Scuba tank explosion kills one, injures three in Florida dive shop

In article <dq7ll0hoc17ncb9siv8k5n2l1pmjj3lrja@4ax.com>,
Pete Melbourne <psmvsl@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:33:17 GMT, "Nigel Hewitt"
><news@REMOVETHISnigelhewitt.net> wrote:
>
>>As a tank filler I'd really like to hear the full
>>story but I suspect it will just be a footnote in
>>their local press when the investigations are finished.
>
>Agreed - which is why I am being picky, if there is something to be
>learned then lets learn it, but you will only do that by reporting the
>facts accurately

So from what I've read so-far, it sounds like the cylinder fell over
and the neck and/or pillar valve failed, resulting in an "explosion"
due no-doubt to the almost instantaneous release of the compressed gas
that was in the cylinder at the time. My thoughts are that as the gas
was O2, it only served to make life a little more complicated than it
already was at that instant, with the O2 not being the cause of the
initial rupture of the cylinder, but a contributing cause of the
subsequent mayhem.

We've had problems with older Aluminium tanks in this country which
caused a great uproar a few years back (as well as extra cost to the
tank testers to buy the new kit) Maybe they don't they do eddy current
testing in Aloominum tanks in the US (yet???)

From memory (of when I livd & worked over there) You get a hydro every 5
years and a visual every year and you are allowed a 10% over fill after
the first visual, but things might have changed since then.

Bit of an eye opener though.

Gordon

You have just described a typical neck crack failure where a relatively
minor bump restarted or accelerated the movement of a serious pre existing
crack.
Classical first year university materials science stuff.

Bob M




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Gordon Henderson" wrote

> We've had problems with older Aluminium tanks in this country which
> caused a great uproar a few years back (as well as extra cost to the
> tank testers to buy the new kit) Maybe they don't they do eddy current
> testing in Aloominum tanks in the US (yet???)
>
> From memory (of when I livd & worked over there) You get a hydro every 5
> years and a visual every year and you are allowed a 10% over fill after
> the first visual, but things might have changed since then.

We've got the test. It's been in use for a few years. I assume that the
tank that was current for hydro and visual had the test too, but it's not
certain. Testing of non commercial tanks is controlled by the industry here
rather than by law. It seems that the test that was missing in this case
was the one that should have ensured the fill tech knew to be a bit more
careful.

I don't know about the overfill, but you got the hydro and visual standards
right.

Lee