I choose to use the logic developed by the US Navy based upon their decades of experience involving millions of bottles. The only failures they've experienced were connection failures due to damage from hydro testing. Damaged threads from cross threading during hydro tests is my read. They asked for use of a non destructive test and if that test showed the bottle was good continued use. But bottle manufacturers and other interested parties that are not users have no incentive to take a risk or spend money on testing. Suggesting the premature retirement of bottles makes them money. So we still have guidance from an inappropriate governmental agency with no factual basis. The Navy basically argued it's nonsense and I agree. But others are free to spend more if it makes them feel better. I just object to claims that retiring a bottle at 15 years is necessary for safety reasons. There is zero data to support those statements and significant data to show its false. You are not following the law or an applicable governmental regulation retiring the bottle and I am totally legal refilling my "expired" bottle from my compressor. And the available data says I am just as safe.
Upvote 0