Catalina versus Luxfer

In article <411a1218$0$4042$45beb828@newscene.com>,
"Steve House" <sjhouse.remove.this@to.send.hotmail.com> writes:

> ... Other threads in this forum have had people
>waxing ecstatic <grin> over the fact they owned Catalina tanks and indicated
>a strong preference for them over new Luxfers. Why? ...

Luxfer produced many, if not most, of the 6351 alloy aluminum tanks.
These are now thought to be defective due to a tendency to
develop cracks in the neck area under sustained load conditions.
Several of these tanks have failed explosivly, causing injury and death.
I assume you were generally aware of this.

It is questionable that the increased inspection recommended by Luxfer
is adequate to continue these tanks is service safely. It is not known,
at least not by me, how quickly these neck cracks can develop from a level
NOT detectible by visual or eddie current inspection (VIP+). It is possible
that they can develop in an interval shorter than the standard annual
VIP interval.

For this reason, at least some people think that Luxfer should have
simply recalled and replaced ALL 6351 tanks, rather than introducing
the often problematic eddie current testing. Thus Luxfers business
practices come into question, in addition to the obvious questions
about their quality.

All of this leads to a preference by some for Catalina tanks.
Whether or not this is justivied I do not know. However, there is
no similar argument know to me for preferring Luxfer.

All current production of both Catalina and Luxfer is the preferred,
6061 alloy. (Catalina never made tanks from 6351.)

--
Charlie 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.

Getting back into diving after a number of years absence and may be
replacing some ancient 6351 AL80s depending on their inspection/hydro
results (in storage 15 years). Other threads in this forum have had people
waxing ecstatic <grin> over the fact they owned Catalina tanks and indicated
a strong preference for them over new Luxfers. Why? If we restrict our
comparisons to AL80s for simplicity and disregarding cost factors, what are
the reasons if any to prefer new Catalinas over new Luxfers? Surveying some
online suppliers I've also encountered brands like Genesis that I've never
heard of before, what about them? Any strong contenders or dogs and why?

Steve House
--

In article <411a1218$0$4042$45beb828@newscene.com>,
"Steve House" <sjhouse.remove.this@to.send.hotmail.com> writes:

> ... Other threads in this forum have had people
>waxing ecstatic <grin> over the fact they owned Catalina tanks and indicated
>a strong preference for them over new Luxfers. Why? ...

Luxfer produced many, if not most, of the 6351 alloy aluminum tanks.
These are now thought to be defective due to a tendency to
develop cracks in the neck area under sustained load conditions.
Several of these tanks have failed explosivly, causing injury and death.
I assume you were generally aware of this.

It is questionable that the increased inspection recommended by Luxfer
is adequate to continue these tanks is service safely. It is not known,
at least not by me, how quickly these neck cracks can develop from a level
NOT detectible by visual or eddie current inspection (VIP+). It is possible
that they can develop in an interval shorter than the standard annual
VIP interval.

For this reason, at least some people think that Luxfer should have
simply recalled and replaced ALL 6351 tanks, rather than introducing
the often problematic eddie current testing. Thus Luxfers business
practices come into question, in addition to the obvious questions
about their quality.

All of this leads to a preference by some for Catalina tanks.
Whether or not this is justivied I do not know. However, there is
no similar argument know to me for preferring Luxfer.

All current production of both Catalina and Luxfer is the preferred,
6061 alloy. (Catalina never made tanks from 6351.)

--
Charlie 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.