Quote Originally Posted by rabbitslayer View Post
Rob, firstly, I can't help but say that I would appreciate it if you could be little less judgemental of my character and not so condescending in your comments.


Secondly, I'm fully aware of the dangers involved with this type of equipment which is why I took it in to have it tested. I don't need a certificate in order to fill it as I can get that done privately if needed and I have never transported a bottle other than when purchased and bringing it home or when taking it to be tested. So, if my main priority was to save a few quid over and above the safety of myself and others, I wouldn't have bothered taking it in the first place.


I find that generally, members on here are knowledgeable, experienced and helpful which is why I asked for views and opinions on my experience with a local test centre. My opening post was mainly centred around:

A - How a valve that had had such little and very light use could fail and how could I avoid damage in the future
B - Was it right / fair that a test centre can keep / destroy the equipment if one doesn't authorise / pay for parts and labour.


If the valve has failed then OK scrap it, but why can't they return the bottle without the valve? And yes, perhaps I would like to take it elsewhere i.e. Parwins if that's my preference - why shouldn't I?





If you are directing this at me I find your comments rude and offensive. I can assure you I'm no skinflint and didn't mention and would never consider a DIY job using secondhand dodgy parts as you describe - How did you cook this up in your head?..





Thanks Jerry. My thoughts entirely. Parwins next time for sure.





And sometimes people just jump to conclusions without taking the time to read through and digest before pulling triggers.





Transporting an empty bottle (evident due to no valve) is against transport regs? Really?





Not when the bottle has no valve fitted.







Again, you can't fill a cylinder without a valve assembly so completely harmless. No one has suggested they return the complete unit (bottle and valve assembly) just return the parts that are OK if that's the customers wish.





They don't keep the car or scrap it if you don't authorise them to carry out the repairs - Repairs to the car are carried out wherever the customer wishes





And why should a perfectly good, safe cylinder be scrapped. If I were a business, I'd be tempted to buy and fit a new valve and sell on - would that not cross your mind?





Who's asking for a discount and I'd always expect to pay VAT. I'm not a business but I and others on here work hard for their money so why should I not question something I feel 'MAY' be unfair and taking what I've worked hard for?...





FFS!.. Wasting time on the internet?.. this is an airgun forum and we are discussing an issue relating to airguns. You have over 13500 posts on here, so should I assume you are nothing but a mega internet waster? Honestly...





The DIY route again... I never mentioned DIY.. You could have kept it as a spare and had the centre fit it if / when one failed later on. That's not penny pinching it's called a common sense saving. In business they call it a cost saving and my money is as important to me as it is to them..

Safety should always come first, no doubting that whatsoever but that doesn't mean common sense should be locked away either. Wake up and smell the silicon grease..

ATB
Get over yourself.

Did I quote you? No. So why assume this my reply was directly aimed at you.

Generally it was aimed at the suggestion that this was a scam, that a much cheaper solution was available, and that the idea was a head could be fitted by just buying one off the internet. No one specific.

I explained that having been in exactly the same position that cylinder that's failed cannot be returned because the regs are designed to stop transportation of cylinders deemed unsafe, which was what I was lead to believe and have accepted.

If you didn't ask the question about why you can't have the cylinder only then the logical question would be to ask the test centre the question. If you didn't get the answer you wanted then you could get a second opinion from another centre or possibly Idest.

Transporting an empty bottle not in test is the issue. Your bottle is not in test. It has failed.

I am lead to believe the regs are The Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Classification, Packaging and Labelling) and Use of Transportable Pressure Receptacles Regulations 1996.

Info on the go-no-go here : https://www.scubadivermag.com/propos...inder-testing/

I am also lead to believe that a cylinder without a head will not be stamped as passed as the head could be retro fitted afterwards which has failed.

So hopefully that answers your doubt on that point, but if not, phone a test centre/Idest.

Of course you can't fill a bottle without a valve. That's why the test includes the valve. Not sure what point you're trying to make.

The law on cars and cylinders are not exactly the same. I was trying to demonstrate how the test works as an analogy not saying every rule applies to both in the same way. Sorry if you didn't follow that.

So to answer your questions directly to you:

How a valve that had had such little and very light use could fail and how could I avoid damage in the future?

It can happen, and you could use grease to protect the threads and make sure that if you fill a cylinder you use an adaptor which takes the pressure stress when you unscrew, not the DIN.

Was it right / fair that a test centre can keep / destroy the equipment if one doesn't authorise / pay for parts and labour?

As I am lead to believe by 2 centres, yes, and have stated what one said when the same thing happened said. But you can check with another or Idest. Idest are going to be the no.1 source of info, if you doubt one test centre why take another's word?

Yes. I waste a lot of time on the internet. The 1000's of posts I have here is just one forum, I run another where I have plenty more, and also run a few other shooting related websites. What I know from that experience is that unless someone is willing to put their name and professional qualification out on the line then a huge amount of what is said is said without citing a source, and (as in my own example) it's often heresay. The best place to find out about the actual facts is to contact the official parties directly, which you could have done by now, instead of wasting time on the internet arguing about it and getting nowhere. You could have actually found out I wasn't right, the test centre wasn't right and had what you want returned and a new head fitted by another shop. Or you could have got all angsty about it and posted again.

The reason why I post about this is because over the years I have seen people take shortcuts with HPA all to save time, effort and small amounts of cash... sticking cylinders in vices to get adaptors in and out, getting hold of cylinders that would fail a 2 year visual and putting new heads on them filling and painting them so they look new and have plenty of life for the 5 year then selling them. I've also seen people weld handles to cylinders, weld gauge adapters to cylinders, and tap their own quick fills into cylinders, or fit HPA to co2 (the latter sending a valve through someone's leg). And there are plenty on social media selling out of test gear.

So I'd suggest as it's Saturday, phone the other place up and have a chat. Then you can come back and post something useful like you expect others to instead of just having a hissy fit because you don't like what someone on the internet has posted.