TANK PROS & CONS
- Thread starter UDABEGGER
- Start date
The text of your reply in post #40 is kind of hidden in the quoted post info (happens some times), so I'll repost it here to make it easier to see - that is some of the most significant data I've heard in the ongoing debate on the use of expired tanks . . . .
"They did it without hesitation, they also said that firefighting tanks are made so much better than others because of the heat they have to endure, I said that i was shocked that it passed, and he said he sees them all the time and 99% of them pass even older than mine if in good shape. If you get a MSA tank with a valve like I have all you need is the attachment like the one on the right."
Honestly, that matches what I would expect to hear - I'm not at all surprised that it passed, or that almost every expired tank that is in good shape passes. I'm just surprised that a shop is willing to run the test on an expired tank. I take it they told you that it passed, but did not put an updated inspection label on it? If so, that's not a bad source of revenue for them - test tanks for peace of mind and collect the fees . . .
"They did it without hesitation, they also said that firefighting tanks are made so much better than others because of the heat they have to endure, I said that i was shocked that it passed, and he said he sees them all the time and 99% of them pass even older than mine if in good shape. If you get a MSA tank with a valve like I have all you need is the attachment like the one on the right."
Honestly, that matches what I would expect to hear - I'm not at all surprised that it passed, or that almost every expired tank that is in good shape passes. I'm just surprised that a shop is willing to run the test on an expired tank. I take it they told you that it passed, but did not put an updated inspection label on it? If so, that's not a bad source of revenue for them - test tanks for peace of mind and collect the fees . . .
Upvote 0
I know you're not calling on it but, this will serve that it is possible if you have one that has been handled correctly it can surpass 15-20 plus, even up to 30 years if it's one of the MSA tanks. It's so very important to get them tested every 3-5 years, if it doesn't pass big deal at least your safe. Please don't take this personal I'm talking to all that reads this and not to any one person.
Upvote 0
I don't question if these tanks are often good past 15 years and that has been a very common discussion item on this forum for many years. Your hydro test performed past the 15 year date of manufacture is something I found interesting and wonder if I am in a small fishbowl here, and it is in fact a common practice elsewhere. I don't see much wrong with it I guess and Alan above made some good points. I have seen some lore here on AGN that the actual hydro test is tough on the cylinders.
I get my tanks filled at a dive shop, so they will not refill tanks older than 15 years. I have two tanks that are still within the 15 years and one that is over, I am keeping the older one just in case I purchase an air compressor in the future. The DOT regulation (SP10915) that steer the dive shops to not fill tanks over 15 years is circled in red below.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I believe the hydro test level typically used is 1.5 times the normal working pressure. So for a 300 bar bottle it is tested at 450 bar. The acceptance criteria permits up to a 10% permanent expansion of the bottle. So it is anticipated it could cause permanent damage. The biggest reason the Navy found for retiring their thousand if not millions of SCBA bottles is thread damage during the hydro test.
I see no point for anybody who's only option is getting their bottle filled commercially in arguing the validity of the rules. But my opinion is they are nonsense. The DOT is absolutely the wrong organization to establish criteria for pressure vessels. No wonder the rules make so little sense. Seems like they should have just paid attention to the condition of our roads.
I see no point for anybody who's only option is getting their bottle filled commercially in arguing the validity of the rules. But my opinion is they are nonsense. The DOT is absolutely the wrong organization to establish criteria for pressure vessels. No wonder the rules make so little sense. Seems like they should have just paid attention to the condition of our roads.
Upvote 0