Idiocy again. You really have no clue what you are talking about, and that
is because you have no real experience with anything but bullshit diving.
The fact is that if you are using neutral tanks, they require more gas in
the wings when full, thus slowing you down. I really wish you would take a
seat and shut the fuck up. I am so sick of your huge efforts to make totally
ridiculous things appear to be "clever". Like everything else you say, this
is pure crap. I guess this is one of the areas you think that DIR is wrong
about? Clearly, you have no clue what DIR is.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Bell [mailto:leebell@ix*.ne*.co*]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 11:56 AM
To: LouisianaLegal@ao*.co*; techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: Re: neutral AL 80's


Susan wrote:

> Does anyone have any experiences or comments on the Luxfer "neutral" 80
cubic
> foot AL tanks?

Luxfer is not on my list of favorite companies.  Their handling of bad alloy
tanks they previously made and the cost of the Visual Plus device they
developed to address their problem at my expense left a very bad taste in my
mouth.  I own only one Luxfer (not a neutral buoyant tank) but have 6
Catalina Compact 80 tanks which are also neutral (and have been around
longer than Luxfer's offering).

I like three things about my Compact 80s:
1. They are just a bit shorter than a standard 80.  At my height (5'8") the
slight difference in height means I can carry them with straight arms versus
the bent arm required for standard 80s.  The Luxfers are not shorter.
2. The neutral buoyancy when empty means I take 4 lbs off my weight belt
without adding anything anywhere else.  This is the primary reason most
people like the tanks and particularly important to me.  That 4 lbs just
happens to make me perfectly weighted with my stainless plate.  I don't have
to wear any lead, anywhere when diving warm water, which is what I do almost
exclusively.
3. The trim on the Catalinas is good.  They're nicely balanced from top to
bottom.  I believe the Luxfers are a bit bottom heavy, but don't take my
word for it.

|> I was wondering if these would make good stage bottles and/or double tank
> sets for the ocean. Does anyone know what the working pressure is on these
> cylinders?

I'm not sure these tanks are the best choice for everyone.  If you dive wet,
I don't think they are any better than some steel tanks.  Presumably, your
tanks will never be comletely empty and, therefore, will always be at least
partly negative.  When you twin them up and,. even worse, add stages, you're
accepting a lot of non ditchable negative buoyancy.  If you are scootering,
they're not going to tow as nicely as the less negative standartd 80s do.
For most, I don't think it's a real good idea.

While I recommend people diving single tanks at least try out the neutral
buoyant models, I think buoyant tanks would be a better choice for mutli
tank diving, particularly for open water stages.  They represent less
negative buoyancy and, in a pinch, could actually be a source of positive
buoyancy.  While it's not a primary issue, it's also nice to know that if I
ever had to ditch one, I don't necessarily have to lose it.  Open the valve
and drop the tank and, sooner or later, it will return to the surface on its
own.  If you do this, however, please recover your tank from the surface.
I'm not at all fond of the idea of hitting a floating tank with my boat.

Lee

--
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]