 |
 | 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 / February 2005bottle question
Someone brought me an aluminium bottle he got at the Caymans and is asking wether he could have it hydroed in Germany. Before giving any advice, I want to ask about what the different numbers on the bottle should tell. The top row: CTC/ DOT-3A L3000 S80 M4002 Below: S13573 12^92 At the bottom below: ^ 285B Overall height w/o valve is 666 mm( don't know if that's bad ;^) Weight is 14 kg aka 31 lbs. Valve threads are BSP, a nearly can wiggle a M25x2 Valve into it, this is a much looser fit than with the BSP threads in a steel bottle I have Any help appreciated. TIA Matthias > CTC/ DOT-3A L3000 S80 M4002 It's approved by Canada and the US... CTC is Transport Canada and DOT is the US Department of Transportation... It's an aluminum tank, 3000 psi, 80 cu-ft... > Below: > S13573 12^92 The 12^92 is a hydro stamp... If that is the only one (or the earlies one) on there, then it is when the tank was manufactured... December 1992... I would suspect that it was a 3/4"-14 thread since it's a Canada / US tank... Thanks, It is strange that there is no hint to the manufacturer. Catalina? It has no paint finish, and the surface is not polished, but looks as if having been coarsely belt-grinded while being turned in a lathe... Matthias >>CTC/ DOT-3A L3000 S80 M4002 > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I would suspect that it was a 3/4"-14 thread since it's a Canada / US > tank... > Thanks, > It is strange that there is no hint to the manufacturer. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Matthias It is a Catalina tank CTC. And the 3/4 14 thread is a 3/4 NPS thread. As to the finish, you are probably correct. Get it good and clean (phosphoric acid works wonders) and put some epoxy based paint on it. > As to the finish, you are probably correct. Get it good and clean > (phosphoric acid works wonders) and put some epoxy based paint on it. Phosphoric Acid can introduce Hydrogen Embrittlement. Use a non-acidic (no free hydrogen ions) stripping agent instead, or preferably, an appropriate mechanical removal method, such as pinging. -hh >>As to the finish, you are probably correct. Get it good and clean >>(phosphoric acid works wonders) and put some epoxy based paint on it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Use a non-acidic (no free hydrogen ions) stripping agent instead, or > preferably, an appropriate mechanical removal method, such as pinging. Hm, to my knowledge, a great deal of metal and steel surfaces, scuba bottles are treated with phosporic acid prior to a paint finish, because it gives a better surface to which the paint better sticks. Matthias > > As to the finish, you are probably correct. Get it good and clean > > (phosphoric acid works wonders) and put some epoxy based paint on it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Use a non-acidic (no free hydrogen ions) stripping agent instead, or > preferably, an appropriate mechanical removal method, such as pinging. Really? I'd like to see a cite for that either here or via e-mail. I am not being a smart a.s, it is just that a lot of the parts we machine for aerospace are phosphoric acid etched/cleaned before coating or plating, and it is usually called out on the print, including the depth of etch. I know that the process of chroming many materials can introduce hydrogen embrittlement (having to do with the electrical component causing molecular migration, especially in the heat affected zone of welds) but this is the first I have heard of it in aluminum after being etched with phosphoric. Do you know the mechanism of action? I really would like to know, because I have been doing it for years, and advising others to do it, and if it is wrong, I want to know. I even hit some aluminum parts with phosphoric after glass beading to etch the surface before cleaning with MEK and applying GunKote because I get really good adhesion that way. The glass beading increases the surface area by a large degree (think of bazillions of little golf ball dimples) What would be a good alternative solution? They commonly use sodium hydroxide and sulphuric in anodizing, and I swear one of the anodizers said they use phosphoric to etch (but as we know, many people doing things in the finishing biz don't know WTF they are doing or how). Scott > " H. Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Scott I've found some cites that talk about phosphoroic acid induced SCC in Al, but they're in journals that you have to pay a subscription fee to access (and there aren't any in the journals that I already subscibe to). From the "non-scholarly" sources I've been able to find, it doesen't look like phosphoric acid will cause hydrogen embrittlemt in aluminum unless it's allowed to remain trapped in a closed or nearly closed environment (e.g., don't do a good job of rinsing off the tank after stripping/cleaning, then paint over the residual acid). If you're paranoid, you could use nitric acid instead or use a solvent base stripper like Zip-Strip <http://www.starbronze.com/msds.html> You definately don't want to use any basic (caustic) cleaning solutions. > I've found some cites that talk about phosphoroic acid induced SCC in > Al, but they're in journals that you have to pay a subscription fee to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > stripper like Zip-Strip <http://www.starbronze.com/msds.html> You > definately don't want to use any basic (caustic) cleaning solutions. Such as sodium hydroxide? > > I've found some cites that talk about phosphoroic acid induced SCC in > > Al, but they're in journals that you have to pay a subscription fee to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Such as sodium hydroxide? Yes. > ? Such as sodium hydroxide? > Yes. Calcium and lithium hydroxide are both used as scrubber materials. How about those? > > ? Such as sodium hydroxide? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How about those? It's the OH- ion that likes aluminum. The various cations are along for the ride. In other words, pretty much anything that ends in the words "hydroxide" is a strong base and shouldn't be used to clean aluminum tanks. > Yes. Re; ZipStrip We used to use methylene chloride to clean *old* sand cast motorcycle engine cases. The alloy had lots (and widely varying) amounts of silicon in it, purportedly to make the molten metal flow into the mold more easily, which made it abrasive to machine, and very difficult to get a good weld on. It had to be spotlessly clean, and pre-heated. We would dunk them in the methylene chloride for 8 to 10 hours, rinse in very hot water and soap, glass bead the case, more hot water and soap, and then put it in the oven at 250 degree's for an hour. Anywhere that there was a crack would weep the decades of oil back out, and the cracks were perfectly visible to the naked eye. I remember that the methylene chloride fumes would let you know *exactly* where all the small cuts on your hands were. Scott mentioned ZipStrip (methylene chloride).... I had excellent results stripping paint from several steel and one aluminum tank with a similar product called Aircraft Remover (same main active ingredient). I don't know if it's stronger than ZipStrip, but it was VERY effective when combined with pre-warming of the tanks prior to stripping. The stripping was greatly accelerated by pre-warming the tanks in a tub of warm water (about 100 degrees, which is about the recommended upper temp limit for use of the product). Unlike the slow process at room temperature, when pre-warmed, the paint begins popping off the tank within about 15 seconds, hardly allowing enough time to cover the stripper with plastic wrap (to lengthen exposure time and reduce vaporization). After a ten minute exposure, almost all of the paint can be removed easily with a scraper and/or wire brush in about 5 minutes, usually in large, limp sheets of curling paint. A light second treatment gets the last remnants of paint. Total time, including clean-up was about an hour per tank, unless doing two at once, which isn't difficult since the plastic wrap makes the timing less critical. Keeps you pretty busy, though! Usual warnings apply about having good ventilation to avoyd brane damige....8^) For Matthias, if you end up wanting to strip the tank: After reassurances from a technical rep from the maker of Aircraft Remover about its safe use on aluminum tanks, I stripped an aluminum tank. After being stripped, a few spots of corrosion sanded off easily and it polished up nicely with fine sandpaper. The first exposure to saltwater created a slight dulling, but the finish stayed very smooth. Looks great without paint. Don't know if that brushed appearance of your tank will be a problem, though. HTH. Dave C Source, supplier of unscented, oil-free PURE TALC, compatible with drysuit latex seals. If interested, contact dcalderbankATcheshireDOTnet, or check eBay listings for current contact info or sales (eBay ID: dave4868). Oops! Just realized the tank in question is "unpainted".... nevermind.... Dave C Source, supplier of unscented, oil-free PURE TALC, compatible with drysuit latex seals. If interested, contact dcalderbankATcheshireDOTnet, or check eBay listings for current contact info or sales (eBay ID: dave4868). Okay, I did a couple of quick web-searches. For a real quick KISS primer, see any of these webpages: http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Forms/embrittlement.htm http://www.materialsengineer.com/CA-hydrogen.htm http://www.aesf.org/conferences/he02full.html http://www.tcnj.edu/~rgraham/barrett/manual1-A.html The problem is most commonly encountered in plating operations (and often, in the pickling operation that is part of it), and the remedial fix is to bake the part after it has been plated. Unfortunately, we all know that AL80's do not like "baking" temperatures, because the metallurgy of the tank will transform at these very low relative temperatures, causing a loss of strength and the highly technical scuba term of "kabluie" (which can be more dangerous than the somehat similar shooting term known as: "bang, ouch, sh.t"), so baking is out. For chemical strippers, the KISS is to avoid all acids. The old standard for a HE resistant chemical stripper was MIL-R-25134B but it was superceded by MIL-PRF-25134C on 6/15/1996. The formal name of this spec is: "Performance Specification Remover, Paint and Lacquer, Solvent Type". FWIW, this called out ASTM F519, Type 1a, for maintenance chemicals, and ASTM F519, paragraph 9 for accept/reject criteria, and the title of ASTM F519 is: "Standard Test Method for Mechanical Hydrogen Embrittlement Testing of Plating Processes and Aircraft Maintenance Chemicals". FWIW, as of a 1999, the product "Kleen Strip Aircraft Stripper" was *not* compliant with the HE part of these Standards. IMO, the most KISS approach is to avoid the problem entirely by avoiding all chemicals, which leaves some sort of mechanical paint removal procedure. If you do a corncob, walnut shell or similar rumble, you can actually concurrently do a modest amount of "pinging", which would have the beneficial side-effect of helping to prevent tensile cracks from forming. -hh Most bitchin. In reality, the issue is residual acids. When we etch parts with phosphoric, they are very well rinsed in a 3 stage process afterwards, but I can see how a person might be able to get into trouble if just the right circumstances were present. I agree with your assessment on the abrasives; I would be prone to advise AB grade glass beads, at around 60 to 80 psi, and not sand paper or belts for the OD. As you know, all forged aluminum parts have a "skin" of denser material, which I am sure is quite pronounced in a part with 1/2" + wall thickness. To tumble, the biggest mistake I see people in dive shops commonly do is that they tumble without a soap to float the swarf; the result of which is the extremely fine aluminum particles get re-embedded into the interior tank wall, to flake off later and show themselves as a black film in the regs and filters, and could be a real bummer with pure O2. They then place the aluminum loaded ceramics into a steel tank and transfer the fines. Almost all heat treated aluminum alloys will turn to butter at around 350 degrees F, which rules out powder coating. Thanks Hugh. > Okay, I did a couple of quick web-searches. > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > -hh > Okay, I did a couple of quick web-searches. > > For a real quick KISS primer, see any of these webpages: SNIP Thanks, Hugh, for again providing good cites which help clarify the nature of hydrogen embrittlement. Usually, Keeping It Simple would be my goal, BUT let's see if I've been the last "S", as in Stupid. 8^) Over the past few years, something that struck me in many searches for "tank paint stripping" info was the recurring mention in the newsgroups of the HE issue and mil specs, but no cite that connected the two with using chemical strippers specifically on scuba tanks, particularly aluminum. Believe me, after reading your numerous cogent references to hydrogen embrittlement, I considered the issue carefully. I subsequently talked with a tech rep from KleanStrip (Aircraft Remover) and was convinced there would be no HE concerns using the product to strip my tanks, steel or aluminum. Respecting your position, I did more research today and found another methylene chloride product expressly used for aircraft stripping (not just in name only), and got an email reply from the tech rep saying the product "passes hydrogen embrittlement" criteria and that they have produced "millions of pounds" of the product for that use. The product: http://www.eldoradochem.com/methylene-chloride-strippers.htm Actually, the website mentions DoD approval for many of these products, but not to the specific mil spec we're talking about. Let me ask you, could the mil spec cited be too high a standard to apply to stripping aluminum tanks? I'm just curious about the reasons for the high mil specs, aside from the obvious extreme structural demands. Could it be that riveted aluminum doesn't allow adequate flushing of the solvent resulting in excessively long exposure times? > For chemical strippers, the KISS is to avoid all acids. SNIP > FWIW, as of a 1999, the product "Kleen Strip Aircraft Stripper" was > *not* compliant with the HE part of these Standards. SNIP You're right, in fact, it says right on the can that it doesn't meet that particular mil spec. > IMO, the most KISS approach is to avoid the problem entirely by > avoiding all chemicals, which leaves some sort of mechanical paint > removal procedure. SNIP Generally, I would agree, but in this case I chose not to keep things SIMPLE because mechanical paint removal was not going to be practical for me. In other words, I wanted the cheaper, easier way out, provided it was safe to do. 8^) I also didn't think the aircraft mil spec regarding paint strippers ruled out safe use on scuba tanks, especially when finding recommendations from manufacturers to the contrary. Too much of a leap? Kindest regards. Dave C Source, supplier of unscented, oil-free PURE TALC, compatible with drysuit latex seals. If interested, contact dcalderbankATcheshireDOTnet, or check eBay listings for current contact info or sales (eBay ID: dave4868). > ... > Let me ask you, could the mil spec cited be too high a standard to > apply to stripping aluminum tanks? It may be, but traditional risk assessment has to consider both the probability of failure as well as the severity of the event. The real underlying hazard with HE is that there's currently no technology that can non-destructively test for it...what's typical is that the test reveals HE in the investigation performed after the part has failed. > I'm just curious about the reasons for the high mil specs, aside from > the obvious extreme structural demands. Could it be that riveted > aluminum doesn't allow adequate flushing of the solvent resulting in > excessively long exposure times? First, don't forget that the milspec is now mostly an ASTM, so this has defined the overall "accepted industry practice". Second, the real issue is that any residual stresses within a part become a "snag point" that catches and holds the hydrogen ions within the grain boundaries (metallurgy stuff), and at room temperatures, the hydrogen is more inclined to migrate there than it is to the part's surface and the atmosphere...in short, this is why the "baking" process has to add heat: to forcibly drive the hydrogen out. When it comes to more complex parts, such as a sheet with rivet holes, each rivet hole has a residual stress gradient around it, so in effect, the part has more "nooks and crannies" to catch/retain the hydrogen. What makes this particularly insidius is that the very places that the hydrogen gets snagged is exactly the same place that its more vulnerable to cracks starting from...ie, places with residual stresses. > > IMO, the most KISS approach is to avoid the problem entirely by > > avoiding all chemicals, which leaves some sort of mechanical paint [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for me. In other words, I wanted the cheaper, easier way out, provided > it was safe to do. 8^) FWIW, my KISS here was from an understanding of the risk, not the physical difficulty of one method vs. another. > I also didn't think the aircraft mil spec regarding paint strippers > ruled out safe use on scuba tanks, especially when finding > recommendations from manufacturers to the contrary. The main thing is to know that if there's any chemicals involved that the labels have to be checked very carefully so as to not accidentally use the wrong product. Particularly in the case of consumer market stuff, where its very easy for Joe Diver to grab that half can of paint stripper that's a leftover from a household refinishing project of a wooden chair, etc. -hh > > ... > > Let me ask you, could the mil spec cited be too high a standard to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can non-destructively test for it...what's typical is that the test > reveals HE in the investigation performed after the part has failed. I can't unring a bell, but hopefully a reader may see that it was unwise for me to post about my use of methylene chloride paint stripper on an aluminum tank based on recommendations from the stripper manufacturer. Those recommendations were apparently not well-based and were probably not applicable to aluminum pressure vessels. Better to accept the clear advice from Luxfer (and others) to NEVER use caustic or acid paint strippers on aluminum tanks. > > I'm just curious about the reasons for the high mil specs, aside from > > the obvious extreme structural demands. Could it be that riveted [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Second, the real issue is that any residual stresses within a part > become a "snag point" that catches and holds the hydrogen ions within > the grain boundaries (metallurgy stuff), and at room temperatures, the > hydrogen is more inclined to migrate there than it is to the part's [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > FWIW, my KISS here was from an understanding of the risk, not the > physical difficulty of one method vs. another. I didn't express it well, but I understood you were referring to risk, and knew I was making things complicated by looking for alternative recommendations, and trying to evaluate the validity of Luxfer's and others' concerns. Your point is well taken, though, especially since it's a high risk imposed more on the fill station employee, I assume, rather than myself. > > I also didn't think the aircraft mil spec regarding paint strippers > > ruled out safe use on scuba tanks, especially when finding > > recommendations from manufacturers to the contrary. > > The main thing is to know that if there's any chemicals involved that > the labels have to be checked very carefully so as to not accidentally > use the wrong product. Particularly in the case of consumer market > stuff, where its very easy for Joe Diver to grab that half can of paint > stripper that's a leftover from a household refinishing project of a > wooden chair, etc. Good point. Just out of curiosity, I'm still looking for a consumer paint stripper that is specifically compatible with aluminum tanks (doesn't cause hydrogen embrittlement). There are certainly suitable commercial or industrial products, such as this one by Molecular-Tech Coatings, INC. http://www.m-tc.com/efs2500prod.cfm Luxfer recommends starch or wheat compounds, but I don't have the specifics of the preparation. Somehow, those don't seem promising. Thanks for the super info. Dave C > > > ... > > > Let me ask you, could the mil spec cited be too high a standard to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > accept the clear advice from Luxfer (and others) to NEVER use caustic > or acid paint strippers on aluminum tanks. Methylene chloride isn't caustic, and is the main ingredient in the stripper recommended by Luxfer http://www.luxfercylinders.com/support/maintenance/cm4.shtml http://www.starbronze.com/pdfs/720.pdf SNIP > > I can't unring a bell, but hopefully a reader may see that it was > > unwise for me to post about my use of methylene chloride paint stripper > > on an aluminum tank based on recommendations from the stripper > > manufacturer. Those recommendations were apparently not well-based and > > were probably not applicable to aluminum pressure vessels. Better to > > accept the clear advice from Luxfer (and others) to NEVER use caustic > > or acid paint strippers on aluminum tanks. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.starbronze.com/pdfs/720.pdf Interesting, if not a little embarrassing. 8^) I need to learn the chemical classes and not make assumptions. Somehow, I didn't see that recommendation when I reviewed Luxfer's site, otherwise I would have "been on it like a duck on a Junebug!". It's a relief, frankly. I may have had a miscommunication with Luxfer earlier this week that seemed to indicate they did not recommend methylene chloride as a stripper. That's when the starch and wheat strippers when mentioned. I don't think I was talking with the right person, though. That may be cleared up if I get a return call from their paint expert. I'll ask if they consider their recommended product equivalent to Aircraft Stripper, which lists many of the same ingredients. (I've been told some of these products contain "passivating" agents that protect the metal from hydrogen embrittlement.) Maybe I'll get their position on HE concerns. Either way, it's good to have that recommendation despite the methylene chloride/hydrogen embrittlement concern and the risks mentioned before. I'm beginning to understand, hopefully. Just took me a while. My humble thanks to all. Dave C i have used their milia treatment for milia seed on my eye brown area and below cheek. after three applications, i noticed a reduction in the milia size, quite impressed as i thought only laser surgery can solve my problem. -------------------------------- zest_f...@yahoo.com i keep seeing reviews and raves about this http://www.naturalisproducts.com and http://www.organiconline.com.sg . many people are discussing in beauty forums and magazines have positive reviews on this . but this thing ain't new, its been around for many years! anyone tried can feedback to me on exactly how good it is? ---------------------------------------- can anyone help me please, am looking for the local distributor or any shop selling the naturalis range of skin and body care products, from this company http://www.naturalisproducts.com . looking for this urgently. for those who have not come across it, its some foodbased anti-aging products. i googled for this and received result showing its available at http://www.organiconline.com.sg. i need this urgently but shipping from singapore will take some time, if anyone is distributing this please contact me at g...@raterenterprise.com urgently. i have a group of us looking to buy this. thanks! > SNIP > > > > I can't unring a bell, but hopefully a reader may see that it was > > > unwise for me to post about my use of methylene chloride paint > stripper > > > on an aluminum tank based on recommendations from the stripper > > > manufacturer. Those recommendations were apparently not > well-based and > > > were probably not applicable to aluminum pressure vessels. Better > to > > > accept the clear advice from Luxfer (and others) to NEVER use [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Dave C I just got some clarification from Luxfer's paint expert. He said that Luxfer's preferred method of stripping paint from aluminum tanks is by blasting with media that don't remove metal, such as plastic beads or agricultural media (wheat or starch). Also acceptable is stripping with a methylene choride chemical stripper, but it's not their first choice because of health and environmental concerns. When asked about concerns about hydrogen embrittlement with that product, he implied it was not an issue, and recommended thorough cleaning of the tank wtih alcohol to remove traces of solvent after the stripping. Dave C > I just got some clarification from Luxfer's paint expert. He said that > Luxfer's preferred method of stripping paint from aluminum tanks is by [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Dave C Methylene chloride (dichloromethane) was upgraded from a suspected carcinogen to a recognized carcinogen quite some time ago (I'm guessing it was between 1986, when Proposition 65 was passed, and 2000, which is the earliest amendment to the proposition I can find a record for). It's also suspected of being rather harmful to most other parts of the human body and the envrionment as well: <http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/summary.tcl?edf_substance_id =75-09-2> > It has no paint finish, and the surface is not polished, but looks as if > having been coarsely belt-grinded while being turned in a lathe... That sounds like their "brushed" finish... I believe that they spray a clear finish over it... I've got two AL80s that are finished that way... I prefer the shot-blast finish though... >>It has no paint finish, and the surface is not polished, but looks as if >>having been coarsely belt-grinded while being turned in a lathe... > > That sounds like their "brushed" finish... I believe that they spray a clear > finish over it... I've got two AL80s that are finished that way... I prefer > the shot-blast finish though... Yes. You can see it more clearly at the bottom, where there is no Brush finish. Matthias CTC/ DOT-3A L3000 S80 M4002 This a standard 80 aluminum tank certified for use in Canada and the US. It has a rated working pressure of 3,000 psi and is about 4 lbs buoyant when empty and roughly 1 lb negative when filled to its rated capacity. It is the most common tank used in the US and across the Caribbean. In 1988 and prior, some US tanks were made of T-6351 aluminum. This is the alloy that generated so much discussion by developing sustained load cracking around the neck that has, on occasion, failed explosively. This tank does not appear to be one of the T-6351 aluminum tanks. S13573 12^92 This is a serial number and date of manufacture. The tank was made in December of 1992. US tanks are visually inspected annually and hydro tested every 5 years. Assuming that there is no date stamp after 1992, the tank you have is 8 years out of hydro and probably 12 years out of visual. Before paying for a hydro, I suggest a careful visual inspection, inside and out, looking for damage that may suggest the tank is not worth spending additional money on. If there are any stickers or boots on the tank, remove them for this inspection. Corrosion under boots and stickers is not uncommon with aluminum tanks. If eddie testing for sustained load cracks around the neck is available, I suggest it too. Better safe than sorry. The stamp between the 12 and the 92 should be the manufacturer's mark. I suspect that closer inspection will find that the symbol is closer to an A than a ^. If I'm right, it's actually an upward pointing arrow, the symbol used by Luxfer. I have three Luxfer tanks here. One is relatively new and the others are pre 1988. They all say Luxfer on them, but that does not mean that all Luxfer tanks do. Luxfer is the largest manufacturer of aluminum scuba tanks here and, for that matter, in the world. Catalina, who are another popular manufacturer of aluminum tanks (most of mine are Catalinas) puts their name on some and does not put it on others. I don't know what symbol Catalina uses. A very quick look at my tanks did not reveal the manufacturer's stamp. It's probably there, but I didn't see it. At the bottom below: ^ 285B I haven't a clue. Lee > S13573 12^92 > > This is a serial number and date of manufacture. The tank was made in > December of 1992. US tanks are visually inspected annually and hydro tested > every 5 years. Assuming that there is no date stamp after 1992, the tank > you have is 8 years out of hydro and probably 12 years out of visual. Yes, I think so. > Before paying for a hydro, I suggest a careful visual inspection, inside and > out, looking for damage that may suggest the tank is not worth spending > additional money on. Looks good otuside, will do an inner visual soon. If there are any stickers or boots on the tank, remove > them for this inspection. There is a transparent sticker, nearly unreadable, contents seem to be the usual warnings. Corrosion under boots and stickers is not > uncommon with aluminum tanks. If eddie testing for sustained load cracks > around the neck is available, I suggest it too. Better safe than sorry. No boots, no signs of cracks. I can do a colour check test myself, though. > The stamp between the 12 and the 92 should be the manufacturer's mark. I > suspect that closer inspection will find that the symbol is closer to an A > than a ^. Yes!!. Theere is something within the angle. If I'm right, it's actually an upward pointing arrow, the symbol > used by Luxfer. Alright. > At the bottom below: ^ 285B > > I haven't a clue. The ^is again the Luxfer sign, then. 285 could be their type number, may be their online manual says something about it. Matthias > CTC/ DOT-3A L3000 S80 M4002 > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cracking around the neck that has, on occasion, failed explosively. This > tank does not appear to be one of the T-6351 aluminum tanks. M4002 is the DOT Manufacturers Number for Catalina Cylinders, Garden Grove facility. http://www.catalinacylinders.com/markmed.html Thanks, Matthias >>CTC/ DOT-3A L3000 S80 M4002 >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://www.catalinacylinders.com/markmed.html > Valve threads are BSP, a nearly can wiggle a M25x2 Valve into it, this is > a much looser fit than with the BSP threads in a steel bottle I have > Any help appreciated. Here is help: Matti, please do yourself a favor: Don't do the M25x2 Valve, even if you can screw it right in. Or maybe I should write: DON'T DO THE M25x2 VALVE, OR YOU GET YOURSELF SCREWED RIGHTLY!!! Simple reason: it 'll come off. (Coming off, as in WHAMMMM!!) Just last fall a Belgian had his car wrecked at a nearby divesite, when the misplaced valve decided to devorce from the well topped up tank. Not a pretty sight. f.cked up his whole day.  SignatureHES van Schoonhoven Life is a learning experience >>Valve threads are BSP, a nearly can wiggle a M25x2 Valve into it, this is >>a much looser fit than with the BSP threads in a steel bottle I have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Matti, please do yourself a favor: > Don't do the M25x2 Valve, even if you can screw it right in. HES, stay calm, only if I am short of other ammo ;-) Matthias |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.