Jump to content

  • These forums are for "after booking" trip communications, socializing, and/or trip questions ONLY.
  • You will NOT be able to book a trip, buy add-ons, or manage your trip by logging in here. Please login HERE to do any of those things.

Photo

"Cave Fills"...pros and cons


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#46 scubafanatic

scubafanatic

    People are starting to get to know me

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Location:Arlington, TX
  • Gender:Male
  • Cert Level:AOW, Advanced Nitrox and Deco Procedures, Cavern
  • Logged Dives:250

Posted 05 June 2006 - 07:00 PM

Kimber is right. It is very important to understand the rules and also understand the safety issues both real and perceived.

As divers we must make decisions about our health when it comes to diving everyday. We choose who we give our business to and if they practice what we feel is an unsafe practice then we can choose to not give them business. OTOH...if we encourage a business to practice unsafe habits then we are guilty as well. But we must know what is fact, fiction, and common beliefs so we can make informed and educated decisions.

I know that I personally thought an 'overfill' or now adays called a 'cave fill' was great. WOW!!! Look how much more gas/air I have and how much safer I'll be with that reserve. Now that I know more about diving I realize that there is a reason that things like 'cave fills' and 'overfills' are a bone of contention. Many see them as harmless and others know in principal that they are harmful. The real trick is to find the appropriate middle ground.

And of course its all clear as mud! :welcome:

I will say this...I got a 'cave fill' to 3600 psi in a tank last year on our annual Florida trip and it blew an o-ring in my first stage out. It ruined my dive...could have seriously hurt me if it had happened in the water and it almost ruined my second dive of the day. (I had to use borrowed gear which is never a preferred way of diving!) So in my book...serious overfills are not safe and they are not desired. I like my gear just as it is WAY too much to risk losing it over an 'overfill'.

I'd rather carry a bigger tank or a safety stage if I am worried about having enough air/gas to dive with.



Hi Kamala,

I'll bet, if you looked at all the SD.com trips run so far, 80 - 90 % of the trips only had AL 80's available, so while in an ideal world, a bigger tank tank or stage bottle would be best, realistically that's not even an option in the real world, thus my endorsement of the 'reasonable' cave fill...........also, remember, your gas consumption is much better than average ( female, 1000 + dives, minimal heat loss in dry suit 100 % of the time ) so you are much more 'satisfied' with what you can achieve on a 'mere' AL80, most of us aren't as 'efficient' as you with respect to gas usage.

...with respect to your 3600 psi cave fill, remember, you dive some 'vintage' Scubapro regs, designed/built when fill pressures were lower than today's 'standards', for example, a HP steel tank is rated at 3500 psi in the USA, so a 3600 psi fill is by no means a cave fill for a HP steel tank, although it would be for a LP steel tank commonly rated at 2640 psi. A 'modern' regulator with a DIN 1st stage is designed to cope with "HP" fills, these are fills starting at 3500 psi, so current day regulators are more than adequate to handle 'reasonable' cave fills.

FABER, which I believe is the world's largest scuba cylinder manufacturer, states its LP steel tanks are good for 10,000 fills @ 4000 psi...so again, going a few hundred psi beyond the 'official' DOT limit of 2640 psi is no big deal.

...for what it's worth, with respect to LP steel tanks, I'm comfortable with 3500 psi fills, for HP steel tanks, I'm comfortable with 4000 psi fills, for AL 80's, 3300--3500 psi, for AL 100's ( which are officially rated for 3300 psi ) I'm comfortable with 3700 -- 3800 psi fills...........however, for AL80's, the max pressures I ever see on trips are pretty much 3000 psi , the highest pressure I've ever dove with on an AL 80 was 3300 psi......the highest pressures I've ever seen anyone have on a dive trip were 4000 psi in a 3500 psi HP steel tank....no biggie..... and a 4000 psi fill on an AL80 on a fellow diver's tank, which was a little spooky, I'll admit.

Karl

#47 scubafanatic

scubafanatic

    People are starting to get to know me

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Location:Arlington, TX
  • Gender:Male
  • Cert Level:AOW, Advanced Nitrox and Deco Procedures, Cavern
  • Logged Dives:250

Posted 05 June 2006 - 07:06 PM

I'll try to take a picture this week of the Luxfer Composite Scuba Tank we have. I don't know the buoyancy characteristics, but it's VERY buoyant.


...I'll admit I have no earthly idea of the logic behind these composite scuba tanks............4350 psi fills are very rarely achievable, so an 85 cu. ft. composite tank @ 3000 psi equals 59 cu. ft. of gas, and these tanks are much more expensive than AL tanks...truely a pointless product !

Karl

#48 Geek

Geek

    People are starting to get to know me

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 387 posts
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Gender:Male
  • Cert Level:Rescue, Adv. Nitrox/Deco Procedures
  • Logged Dives:130+

Posted 05 June 2006 - 07:13 PM

Regarding some of the higher pressure cylinders mentioned, I have heard of composite cylinders that can handle 4000 psi or more, but I have not seen one intended for scuba. In addition, my understanding is composite cylinders are very buoyant and have a limited lifespan. If someone is aware of a composite cylinder intended for scuba, I would be curious to know make, model, rated capacity, and buoyancy characteristics.


...might want to check out this link:

http://www.luxfercyl..._imperial.shtml

Karl


Now that is interesting. According to the specs, the buoyancy is better on those 4350 psi tanks than on an AL80. Do you know anyone who has tried one?

#49 PerroneFord

PerroneFord

    I spend too much time on line

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,303 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 June 2006 - 08:27 PM

I'll try to take a picture this week of the Luxfer Composite Scuba Tank we have. I don't know the buoyancy characteristics, but it's VERY buoyant.


...I'll admit I have no earthly idea of the logic behind these composite scuba tanks............4350 psi fills are very rarely achievable, so an 85 cu. ft. composite tank @ 3000 psi equals 59 cu. ft. of gas, and these tanks are much more expensive than AL tanks...truely a pointless product !

Karl



Depends on you fill station. We can fill it. They also weigh about 5-6 pounds. That can be a HUGE advantage in some instances. But the buoyancy thing is a drawback for sure.

#50 scubafanatic

scubafanatic

    People are starting to get to know me

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Location:Arlington, TX
  • Gender:Male
  • Cert Level:AOW, Advanced Nitrox and Deco Procedures, Cavern
  • Logged Dives:250

Posted 05 June 2006 - 10:08 PM

I'll try to take a picture this week of the Luxfer Composite Scuba Tank we have. I don't know the buoyancy characteristics, but it's VERY buoyant.


...I'll admit I have no earthly idea of the logic behind these composite scuba tanks............4350 psi fills are very rarely achievable, so an 85 cu. ft. composite tank @ 3000 psi equals 59 cu. ft. of gas, and these tanks are much more expensive than AL tanks...truely a pointless product !

Karl



Depends on you fill station. We can fill it. They also weigh about 5-6 pounds. That can be a HUGE advantage in some instances. But the buoyancy thing is a drawback for sure.


Hi PerroneFord,

I have no doubt that in the heart of cave country, such a tank could be filled...however, outside of the handful of technologically advanced dive spots, such a tank cannot be filled............every liveaboard I've ever done 'peaks' at 3000 - 3200 psi, and the only overseas place I've ever even had access to HP steel tanks ( Cozumel/Liquid Blue) barely ever achieved my tank's 3500 psi rating, most "HP" fills were in the 3200 - 3300 psi range at best......heck, my 'best' fill diving the caves of Akumal 2 years ago in doubled AL80's was 3300 psi.

There is no place, in the 'real' world, for these composite 4350 psi tanks....expensive, fragile, realistically fillable to maybe 2/3 of rated capacity, and hopelessly bouyant, requiring so much extra lead to sink as to negate the alledged weight savings of a composite tank....... a truely dumb product.

Karl

#51 PerroneFord

PerroneFord

    I spend too much time on line

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,303 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 June 2006 - 11:29 PM

The reason I hesitate to call it a "dumb product" is that so many dumb products have revolutionized diving. Rebreathers were once considered dumb. Buoyancy compensators, SPGs, etc. All dumb products. Aluminum tanks? What on earth for? Can you imagine the pushback on the first split-fin?

To me, the first iteration of this might seem less than ideal. And you're right it is. But it may open the door for more development. God knows I'd LOVE to have composite tanks that were the size of Steel 104s with similar buoyancy characteristics, that weigh 10 pounds each on land.

#52 Geek

Geek

    People are starting to get to know me

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 387 posts
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Gender:Male
  • Cert Level:Rescue, Adv. Nitrox/Deco Procedures
  • Logged Dives:130+

Posted 06 June 2006 - 04:06 AM

I'll try to take a picture this week of the Luxfer Composite Scuba Tank we have. I don't know the buoyancy characteristics, but it's VERY buoyant.


...I'll admit I have no earthly idea of the logic behind these composite scuba tanks............4350 psi fills are very rarely achievable, so an 85 cu. ft. composite tank @ 3000 psi equals 59 cu. ft. of gas, and these tanks are much more expensive than AL tanks...truely a pointless product !

Karl



Depends on you fill station. We can fill it. They also weigh about 5-6 pounds. That can be a HUGE advantage in some instances. But the buoyancy thing is a drawback for sure.


Hi PerroneFord,

I have no doubt that in the heart of cave country, such a tank could be filled...however, outside of the handful of technologically advanced dive spots, such a tank cannot be filled............every liveaboard I've ever done 'peaks' at 3000 - 3200 psi, and the only overseas place I've ever even had access to HP steel tanks ( Cozumel/Liquid Blue) barely ever achieved my tank's 3500 psi rating, most "HP" fills were in the 3200 - 3300 psi range at best......heck, my 'best' fill diving the caves of Akumal 2 years ago in doubled AL80's was 3300 psi.

There is no place, in the 'real' world, for these composite 4350 psi tanks....expensive, fragile, realistically fillable to maybe 2/3 of rated capacity, and hopelessly bouyant, requiring so much extra lead to sink as to negate the alledged weight savings of a composite tank....... a truely dumb product.

Karl


My understanding was that the first composite tanks were not developed for scuba, but for other uses, e.g. SCBA (firemen), where buoyancy was not a problem, so they make sense in some settings. The problem with getting them filled to capacity is a chicken and egg problem. If there are no tanks with the such high capacity, why have a fill station that goes that high? If there are no fill stations that go that high, why produce such a tank? Someone has to go first. That leaves buoyancy as a technical problem to be solved.

As for a place in the real world for such a tank, I'd say if there is a need to fill tanks beyond the rated capacity, then there is a need for a higher rated tank. If the buoyancy is solved, I would think these could become very popular in cave country.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users