 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / March 2004Working pressures of cylinder regulators
I asked about this a few months ago, but it surfaced again on the boat this morning.... I have a few steel 3500 tanks that have the DIN to yoke screw in adapter. I use my MK20 with a yoke mount. The other divers are telling me that the yoke is made for a 3000 psi tank, not a 3500. I know that air comes out at 3500 and the MK20 drops it down to about 140 LP, but.... How safe am I using a 3000 yoke on high pressure 3500 tanks? What other concerns are there with this arrangement? Thanks, George > I have a few steel 3500 tanks that have the DIN to yoke screw in > adapter. I use my MK20 with a yoke mount. The other divers are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How safe am I using a 3000 yoke on high pressure 3500 tanks? What > other concerns are there with this arrangement? 1. Not safe at all. Change them out this minute. 2. Safe as a babe in his Mother's arms. No worries. Chose one, George. Since you believe, "The other divers are telling me that the yoke is made for a 3000 psi tank, not a 3500." I'll wager which one you chose. David Edmonton, Alberta >1. Not safe at all. Change them out this minute. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Since you believe, "The other divers are telling me that the yoke is made for a 3000 psi >tank, not a 3500." I'll wager which one you chose. Damn... I was going to say that you've been taking Jammer lessons, but you didn't just say "Get the right tanks" --- Rich http://richlockyer.tripod.com/ > I asked about this a few months ago, but it surfaced again on the boat > this morning.... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How safe am I using a 3000 yoke on high pressure 3500 tanks? What > other concerns are there with this arrangement? Safe enough, but a DIN is a much better arrangement when all is said and done. Brian Edmonton, Alberta > I asked about this a few months ago, but it surfaced again on the boat > this morning.... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How safe am I using a 3000 yoke on high pressure 3500 tanks? What > other concerns are there with this arrangement? I used to jack my Walter Kidde tanks to 4k with a yoke Apeks. It will work just fine, but the DIN is better because of the trapped o-ring. #"Army George" <res0km2rREMOVE@verizonREMOVE.net> wrote in message #news:db0t50p8f9qkat6nts1di2dtmf8h7k422c@4ax.com... #> I asked about this a few months ago, but it surfaced again on the boat #> this morning.... #> #> I have a few steel 3500 tanks that have the DIN to yoke screw in #> adapter. I use my MK20 with a yoke mount. The other divers are #> telling me that the yoke is made for a 3000 psi tank, not a 3500. I #> know that air comes out at 3500 and the MK20 drops it down to about #> 140 LP, but.... #> #> How safe am I using a 3000 yoke on high pressure 3500 tanks? What #> other concerns are there with this arrangement? # #I used to jack my Walter Kidde tanks to 4k with a yoke Apeks. # That's a scary thought (the tanks, not the reg) #It will work just fine, but the DIN is better because of the trapped o-ring. # # I don't think the yoke of the first stage was the thing you needed to worry about. Isn't this where you learned about the value of VIPs and the definition of stress cracking? > #I used to jack my Walter Kidde tanks to 4k with a yoke Apeks. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Isn't this where you learned about the value of VIPs and the definition > of stress cracking? It was not Scott's tank that exploded, at least I hope it wasn't. I was, however, a Walter Kidde tank that injured a teenager working in one of the Force-E shops in Florida. Lee >> #I used to jack my Walter Kidde tanks to 4k with a yoke Apeks. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >however, a Walter Kidde tank that injured a teenager working in one of the >Force-E shops in Florida. I remember a story Scott once told about doing a VIP on some AL80s he had doubled and regularily jacked to 4000 - while wearing them. I believe (although I'd welcome any corrections if I'm wrong) that he found an internal stress crack near the neck area that probably would have failed in the near future. Alan > I remember a story Scott once told about doing a VIP on some AL80s he > had doubled and regularily jacked to 4000 - while wearing them. I > believe (although I'd welcome any corrections if I'm wrong) that he > found an internal stress crack near the neck area that probably would > have failed in the near future. God looks out for drunks and fools. >>I remember a story Scott once told about doing a VIP on some AL80s he >>had doubled and regularily jacked to 4000 - while wearing them. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > God looks out for drunks and fools. But Darwin get's his share as well..... >>I remember a story Scott once told about doing a VIP on some AL80s he >>had doubled and regularily jacked to 4000 - while wearing them. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > God looks out for drunks and fools. But Darwin get's his share as well..... > > God looks out for drunks and fools. > > But Darwin get's his share as well..... Didnt get me on numerous occaisions. > God looks out for drunks and fools. <burp> > > God looks out for drunks and fools. > > <burp> And what of the foolishness? *Surely* you owe a beer or fifty. sh.t, I am in for a gross, and I don't fly anymore. "Alan Street" <alan@nonono_irsi.com> wrote in message > I remember a story Scott once told about doing a VIP on some AL80s he > had doubled and regularily jacked to 4000 - while wearing them. I > believe (although I'd welcome any corrections if I'm wrong) that he > found an internal stress crack near the neck area that probably would > have failed in the near future. Ahhh. I don't think I read that one. I stand corrected. > "Alan Street" <alan@nonono_irsi.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ahhh. I don't think I read that one. I stand corrected. Hey, It was with an OMS manifold, so lay off. Scott Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? > > > I remember a story Scott once told about doing a VIP on some AL80s he > > > had doubled and regularily jacked to 4000 - while wearing them. I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It was with an OMS manifold, so lay off. I can feel Bob rolling over in his grave . . . well, not in his grave quite yet, but soon. Still tracking the trial progress? Any updates? Lee > > > > I remember a story Scott once told about doing a VIP on some AL80s he > > > > had doubled and regularily jacked to 4000 - while wearing them. I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Still tracking the trial progress? Any updates? He and his BS patents are toast. Summary judgment on the way. Soon as it is all over, I will spill the beans. It reads like a Neil Simon comedy; but I suppose he isn't laughing too hard. I can barely contain my glee. #"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message #> > #> > It was with an OMS manifold, so lay off. #> #> I can feel Bob rolling over in his grave . . . well, not in his grave #quite #> yet, but soon. #> #> Still tracking the trial progress? Any updates? # #He and his BS patents are toast. Summary judgment on the way. # #Soon as it is all over, I will spill the beans. # #It reads like a Neil Simon comedy; but I suppose he isn't laughing too hard. # #I can barely contain my glee. # # # One of the risks in patent litigation is the very real possibility of the patent(s) being either partially or totally invalidated. Successful IP licensing is mostly up front preparation (i.e., having good patents) compromise (on the terms) and salesmanship. Nuclear war (i.e., patent litigation) is used only as a last resort, and mostly as a way for the big boys to demonstrate their strength and improve their bargaining position. Still, even the best lose once in a while, so no litigation is without risks. A baby player who totally bets the farm so early in the game probably doesn't know what he's doing, or as my dad would say, Big Bob sounds like a Pooh Bear playing with his pecker. Be sure to let us know the outcome. > He and his BS patents are toast. Summary judgment on the way. > Soon as it is all over, I will spill the beans. > It reads like a Neil Simon comedy; but I suppose he isn't laughing too hard. > I can barely contain my glee. Hopefully, there will be a settlement involved. Lee > > He and his BS patents are toast. Summary judgment on the way. > > Soon as it is all over, I will spill the beans. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hopefully, there will be a settlement involved. They are going to ask for reimbursement of legal fee's, which will be quite significant, since he took advantage of DEMA to serve so many people. <snicker> That's what he gets for pulling this bullshit move in the first place, and then to do it at DEMA only makes him all the more easy to despise. He will get *zero* slack. One of the best parts was that an old (1978 if memory serves) cave diving book was introduced, that not only describes, but illustrates how to attach a weight to your single tank with a camband, and that it can be slid up or down the axis of the tank for trim. I guess the cave experts never read that book... #"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message #news:gLe8c.5215$HP.4292@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... #> "Scott" wrote #> #> > He and his BS patents are toast. Summary judgment on the way. #> > Soon as it is all over, I will spill the beans. #> > It reads like a Neil Simon comedy; but I suppose he isn't laughing too #> hard. #> > I can barely contain my glee. #> #> Hopefully, there will be a settlement involved. # #They are going to ask for reimbursement of legal fee's, which will be quite #significant, since he took advantage of DEMA to serve #so many people. # In which state was the lawsuit filed? > > How safe am I using a 3000 yoke on high pressure 3500 tanks? What > > other concerns are there with this arrangement? > I used to jack my Walter Kidde tanks to 4k with a yoke Apeks. > It will work just fine, but the DIN is better because of the trapped o-ring. I can't believe you said this. What you pumped your tank to makes no difference to the question, not to mention that it was a Walter Kidde tank that exploded in the Pompano Force-E store. What does make a difference is the pressure rating of your Apeks yoke. If it's more than 3,000 psi, which I suspect is the case, it does not apply to the question. My personal answer to the question is, the jury's still out. I've used yoke adapters rated to 3,000 and up with 3,300 psi tanks for years. I've experienced no problems at all. I have not used them with my 3,500 psi tanks with the yoke adapter slugs. I probably won't until I've acquired a yoke adapter designed for such pressures. I asked about this when I last had my PST tanks, which have the slugs, filled. I was told that PSI has indicated that they are not concerned, particularly since the first sign of a problem would be elongation of the yoke which would, in turn, result in a leak that would be hard to ignore. Lee > > > How safe am I using a 3000 yoke on high pressure 3500 tanks? What > > > other concerns are there with this arrangement? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the pressure rating of your Apeks yoke. If it's more than 3,000 psi, which > I suspect is the case, it does not apply to the question. Do I have to do the math? Calculate the surface of the yoke fitting, inside the o-ring, at 4k, or if you want to have fun, 10k. > My personal answer to the question is, the jury's still out. I've used yoke > adapters rated to 3,000 and up with 3,300 psi tanks for years. I've [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a problem would be elongation of the yoke which would, in turn, result in a > leak that would be hard to ignore. I suspect that the yoke might elongate just slightly enough for the o-ring to blow out and you would be very hard pressed not to notice that... <grin> I've had one o-ring go out on me once and it definitely woke me up... > I asked about this a few months ago, but it surfaced again on the boat > this morning.... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks, George There are two weak points with the yoke. One is the A clamp (yoke) itself, which is brass and not very strong, the other is the seal between the yoke and the O-ring at the tank. It is pretty dumb to take a tank valve with the superior DIN fitting and convert it to the less desirable yoke (post) fitting when it is almost as easy to convert the reg to a DIN fitting. Putting post adapters in yer DIN valve is like putting wood wheels on yer Corvette. Looks cool, I guess, but not the solution for the performance minded diver. > It is pretty dumb to take a tank valve with the superior DIN fitting and > convert it to the less desirable yoke (post) fitting when it is almost > as easy to convert the reg to a DIN fitting. Not when you have 6 regulators and even more A clamp tanks. Those of us with combinations of equipment, some A clamp and some Yoke, find the convertable valves to be a nice feature. Lee >There are two weak points with the yoke. One is the A clamp (yoke) No, the weak spot is the clamping bolt and it's threads. >itself, which is brass and not very strong, ...and that cheezy bolt you screw into that water trap, er valve, on your tank is made out of what? >the other is the seal >between the yoke and the O-ring at the tank. The seals are the same. >It is pretty dumb to take a tank valve with the superior DIN fitting and >convert it to the less desirable yoke (post) fitting There is nothing less-desirable about yoke. It is easier to use, quicker to change, less prone to damage and a whole bunch of other things...The only thing DIN has going for it is that it is less likely to permit O-ring extrusion if struck violently while pressurized. Those of us who avoid high speed impacts U/W, especially between our necks and the tank, don't really see that as a big plus considering all the negatives. >when it is almost as easy to convert the reg to a DIN fitting. You evidently have not seen the valves he is talking about. Next time you go out, I'll show you one. There is nothing easy about converting a regulator by comparison. >but not the solution for the performance minded diver. OH MY GOD. I can't believe you said that. Snow is falling in hell. I know it is. safe diving, bullshark Army George left this mess on Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:19:44 GMT for The Way to clean up: >I asked about this a few months ago, but it surfaced again on the boat >this morning.... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >How safe am I using a 3000 yoke on high pressure 3500 tanks? What >other concerns are there with this arrangement? Theoretically, you shouldn't use a yoke on anything higher than it's rated pressure, which is 3,000 psi. However, it's not uncommon practice in many dive shops to overfill a tank, and while I'm sure there's a higher failure rate above 3,000 psi, it doesn't seem to be significant enough to warrant caution in the dive shops about overfills. Bottom line, I wouldn't if I could avoid it, but I don't freak out about it if it happens. Failing that, go buy a DIN. Tao te Carl "It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003 (Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-a.s question here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif >Theoretically, you shouldn't use a yoke on anything higher than it's rated >pressure, which is 3,000 psi. Cite please. I would really like to see any engineering document, anywhere, describing yoke pressure limits. After which, kindly explain Catalina C80,C100,C60, and Luxfer S100, S80n - all 3300 PSI cylinders delivered with yoke valves. Clearly, the industry standard disagrees with your mythology. safe diving, bullshark >>Theoretically, you shouldn't use a yoke on anything higher than it's rated >>pressure, which is 3,000 psi. > > Cite please. I would really like to see any engineering document, anywhere, > describing yoke pressure limits. I have a couple yokes clearly marked with pressure limits. The old ones were pretty skinny, the new ones are much beefier, and afaik they're all brass. I'll dig em out of my junk box, whack em with a ball peen to simulate a deck drop, and you can use them. >I have a couple yokes clearly marked with pressure limits. I'll bet they don't fail at 3001 or even 3002 PSI, either. They're still not a document describing yoke limits. Stamping 3000 PSI is arguably a promise that they can safely sustain MUCH higher loads. >The old ones were pretty skinny, the new ones are much beefier, At the risk of replying in context to the OP, its a MK20 not an old junker that's been beat up with a ball peen hammer. >and afaik they're all brass. AFAIK they're all made out of whatever the rest of the regulator is made out of. That could be Brass, Monel, Aluminum or Titanium and possibly SS in some. I'll skip the stuff in your junk box thank you, but go ahead whack your DIN bolt with a ball peen. As to a "deck drop", I'm not sure what that is, but it sounds like Professional Wrestling. What is this "deck drop" that you're simulating with a ball peen hammer? Seriously, I don't know what you're referring to...but in any case it's irrelevant while diving, isn't it? Would you say that you have seen A-Clamps break more or less often than Nitrox divers getting bent diving to air tables to NDL? I still can't believe you said "performance minded diver". I may *never* get over it. safe diving, bullshark > >I have a couple yokes clearly marked with pressure limits. > > I'll bet they don't fail at 3001 or even 3002 PSI, either. > They're still not a document describing yoke limits. Stamping > 3000 PSI is arguably a promise that they can safely sustain MUCH > higher loads. I've been arguing that the test pilots who provide the numbers for airplane manuals have been doing the same thing for years. Just don't try to explain that to an FAA examiner. Dave. > > >I have a couple yokes clearly marked with pressure limits. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > manuals have been doing the same thing for years. Just don't try to explain > that to an FAA examiner. and aircraft performnce numbers. I think it was bob hoover I saw land an aircraft at dulles during an airshow. it seems to me that the gear was down and the thrust reverser deployed before the wheels touched. > Dave. > > > >I have a couple yokes clearly marked with pressure limits. > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > and aircraft performnce numbers. Yup, that's what I was talkin' about. > I think it was bob hoover I saw land an aircraft at dulles during an > airshow. it seems to me that the gear was down and the thrust reverser > deployed before the wheels touched. Bob Hoover did some rather incredible stuff with airplanes, though it's stuff that is fairly safe if you have enough experience, confidence and skill with the aircraft. Because of that, I'd hafta say that him having T/ R's deployed before t/d is unlikely, although not impossible. Dave. Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :I think it was bob hoover I saw land an aircraft at dulles during an :airshow. it seems to me that the gear was down and the thrust reverser :deployed before the wheels touched. I thought the gear was supposed to be down before the aircraft touches the ground. Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ > Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net> pounded away at his keyboard resulting > in: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I thought the gear was supposed to be down before the aircraft touches > the ground. Yeah, but it's an impressive looking trick when they're not! Dave. > I think it was bob hoover I saw land an aircraft at dulles during an > airshow. it seems to me that the gear was down and the thrust reverser > deployed before the wheels touched. As a general principle, it's always good to have the gear down before the wheels touch... Less paperwork that way... > >I have a couple yokes clearly marked with pressure limits. > > I'll bet they don't fail at 3001 or even 3002 PSI, either. > They're still not a document describing yoke limits. Stamping > 3000 PSI is arguably a promise that they can safely sustain MUCH > higher loads. and legal protection. If yours fails above those limits, they are safe. > safe diving, > > bullshark >>I have a couple yokes clearly marked with pressure limits. > > I'll bet they don't fail at 3001 or even 3002 PSI, either. > They're still not a document describing yoke limits. Stamping > 3000 PSI is arguably a promise that they can safely sustain MUCH > higher loads. You really need to switch to decaf. I'm sure the failure point is at least 150% of rating (which ain't much), but the point is that someone made the effort to pick a number and mold it into the casting. It may have been an engineer, maybe not. But it indicates to me that someone in the design/manufacturing phase at least gave it a passing thought. >>The old ones were pretty skinny, the new ones are much beefier, > > At the risk of replying in context to the OP, its a MK20 not an > old junker that's been beat up with a ball peen hammer. I like the way you pack yer rig in a nice soft velvet-lined bag. Breaks the fall of my rig when I toss it up on the dock. >>and afaik they're all brass. > > AFAIK they're all made out of whatever the rest of the regulator is > made out of. That could be Brass, Monel, Aluminum or Titanium and > possibly SS in some. Could be, but never seen one that's not brass. > I'll skip the stuff in your junk box thank you, but go ahead whack > your DIN bolt with a ball peen. As to a "deck drop", I'm not sure what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Seriously, I don't know what you're referring to...but in any case > it's irrelevant while diving, isn't it? That nice half-flip of tank to deck, rig first. And a DIN bolt is a helluva lot tougher than an A clamp. > Would you say that you have seen A-Clamps break more or less often > than Nitrox divers getting bent diving to air tables to NDL? Never seen either. Have heard anecdotes about both. > I still can't believe you said "performance minded diver". > > I may *never* get over it. Performance minded diver. What a sweet thought. Performance minded diver. Yep, that's me. Performance minded diver. Have another cup of coffee. >I like the way you pack yer rig in a nice soft velvet-lined bag. Breaks >the fall of my rig when I toss it up on the dock. You've never, ever seen any of my rigs go in a nice soft velvet lined bag mike. Not even close. I'm trying to figure where you would get that. Did you run out of coffee maybe? Try Sumatra Mandheling. >>>and afaik they're all brass. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Could be, but never seen one that's not brass. Sure you have. You've seen two of them every time you didn't watch me pack mine in a nice soft velvet-lined bag and didn't toss yours on top of to break the fall for your delicate performance minded equipment. Not a lick of brass anywhere, not in the first, not in the second. You've seen yokes that are not brass at least a hundred times. Maybe some coffee would help. No point in screwing around with kid stuff, better make it Celebes Kalossi... >And a DIN bolt is a helluva lot tougher than an A clamp. They're very streamlined too. safe diving, bullshark > >I have a couple yokes clearly marked with pressure limits. > I'll bet they don't fail at 3001 or even 3002 PSI, either. > They're still not a document describing yoke limits. Stamping > 3000 PSI is arguably a promise that they can safely sustain MUCH > higher loads. You might argue that way, but you'd probably lose. Stamping 3000 psi on one is only a promise that they'll sustain 3000 psi and even that, only if in good shape. Of course the company's limited promise doesn't mean you're not absolutely correct that they'll sustain considerably more. It's just not what the promise. > Would you say that you have seen A-Clamps break more or less often > than Nitrox divers getting bent diving to air tables to NDL? Point to Bullshark. Lee >Stamping 3000 psi on one is only a promise That ...the yoke was made by "3000 PSI" Inc. ? ...or that it is part number "3000 PSI" ? ...or that it is model number "3000 PSI" ? ...or that is was extruded by a 3000 PSI stamp press? ...or that no less than "3000 PSI" should ever be applied ? ...or that some marketing bozo thought it looked "bad-assed" in 2200 psi world. At any rate, it's not stamped on the side of a MK20. I believe the MK20 yoke has a stylized "S" (for scubapro) stamped on it. So by example then, it's safe to figure that the antique regulator in question was manufactured by the "3000 psi" corporation. safe diving, bullshark > Theoretically, you shouldn't use a yoke on anything higher than it's rated > pressure, which is 3,000 psi. However, it's not uncommon practice in many dive > shops to overfill a tank, and while I'm sure there's a higher failure rate above > 3,000 psi, it doesn't seem to be significant enough to warrant caution in the > dive shops about overfills. Not all yoke connectors are rated to 3,000. Some are higher. I've got at least one rated to 3,300 psi and know of one rated to 300 bar, 4,350 psi, give or take. Lee > > Theoretically, you shouldn't use a yoke on anything higher than it's rated > > pressure, which is 3,000 psi. However, it's not uncommon practice in many [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > least one rated to 3,300 psi and know of one rated to 300 bar, 4,350 psi, > give or take. The one you've seen me use is rated at 4000psi/ 280bar. How's the boat coming Lee, any more difficulties? Dave. > > Not all yoke connectors are rated to 3,000. Some are higher. I've got at > > least one rated to 3,300 psi and know of one rated to 300 bar, 4,350 psi, > > give or take. Oops, my mistake. Make that "know of one rated to 280 bar, 4,000 psi. It was your regulator I was referring to. > The one you've seen me use is rated at 4000psi/ 280bar. > How's the boat coming Lee, any more difficulties? It's doing great. Yes, there are difficulties, but now I'm down to the kind that are normal to owning a boat. The generator needs a tuneup. On a recent trip, it started surging and when the mechanic adjusted the main jet, it got hard to start. The motors have been in for a while and are working great. She hits 37 mph pretty easily and cruises at about 25 at just over 3,000 rpm. So far, the only long range consumption test included pulling the RIB with the motor down. It won't track with the motor up. I got 1.3 gallons per mile. That's not quite as good as I hoped for, but it's considerably better than what I got before. One of these days, I'll make a longish run under decent conditions, without the RIB and find out what my consumption is under the best conditions. Jayna got me a stand alone ice maker for Christmas. It's great. For 165 bucks, I have an ice maker that I like better than the $1,000 ones designed to be built in. The best part of it is that I recycle the ice. It melts in the cooler, is drained and dumped back into the icemaker. The thing makes 60 lbs a day if run all day. I used it on a 10 day trip and kept two fifity quarter ice chests full the entire trip operating it only when the generator was running, usually nights. Very cool. We took a 10 day trip right after Christmas. Cruised with another couple, down the inside to Marathon. We planned to hit Key West for New Years, but the weather was not cooperative. We spent several days at Boot Key Harbor before heading back up to Elliot and then Lake Olita (by Haulover) to meet friends. Very nice trip, no problems, a start on getting a return on my investment. Lee "Lee Bell" wrot e... > For 165 bucks, I have an ice maker that I like better than the > $1,000 ones designed to be built in. Have a link for that one? > > > Not all yoke connectors are rated to 3,000. Some are higher. I've got > at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oops, my mistake. Make that "know of one rated to 280 bar, 4,000 psi. It > was your regulator I was referring to. Heh, 'kay. > > The one you've seen me use is rated at 4000psi/ 280bar. > > How's the boat coming Lee, any more difficulties? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The motors have been in for a while and are working great. She hits 37 mph > pretty easily and cruises at about 25 at just over 3,000 rpm. Did you get the props you needed? Sounds like she's running well, but if you're still running those loaner props let me know. A bud of mine uses his F & J's account almost daily. We can get a deal if you need anything. So far, the > only long range consumption test included pulling the RIB with the motor > down. It won't track with the motor up. I got 1.3 gallons per mile. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > operating it only when the generator was running, usually nights. Very > cool. Wow, I know they are very expensive but great to have. Sounds like you came out of that deal smelling good. I picked up a new cooler on Sunday....along with four swabbies that went down about a mile outside the Hillsboro Inlet. A bud was bunkering his sportfish so I went for the ride and a pair of hands, we got just outside the break and saw their deck washing over....took about fifteen seconds for the bow to disappear. Dragged 'em all out and dumped 'em off to SeaTow. Made for quite an interesting day. > We took a 10 day trip right after Christmas. Cruised with another couple, > down the inside to Marathon. We planned to hit Key West for New Years, but > the weather was not cooperative. We spent several days at Boot Key Harbor > before heading back up to Elliot and then Lake Olita (by Haulover) to meet > friends. Very nice trip, no problems, a start on getting a return on my > investment. Sounds great. Glad to hear the major headaches are over. Say hi to Jayna for me. Water's almost warm enough to get into it again. ;0) You ever hear of a six pack down your way called 'Tanks-a-lot" ? Dave. > Not all yoke connectors are rated to 3,000. Some are higher. I've got at > least one rated to 3,300 psi and know of one rated to 300 bar, 4,350 psi, > give or take. Jeeeez, so much confusion going round. In the year 1993 the European Commission issued standards for minimal constructional and performance levels for diving equipment: EN 250. This standard was up-dated in the year 2000. So now the operative standard whitin all of Europe is EN 250-2000. On yokes (aka "International Connector"): The European Standard recognizes 1 type, i.e. Yoke System CGA 850 which is rated at 232 bar (3365 psi) Ever since the first draft of this standard ALL manufacturers in the whole wide world have made their yokes subject to this standard, or else they could not sell their merchandize in Europe. So Army George, if your regulator is of no older vintage then, say '93-'94 I think at 3500 psi you'll be well within the ranges of statistic error, and you'll be quite safe to use the yoke. On DIN: The Standard recognizes 2 (two) DIN Connectors: DIN 477 connection 13, which is rated at 200 bar (2900 psi, say 3000 psi!) DIN 477 connection 50, which is rated at 300 bar (4350 psi) I guess that it is safe to assume that there are NO yokes with working pressures of over 232 bar / 3500 psi. I think it is equally safe to assume that ALL yoke/DIN-convertible valves and the tanks that go with them are rated no higher than 232 bar / 3500 psi. Even if a DIN connector makes for a much cleaner arrangement, a modern yoke is rated higher than a DIN 477/13 connector (232 bar vs 200 bar). For even higher pressures there is really no choice: than it has to be DIN 477/50. HES van Schoonhoven Life is a learning experience >I guess that it is safe to assume that there are NO yokes with working >pressures of over 232 bar / 3500 psi. Guess again. I have seen yokes used with SCBA (i.e. NOT SCUBA) that I was told were rated for 4000 psi. That they were heavier (thicker) that normal SCUBA yokes was immediately obvious. I do not know if there is an accepted standard for these, or just a manufacturer's design. SCBA is typically used to provide air for fire fighters. The letters mean the same thing as SCUBA, with U -- underwater -- ommitted. I don't know what fire fighters do when they fight underwater fires. <grin>  SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > >I guess that it is safe to assume that there are NO yokes with working > >pressures of over 232 bar / 3500 psi. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rated for 4000 psi. That they were heavier (thicker) that normal SCUBA > yokes was immediately obvious. The yoke set up I use day to day is rated at 4000psi. It is a fairly heavy 1st stage but it is a SCUBA regulator, nonetheless. Dave. > I have seen yokes used with SCBA (i.e. NOT SCUBA) that I was told were > rated for 4000 psi. That they were heavier (thicker) that normal SCUBA > yokes was immediately obvious. Charlie, do you know if these yokes will attach to a standard regulator, say a Scuba Pro or USD? I think I'd like to have a few of them, resolving all questions about whether my regulators are OK for my newest HP tanks. Lee >> I have seen yokes used with SCBA (i.e. NOT SCUBA) that I was told were >> rated for 4000 psi. That they were heavier (thicker) that normal SCUBA [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >a Scuba Pro or USD? I think I'd like to have a few of them, resolving all >questions about whether my regulators are OK for my newest HP tanks. I saw these on a fill whip in a dive shop in NH. I did not see the yoke that would be on the acuta SCBA (sic) regulator. I have no idea if they could be fitted to any SCUBA (sic) regulator. In any case, this would not rsove all questions. For a first stage to be "rated" for 3500 or 4000 PSI, it is not just the connection (yoke or din) that needs to accomodate 4000 PSI, but the HP section of the first stage itself. FWIW, I have used a "standard" yoke on a USD first stage with a LP steel tank pumped to 4000 PSI. I believe that this is common in cave diving, which suggest that it is NOT causing problems. Stop worrying. Be happy! SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > FWIW, I have used a "standard" yoke on a USD first stage with a LP > steel tank pumped to 4000 PSI. I believe that this is common in cave > diving, which suggest that it is NOT causing problems. A steel-72 pumped up to 4000 psi? Hmmm... Looks like I've got a new use for that steel-72 that I got off of eBay awhile back... >> FWIW, I have used a "standard" yoke on a USD first stage with a LP >> steel tank pumped to 4000 PSI. I believe that this is common in cave >> diving, which suggest that it is NOT causing problems. > >A steel-72 pumped up to 4000 psi? Hmmm... Looks like I've got a new use for >that steel-72 that I got off of eBay awhile back... Actually, it was an LP 95. I would not trust doing this with a tank that I did not know was well maintained. In the case of a tank purchased on eBay, I'd have it hydroed aned VIPd before I'd consider pumping it to 4000. Remember: 2400 PSI, or 2640 with "+" rating, is the DOT limt for commercial use, where pressure cylinders take a LOT of abuse. Tha actual DESIGN is for higher pressure -- one claim is 10,000 cycles to 4000 PSI. The hydro test pressure is 4000 PCSI. For a well maintained SCUBA tank, the DOT limit can be seen as unnecessarily conservative. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. <snip> >On yokes (aka "International Connector"): >The European Standard recognizes 1 type, i.e. Yoke System CGA 850 At last: Some documented standard for Yoke. Too bad it's CGA. No wonder I have never been able to find it. Even though I know its name, the CGA website won't give it up. >which is rated at 232 bar (3365 psi) Is CGA 850 actually *fixed* on 232 bar, or is EN250 an application that results in a 232 bar interpretation? It's not really important I guess. If you're reg has a CE on it then the yoke is definitely strong enough. <snip> >Even if a DIN connector makes for a much cleaner arrangement, a modern ...I don't know why people keep saying that. The yoke arrangement is simplicity itself. You can see how it works, you can visually certify positive connection, you can clean all components with single wipe, you have no traps for water or contaminants, it's easier to use and faster to change, you don't have to lubricate the O-ring, the O-ring doesn't spin so it's not subject to that kind of wear or damage, it doesn't get cross-threaded...for all but a few applications it is an altogether superior arrangement. safe diving, bullshark ><snip> >>Even if a DIN connector makes for a much cleaner arrangement, a modern [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >cross-threaded...for all but a few applications it is an altogether >superior arrangement. Opinions differ. I can see why you take this position, but I do not agree. I terms of simplicity and ease of use, some will see it one way, some the other. Personally, I find that holding a yoke squarely in position to clamp onto the valve is at least as hard/clumsy as being careful not to cross thread a DIN connection. If you acknowledge that DIN, when used correctly, is a better connection (due to the captured O ring), then I argue that the minor eas-eof-use issues are more than offset. This is similar to the long primary hose argument: Yes, it is a little different and a little more effort to get it right, but it has so many advantages that this is more than offset. And some people still disagree about that, too. Fortunately my wife's and my first stages can be switched between DIN and yoke in about 30 seconds without tools, so I can use whatever is available. Here in southeast Florida, that is mosty yoke, for now. (Actually, I may take longer to find and get the DIN or yoke parts than to do the actual conversion!) SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. >>Even if a DIN connector makes for a much cleaner arrangement, a modern > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cross-threaded...for all but a few applications it is an altogether > superior arrangement. It's old fashioned and just not the choice of the performance minded diver. ...I don't know why people keep saying that. The yoke arrangement is > simplicity itself. You can see how it works, you can visually certify > positive connection, you can clean all components with single wipe, you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cross-threaded...for all but a few applications it is an altogether > superior arrangement. I have yet to see a DIN blow an oring. Can't say the same for a yoke. Brian Edmonton, Alberta www.mossmanscubaventures.com > ...I don't know why people keep saying that. The yoke arrangement is >> simplicity itself. You can see how it works, you can visually certify [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I have yet to see a DIN blow an oring. Can't say the same for a yoke. I've blown dozens of O-rings with DIN. > I've blown dozens of O-rings with DIN. Who is Din and why are you bragging about your sex acts with him/her? <snicker> > I've blown dozens of O-rings with DIN. Must be that stroke thing happening. Brian Edmonton, Alberta www.mossmanscubaventures.com > > I have yet to see a DIN blow an oring. Can't say the same for a yoke. > > I've blown dozens of O-rings with DIN. You hear the one about the "Queertron"? A deranged electron that goes around blowing fuzes? >I have yet to see a DIN blow an oring. Can't say the same for a yoke. I have yet to see or hear of either one blowing an o-ring. Events on the deck don't count. That's operator error. Underwater? You've personally *seen* a yoke o-ring blow out underwater? I find that hard to believe, but anything is possible where Canadians are involved. Still, considering the 100:1, or 1000:1 experience ratio, it might be years before you could draw any conclusion about DIN vs Yoke o-rings blowing out underwater. safe diving, bullshark > I have yet to see or hear of either one blowing an o-ring. > Events on the deck don't count. That's operator error. In the end it's always operator error. > Underwater? You've personally *seen* a yoke o-ring blow out underwater? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be years before you could draw any conclusion about DIN vs Yoke > o-rings blowing out underwater. Well since you have demonstrated that you don't actually know how a DIN works, I'll take your opinion for what it's worth. Brian Edmonton, Alberta >> I have yet to see or hear of either one blowing an o-ring. >> Events on the deck don't count. That's operator error. > >In the end it's always operator error. > >> Underwater? You've personally *seen* a yoke o-ring blow out underwater? I'm sure my mistake made your day, for such is the grandeur and importance of my person, but you made a statement that you have seen yoke o-rings blow out. Now, I asked for a clarification and you dodged it with non-sequitur. I take it that your answer is "No". safe diving, bullshark > I'm sure my mistake made your day, for such is the grandeur and importance of > my person, Don't get a big head. I treat everybody who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about the same. >but you made a statement that you have seen yoke o-rings blow out. And I have. > Now, I asked for a clarification and you dodged it with non-sequitur. I take it > that your answer is "No". My answer is that I prefer to deal with people who know what they are talking about. When it comes to the DIN fitting it's obvious you don't so I'll just leave you standing there with your fly undone. Brian Edmonton, Alberta >My answer is that I prefer to deal with people who know what they are >talking about. Which explains why exactly, you are replying to (dealing with) my post. Two refusals to answer a direct question would be a definite "no", then. That's what I thought. You can go now. safe diving, bullshark > the O-ring doesn't > spin so it's not subject to that kind of wear or damage, You may want to actually look at a DIN fitting. There are no spinning o-rings. Brian Edmonton, Alberta > > the O-ring doesn't > > spin so it's not subject to that kind of wear or damage, > > You may want to actually look at a DIN fitting. There are no spinning > o-rings. Nice catch. I missed that one entirely. Lee >You may want to actually look at a DIN fitting. There are no spinning >o-rings. I have a DIN fitting. I have two of them and I did actually look. But I didn't turn the wheel. It's been so long since I used the POS I forgot that the post is static. It's a minor mistake that only corrects one of DINs many annoyances/deficiencies. Fix about a dozen other problems and it will be almost as good as yoke, but too little, too late. safe diving, bullshark > It's a minor mistake that only corrects one of DINs many > annoyances/deficiencies. Fix about a dozen other problems and it > will be almost as good as yoke, but too little, too late. As near as I can tell, the horizontal valve configuration on all my DIN tanks solves the water collection issue, leaving me with only one problem. I own a bunch of A clamp regulators and tanks. Lee >> the O-ring doesn't >> spin so it's not subject to that kind of wear or damage, > >You may want to actually look at a DIN fitting. There are no spinning >o-rings. Actually, Brian, Bullsharks point is valid, even if its significance is questionable. A yoke fitting clamps the o-ring between the valve and the regulator in a way that imposes no torsion ("twisting") on the o-ring. A DIN connection is SCREWED in and the o-ring is captured between two pieces that are turning in relation to each other. I do not see this as a significant differences, but I do understand the point. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > >> the O-ring doesn't > >> spin so it's not subject to that kind of wear or damage, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that are turning in relation to each other. I do not see this as a > significant differences, but I do understand the point. I tighten my DIN connection by twisting the regulator clockwise in tandem with the tightening ring, then counterclockwise not letting the ring move, until the connection is snug. The reverse of this procedure provides an easy method to loosen the connection. Both cause stress on the o-ring - and I suppose could damage it. That's about as close to spinning as it gets. > Actually, Brian, Bullsharks point is valid, even if its significance is > questionable. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that are turning in relation to each other. I do not see this as a > significant differences, but I do understand the point. Go take a look at a DIN fitting. Brian Edmonton, Alberta > A yoke fitting clamps the o-ring between the valve and the regulator > in a way that imposes no torsion ("twisting") on the o-ring. A DIN > connection is SCREWED in and the o-ring is captured between two pieces > that are turning in relation to each other. I do not see this as a > significant differences, but I do understand the point. Actually, no. The clamping piece on a DIN connector is fixed to the second stage and does not rotate unless the second stage is rotated. Only the screw collar turns. But as I said, it's pretty common to rotate the second stage to break the screw collar loose. >> A yoke fitting clamps the o-ring between the valve and the regulator >> in a way that imposes no torsion ("twisting") on the o-ring. A DIN [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >But as I said, it's pretty common to rotate the second stage to break >the screw collar loose. 1st stage. >>> A yoke fitting clamps the o-ring between the valve and the regulator >>> in a way that imposes no torsion ("twisting") on the o-ring. A DIN [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > 1st stage. 1st stage. Whack! 1st stage. Whack! 1st stage. Whack! >> A yoke fitting clamps the o-ring between the valve and the regulator >> in a way that imposes no torsion ("twisting") on the o-ring. A DIN [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >second stage and does not rotate unless the second stage is rotated. >Only the screw collar turns. This is correct. My statement above is wrong. Sorry 'bout that. >But as I said, it's pretty common to rotate the second stage to break >the screw collar loose. It is not at all uncommon to rotate a yoke second stage either. Maybe not necessary; maybe not good practice; but it happens. Final word [Don't bet on that! <smile>): This particular issue is a tie. No advantage to DIN or yoke for twisting o-rings or not. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. >> the O-ring doesn't >> spin so it's not subject to that kind of wear or damage, > > You may want to actually look at a DIN fitting. There are no spinning > o-rings. In theory. In practice, it's pretty common to rotate the first stage to break the threaded fitting loose, which spins the O-ring. O.K. EN 250 / 2000 is the official standard for: Respiratory equipment- Open circuit self contained compressed air diving apparatus- Requirements, testing, marking So it covers ALL breathing equipment and ALL scuba equipment, but not (semi) closed rebreathers. Limey Dave wrote: >The yoke set up I use day to day is rated at 4000psi. >It is a fairly heavy 1st stage but it is a SCUBA >regulator, nonetheless. Limey, with such a nickname I gather you are English. So you are from the EC, wether you like it or not. So now you have me terribly curious as to the origins of said regulator. What brand? What tmodel? And if it carries the CE mark and which number (like in CE 0426 on Mares regs, the additinal number being the code for the testing authority.) Now if there is no CE marking on it I'm still curious about the particulars. And the vintage. The the Bullshark kicked in: > At last: Some documented standard for Yoke. > Too bad it's CGA. No wonder I have never been able to find it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Is CGA 850 actually *fixed* on 232 bar, or is EN250 an application > that results in a 232 bar interpretation? The 232 mark for proofing pressure is a figure that baffles me no end. I think they arrived at it by multiplying bars and psi and then added a percentage for local taxes. Or the number just came to them when they were strolling around the graveyard at midnight by a full moon. > It's not really important I guess. If you're reg has a CE on it > then the yoke is definitely strong enough. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ...I don't know why people keep saying that. The yoke arrangement is > simplicity itself. <snip> Ya'rrright! There is nothing much against the yoke. (And I definitely like a good joke at times. ;-) Only that it does not (officially) support the higher pressures. What with the cleaner arrangement: that has nothing much to do with it getting dirty or not, but with diving in low visibility on net-infested wrecks, like we do (for the want of better conditions) on the North Sea. But even then. I dive with yokes. HES van Schoonhoven Life is a learning experience. >The 232 mark for proofing pressure is a figure that baffles me no end. I think you misunderstood. My question was about CGA 850 and its form which could be fixed on 232 bar for yoke, or it could be described like: "for any service pressure 'P', the minimum thickness of the material shall be described by the formula: T= P(.....) where modulus and shear are described by the formulas:" ...and so describe yoke requirements for a variety of containers and pressures and materials rather than just one. >Ya'rrright! Ok, ya got me there, for swimming around in nets and caves filled with twine, DIN is a 'cleaner' arrangement. I did say "for all but a few applications...", and even then, the Yoke bolt protects you from valve roll-offs. (c: The really smart yokes build this cage thing to put over their regulators... <...heh-heh - I can hardly wait> >But even then. I dive with yokes. yumpin yiminy, bullshark > O.K. EN 250 / 2000 is the official standard for: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Limey, with such a nickname I gather you are English. > So you are from the EC, wether you like it or not. Wasn't the EC when I came from there, but either way, what gave you the idea I might not like it? > So now you have me terribly curious as to the origins of said > regulator. What brand? What tmodel? It gets a little difficult to track. I bought it as part of a bagfull of gear from a guy who was, or was about to become, the US distributor for Nemrod. I believe that was a Spanish company at the time, Mike G or bullshark can prolly tell you more about them than I can. I believe they were bought out soon after I got my gear and I know that the reg's, or parts for them, are no longer manufactured. It was prolly only 6 or 7 years ago when I got the gear and at that time it was either prototype, or first production. For this reason I don't know the name of the model since it never carried a name. > And if it carries the CE mark and which number (like in CE 0426 on > Mares regs, the additinal number being the code for the testing > authority.) > > Now if there is no CE marking on it I'm still curious about the > particulars. And the vintage. Apart from the '4000psi' and the '280bar' marks stamped into the clamp itself, there is only one number stamped, which I always assumed was a serial # of some sort. The number is 06428 and if that means something to you please share. Thanks, Dave. > The number is 06428 and if that means something to > you please share. Some Yankee zipcode? Connecticut? > > The number is 06428 and if that means something to > > you please share. > > Some Yankee zipcode? Connecticut? Mebbe, ya know the difference 'tween a Yankee and a Dayum Yankee, right? Yankees went home! Dave. > Mebbe, ya know the difference 'tween a Yankee and a Dayum Yankee, > right? > > Yankees went home! 8^) . . . and all the good Yankees are women . . . Jayna, for example. Dave, if you posted it, I missed it. What brand is your regulator? Lee > > Mebbe, ya know the difference 'tween a Yankee and a Dayum Yankee, > > right? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Dave, if you posted it, I missed it. What brand is your regulator? check yer mail Lee. Dave. I wrote : <snip> > > I gather you are English. > > So you are from the EC, wether you like it or not. Then "Limey Dave" wrote : > Wasn't the EC when I came from there, but either way, what gave you the idea > I might not like it? I thought the Brits were rather reluctant members of the EC. And what with you living in Florida. Lucky bstrd! Then I asked > > So now you have me terribly curious as to the origins of said > > regulator. What brand? What tmodel? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nemrod. I believe that was a Spanish company at the time, Mike G or > bullshark can prolly tell you more about them than I can. Nemrod were Spanish allright. Actually they were based in Gerona, nar the Costa Brava, north of Barcelona. Nemrod was one of the older brands, like from the sixties, but they were always cheapish and never made big. > I believe they were bought out soon after I got my gear and I know that > the reg's, or parts for them, are no longer manufactured. They went out of business. > It was prolly only 6 or 7 years ago when I got the gear and at that > time it was either prototype, or first production. For this reason > I don't know the name of the model since it never carried a name. Must have been their last ditch efford to revive the brand, just before they went belly up, permanently. > Apart from the '4000psi' and the '280bar' marks stamped into the clamp > itself, <snip> Funny, 4000 psi or 280 Bar never were approved certification loads in the CE, of which Spain is a member. It would even be illegal to sell it overhere with such markings. So I guess this one was specially made for the US market. Maybe it was only a working sample. > there is only one number stamped, which I always assumed was a > serial # of some sort. The number is 06428 and if that means > something to you please share. No. Without the CE logo, right in front of it, it means nothing to me. >> > So now you have me terribly curious as to the origins of said >> > regulator. What brand? What tmodel? [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > No. Without the CE logo, right in front of it, it means nothing to me. There was a history of Nemrod published back in the early '80s, I don't remember the title or author, he was a Nemrod employee and coral diver. I don't think anyone has done a history of the marque since, but it would be a worthwhile project. I really don't know much about Nemrod, but some snippets from my files: The company was a Spanish company with German backing, Metzeler Nemrod S.A. founded in 1935 to make medical supplies. The "Nemrod" name was trademarked in 1945 when the company began making fins and regulators (the same year that the "tuna fish can" aqualung was introduced). Nemrods were sold in the US at least as early as 1949, and were a main target of Cousteau's US patent infringement suits, which he lost. In 1959 or 1960, US production commenced by the Seamless Rubber Co. of New Haven, CT. The Nemrod-Seamless was a triple stage reg of good quality at low price. By then, of course, there were a dozen or more double hose regs being made in the US, the best selling being the Dacor Diving Lung. Between 1966 and 1981, the German firm Metzeler steadily increased its stake from 50% to 100%, although the company remained based in Spain. At some point (late '80s?) production of the Snark was moved to Florida where it remained until '97 or '98. By the mid '70s, the double hose reg was obsolete, replaced by the modern single hose reg invented by Cross and Eldred. The Snark's market was retro-divers, photographers, and the US Navy which used them in basic UDT training because of their similarity to operational rebreathers. These markets were insufficient to support production, which ceased. The Navy now buys its training units from Aqua Lung France which has resumed production of a two-hose reg, the Mentor. Nemrods were actually pretty high quality, and there are still a lot of them around, and parts and manuals are pretty easy to come by. They are, I think, the only double hose regs that can be properly used with modern high(er) pressure tanks. Just a guess, but I wouldn't be surprized if there is a greater percentage of Nemrod production still diving than any other double hose. Mike Gray wrote: > The company was a Spanish company with German backing, Metzeler Nemrod > S.A. founded in 1935 to make medical supplies. etcetera. Interesting reading Mike. Thanks for bringing back a lot of memories. You're very well documented! I had forgotten about the Metzler angle. And now I remember there were Metzler inflatable dingies, too. And yes, I owned a Snark III Silver (three stage double hose regulator) for some time and dove extensively with it, but moved on to the single hose variety. Nemrod Snark II Silver and the Delta. Some time in the 60's I visited the plant in Gerona. I think I lost track about the time they introduced the Push Lift trim collar... Time flies. HES van Schoonhoven > I wrote : > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I thought the Brits were rather reluctant members of the EC. Yeah first of a long list of bad moves imnsho. > And what with you living in Florida. Lucky bstrd! Luck had very little to do with it! 80) > Then I asked > > > So now you have me terribly curious as to the origins of said [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > They went out of business. 'kay. > > It was prolly only 6 or 7 years ago when I got the gear and at that > > time it was either prototype, or first production. For this reason [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So I guess this one was specially made for the US market. Maybe it was > only a working sample. Very possible. > > there is only one number stamped, which I always assumed was a > > serial # of some sort. The number is 06428 and if that means > > something to you please share. > > No. Without the CE logo, right in front of it, it means nothing to me. Guess I may have been right. Could just be a serial #. Cheers, Dave. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message