated with high-pressure vessels. I believe none of us wants to be in the immediate vicinity of a crappy POS Luxfer 80 ft3, 50 pounds of 50% TNT, or even a pound of TNT when any of them explodes. I have personally known people who have been there with the SCUBA cylinders exploding and seen some of the resultant damages ~ Its not something one wants to do! I loved your Iraq/Bosnia analogy. As a fiscal conservative, I think maybe our military should explore this further. After all, didnt we all love those pyrotechnics in Jaws when he shot the cylinder? You definitely may be on to something here . ;-) I have not heard any reports of Luxfer returning cylinders when their technicians failed to verify the SLCs. It is my understanding that as long as you attach the V+ report to the return they will accept it at face value. If they are in fact engaging in this practice, it may open the door for even more legal consequences. Personally, I stopped returning or buying them when they announced the new policy in September of 1999. I would appreciate any detailed information you have regarding that particular allegation. I strongly agree with you that consumers should investigate the Track Record and Training Credentials of who ever condemns their cylinder or for that matter, who ever inspects them at all. Probably the best option is to drill them and convert into art objects, table lamps, mail boxes, etc. You save $50 bucks plus shipping and you have a permanent reminder of which Brand not to buy next time around. On a final note in reply to Michael Otts subsequent post, two years ago was just before Luxfer announced their new replacement policy at around 4 am in the morning hoping to keep it quite in the sport. I use news alerts and was fortunate enough to get a Heads Up at the time. As someone else responded earlier today, They [Luxfer] have a problem, a fact they do a good job of side stepping. I couldnt agree more ~ Thus why I have completely lost trust in their company and product. I was also asked today, is it reasonable to expect a 30 or 40 year life on an 3AL cylinder? Yes, if they offered it with a Lifetime Warranty. That was their choice, not ours. We just bought them and now they want to change the program when they got caught with their Tank Boots down The only manufacturer to have never had the SLC problem is Catalina. They never used the 6351 material, which the aircraft industry stopped using years ago for the same reason. Why did Luxfer continue to use it? In spite of the rhetoric I hear from them of it being a legal material, I believe it was simply a matter of economics. (The legal balancing act of exposure Vs liability. How much will each failure cost us versus how much we can make by doing it this way) Dale Bletso 5-21-2001 Techdiver Archives. If you have time and a copy of the reference material you quoted regarding the gradually escalating equivalents, in pounds of dynamite or TNT, for the explosive force in a SCUBA tank , I would greatly appreciate your sending me a copy of it privately if you have it digitized. I'd love to read it. Thanks for you input and Best Regards, Jerry Gilbert -- 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]