Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 66

Thread: Dive Bottle Test - Short & Curly's?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Peterborough
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    By the time you add postage and the work then itís not far off. What do you want to save the £10 of vat and the trade discount?


    The thing holds 4500 pounds per every square inch. Threads fail. Iíve had one go on a bottle that was only on its 2nd test. Same deal. Unless you think youíve been caught in a wholesale scam for what seems to be about £20 profit and only affects two people who ever come in here then the likelihood is the thread has failed and the simple fix is to get those qualified to fix it to fix it.

    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    Sod it, have a tantrum, save £11 and put the thing in with a set of grips. Itís only 300 bar. In fact why bother buying new? See if you can get one of the 1/2 dicky out almost out of test bottles on social media and save yourself more.


    £60 on something that can let go and cover a football field in under a second when it does...

    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?..


    Quote Originally Posted by JerryD View Post
    Rob, I'm not belittling the dangers: HPA is nasty stuff if it goes wrong.


    The point is that a test centre has to remove the valve anyway to inspect the bottle - no call for muckling it at home with pliers, they have the right kit and training. They get the valves wholesale price, and removing and refitting the valve is part of the test process. Why does this test centre in question have to charge over the odds for something that cost them a lot less than we would pay and would have to do anyway? It's the valve that's mullered, not the bottle so why are they not even returning the bottle sans valve?


    There are 2 test centres around Peterborough: one is a pain and Parwin's are good... Paul will show you what's wrong, no withholding, just a fair test process with fully transparent information.

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


    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    But sometimes on these threads we can make it seem this is a casual item or people can get that idea.

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


    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    If they return the bottle it's out of test it involves the OP taking it away, which as I am lead to believe is against the transport regulations which is what the test is about....

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


    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    You can fill HPA at home without a test, it's not illegal or anything.

    Not when the bottle has no valve fitted.




    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    It's when you move them that matters. The cylinders have to be either in test to be moved, or destroyed.

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    Like an MOT there's a certain set of regulations for testing, and on failure there's a certain set of regulations for when that happens.

    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


    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    The reason they have to be destroyed is so when they are scrapped someone doesn't need to inspect them to make sure they're safe for recycling, they are no longer cylinders, just 3 bits of cylinder.

    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    The centre is a business. They get things in at X price, they do Y work and charge Z. I don't see why it should make a loss for it's time and expertise to give someone a £10 or so discount. They'd still have to charge VAT.

    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?...


    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    Now there's a really simple way of solving this, instead of wasting all this time on the internet someone could phone Idest and ask, or failing that 2-3 test centres and see what they say about giving a bottle back when it's failed. Once you have that info then you can move on.

    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...


    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    It would be interesting because I had a cylinder fail once and I didn't get to keep the head... but then I'm not that tempted to do a diy assembly after buying a cylinder and I suspect the for the costs involved it wouldn't have been much of a saving.

    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

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    225
    Did you overtighten the fillstation? Or tried to screw it in under the wrong angle damaging the treads? I am of the opinion that who broke it should fix it. Is it the same shop where you get your fills?

    Ask Faber if it is common to fail the first test lol


    I had similar but different. Pre test and valve service, the valve was not leaking but out of test -expired diving bottle (no surface valve)

    post service and passed hydro test etc: Slow leaking leaking bottle unable to fully shut the valve. Not impressed. Probably they swapped the valve to a leaky one, now I have to crank up the valve real tight for it to seal. madness.
    you should buddy up with few more and get a loan large N2 cylinder and share it, do your fills yourself! Screw them
    This way the cylinder will not be your responsibility.
    Last edited by krisko; 08-07-2018 at 07:49 AM.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Poole, Deepest darkest Dooorset
    Posts
    13,613
    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.

  4. #49
    JerryD is offline "Plunk Plink Chinese Airgun Shooter"
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Oakham, Rutland
    Posts
    2,449
    Rob;

    what you're not aware of is that the test centre in question has hit a number of our club members with questionable decisions on bottle testing: one was even told that the handle on his valve had to be changed because it was cracked. It was changed without consulting with the bottle owner: he was not consulted first, just presented with the bill.

    That bottles need to be safe is unquestionable: the practice of this test centre is, however. Please don't get into an unneccesary bitchfight with Rabbitslayer over the actions of this test centre - I won't allow the club bottles anywhere near them because of what they have done to club members, and i never recommend them, rather sending people to somewhere further away - or Parwins, when they are available.

    This is just our experience: we're not going to argue with them, just not use them.



    .
    Last edited by JerryD; 07-07-2018 at 07:53 PM.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Peterborough
    Posts
    422

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    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.
    Absolutely unbelievable...

    Anyway...

    I was totally unaware of other airgunners in the Cambs area having the same issues with this dive / test centre. The fact that Jerry has made clear many others have questioned their decisions confirms that it's probably quite a high number of people involved along with quite a healthy amount of cash attached and not just one or two people you assumed / mentioned. So perhaps the 'Conspiracy Handle' is becoming a favourite with those who have experienced their trained specialist services.

    As I keep saying, safety is paramount but that doesn't mean that if something stinks and members want help, advice or clarification from folk on here, they shouldn't feel free to do so and without fear of being jumped on by others who either have misunderstood the topic or who are simply blinded by their own preconceived assumptions which in this case seems to be that I, the OP, am more concerned about saving a few bob over and above my own and others safety - Not the case.

    Now, if others from around this area read this and are made aware that Parwins is the best place to go for a good, straightforward, honest service instead of the 'other' test centre mentioned, I see this as a good thing regardless and what forums were designed to do.

    Now, do you think it would be OK to attempt joining two 6 litre 300 bar bottles together (I can't afford a 12Lt bottle), by drilling and tapping holes in each bottle and joining using them using heavy duty garden hose and jubilee clips?

    Where's me spanners?...

  6. #51
    secretagentmole Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitslayer View Post
    Now, do you think it would be OK to attempt joining two 6 litre 300 bar bottles together (I can't afford a 12Lt bottle), by drilling and tapping holes in each bottle and joining using them using heavy duty garden hose and jubilee clips?

    Where's me spanners?...
    What is the point? that would mean that nobody would test and pass them as fit for use, keep them as 2 x 6 litre bottles, there are ways to join them via tubing on the valves, which is how divers do it I think, but not permanently "Siamesed"

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Poole, Deepest darkest Dooorset
    Posts
    13,613
    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitslayer View Post
    Absolutely unbelievable...

    Anyway...

    I was totally unaware of other airgunners in the Cambs area having the same issues with this dive / test centre. The fact that Jerry has made clear many others have questioned their decisions confirms that it's probably quite a high number of people involved along with quite a healthy amount of cash attached and not just one or two people you assumed / mentioned. So perhaps the 'Conspiracy Handle' is becoming a favourite with those who have experienced their trained specialist services.

    As I keep saying, safety is paramount but that doesn't mean that if something stinks and members want help, advice or clarification from folk on here, they shouldn't feel free to do so and without fear of being jumped on by others who either have misunderstood the topic or who are simply blinded by their own preconceived assumptions which in this case seems to be that I, the OP, am more concerned about saving a few bob over and above my own and others safety - Not the case.

    Now, if others from around this area read this and are made aware that Parwins is the best place to go for a good, straightforward, honest service instead of the 'other' test centre mentioned, I see this as a good thing regardless and what forums were designed to do.

    Now, do you think it would be OK to attempt joining two 6 litre 300 bar bottles together (I can't afford a 12Lt bottle), by drilling and tapping holes in each bottle and joining using them using heavy duty garden hose and jubilee clips?

    Where's me spanners?...
    There's no preconceived assumption here, before this thread existed I didn't have the idea that someone would accuse a test centre of fraud. You're implying this.

    So to move the thread on, phone Idest, ask what you do in that case, citing your concerns about not being able to get the bottle/head back to verify failure and see what they say.

    Then you can report back with some facts and be able to help people in the future when faced with the same situation. All my bottles are in test now so it will be a while before I have the need to do it.

    As I said before, the time you've wasted arguing about the semantics on here you could have picked the phone up and done this. I am not sure why you haven't, but I wouldn't want to jump to any assumptions. At this rate I'm half tempted.

    If you want to go for the Darwin award why not consider cutting the ends off and just welding them together?

  8. #53
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Peterborough
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by JerryD View Post
    Rob;

    what you're not aware of is that the test centre in question has hit a number of our club members with questionable decisions on bottle testing: one was even told that the handle on his valve had to be changed because it was cracked. It was changed without consulting with the bottle owner: he was not consulted first, just presented with the bill.

    That bottles need to be safe is unquestionable: the practice of this test centre is, however. Please don't get into an unneccesary bitchfight with Rabbitslayer over the actions of this test centre - I won't allow the club bottles anywhere near them because of what they have done to club members, and i never recommend them, rather sending people to somewhere further away - or Parwins, when they are available.

    This is just our experience: we're not going to argue with them, just not use them.
    For anyone who might still be interested.. I contacted the IDEST chief engineer regarding my experience as per my opening post. In short the outcome was as follows:

    Q1. Do the DIN threads form part of the test?

    A1. Valve assemblies fixed to the bottles have to be tested. The threads checked are the cylinder threads, valve stem threads and the DIN outlet threads.

    Q2. Is it normal in your experience that DIN outlet threads with such little and very careful use fail. Are they that fragile?

    A2.No not usually, but we often have problems with tolerances. If a male thread has a low end measurement and the thread gauge has a high end measurement then it will indicate a fail and vice versa. They are not fragile but can be damaged.

    Q3.Should the test centre have given me the option to purchase a valve from elsewhere for them to fit free of charge as they would have to refit the valve anyway after disassembly?

    A3. Yes most definitely. All options should be made clear to the customer i.e. source their own preferred valve (free fitment) or test centre to supply.

    Q4. Given that it was only the valve assembly that failed (DIN outlet threads), is it correct that the centre can withhold the bottle (which is OK) or even scrap it if I do not authorise the valve replacement?

    A4. Definitely not. The bottle cannot be withheld by the test centre and should be returned to the customer if this is their wish.

    After talking this through in some detail, we came to the agreement that in terms of the test performed, there is no evidence to say that the test centres findings were not justified, no matter how rare it may be that DIN threads with such low and light use fail.

    However the way in which the test centre chose not to fully inform me (the customer), of all the options open to me along with falsely giving the impression that the bottle would also have to be destroyed was not in my best interest.

    He finished off by saying that IDEST cannot get involved with a business' chosen practices and can only police that testing practices / methods are correctly applied and performed. He did say that he would be including details of this in their monthly news letter / magazine and although he would not be mentioning any names, hopefully, they would recognise the details which might make them look at their ways.. Not convinced but who knows?

    So that's it in a nutshell. Take from that what you will... but I know I'll not be giving them anymore of my money.

    Bye the way, the IDEST engineer was very helpful and informative. He wanted me to pass on (to those interested), that he welcomes anyone who has any concerns around practices or questions regarding testing of bottles to contact him without hesitation.

    His contact details are on the IDEST website ---> https://www.sita.org.uk/idest/

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Poole, Deepest darkest Dooorset
    Posts
    13,613
    Very useful information, thanks. Worth a new post so it can be made into a sticky.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Bath
    Posts
    2,999
    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitslayer View Post
    For anyone who might still be interested.. I contacted the IDEST chief engineer regarding my experience as per my opening post. In short the outcome was as follows:

    Q1. Do the DIN threads form part of the test?

    A1. Valve assemblies fixed to the bottles have to be tested. The threads checked are the cylinder threads, valve stem threads and the DIN outlet threads.

    Q2. Is it normal in your experience that DIN outlet threads with such little and very careful use fail. Are they that fragile?

    A2.No not usually, but we often have problems with tolerances. If a male thread has a low end measurement and the thread gauge has a high end measurement then it will indicate a fail and vice versa. They are not fragile but can be damaged.

    Q3.Should the test centre have given me the option to purchase a valve from elsewhere for them to fit free of charge as they would have to refit the valve anyway after disassembly?

    A3. Yes most definitely. All options should be made clear to the customer i.e. source their own preferred valve (free fitment) or test centre to supply.

    Q4. Given that it was only the valve assembly that failed (DIN outlet threads), is it correct that the centre can withhold the bottle (which is OK) or even scrap it if I do not authorise the valve replacement?

    A4. Definitely not. The bottle cannot be withheld by the test centre and should be returned to the customer if this is their wish.

    After talking this through in some detail, we came to the agreement that in terms of the test performed, there is no evidence to say that the test centres findings were not justified, no matter how rare it may be that DIN threads with such low and light use fail.

    However the way in which the test centre chose not to fully inform me (the customer), of all the options open to me along with falsely giving the impression that the bottle would also have to be destroyed was not in my best interest.

    He finished off by saying that IDEST cannot get involved with a business' chosen practices and can only police that testing practices / methods are correctly applied and performed. He did say that he would be including details of this in their monthly news letter / magazine and although he would not be mentioning any names, hopefully, they would recognise the details which might make them look at their ways.. Not convinced but who knows?

    So that's it in a nutshell. Take from that what you will... but I know I'll not be giving them anymore of my money.

    Bye the way, the IDEST engineer was very helpful and informative. He wanted me to pass on (to those interested), that he welcomes anyone who has any concerns around practices or questions regarding testing of bottles to contact him without hesitation.

    His contact details are on the IDEST website ---> https://www.sita.org.uk/idest/
    So... Will you be publishing your findings to the shop in question via a proverbial "brick with a note wrapped around it through there front window?"! I'd proverbially be driving a challenger tank with a note taped to the front through there window!!!

    Quiet type me
    "corners should be round" Theo Evo .22/.177 - Meopta 6x42, DS huntsman classic .20 vortex razor LH 3-15x42 under supervised boingrati tuning by Tony L & Tinbum, HW77 forest green - Nikon prostaff 2-7x32 plex.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Exeter
    Posts
    23,155
    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitslayer View Post
    Now, do you think it would be OK to attempt joining two 6 litre 300 bar bottles together (I can't afford a 12Lt bottle), by drilling and tapping holes in each bottle and joining using them using heavy duty garden hose and jubilee clips?

    Where's me spanners?...
    Quote Originally Posted by secretagentmole View Post
    What is the point? that would mean that nobody would test and pass them as fit for use, keep them as 2 x 6 litre bottles, there are ways to join them via tubing on the valves, which is how divers do it I think, but not permanently "Siamesed"
    Surely, that couldn't be taken as anything other than the overt sarcasm is so obviously was

  12. #57
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Peterborough
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by rhyslightnin View Post
    So... Will you be publishing your findings to the shop in question via a proverbial "brick with a note wrapped around it through there front window?"! I'd proverbially be driving a challenger tank with a note taped to the front through there window!!!

    Quiet type me
    Tempting.. but, coming from 100% Sicilian stock I'd probably go for a note pinned (with a stiletto blade), to a severed horses head that would be found swinging above the test centre entrance door... but I'm not at all bitter...

    Ciao.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Peterborough
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by angrybear View Post
    Surely, that couldn't be taken as anything other than the overt sarcasm is so obviously was
    I thought it obvious...

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Bath
    Posts
    2,999
    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitslayer View Post
    Tempting.. but, coming from 100% Sicilian stock I'd probably go for a note pinned (with a stiletto blade), to a severed horses head that would be found swinging above the test centre entrance door... but I'm not at all bitter...

    Ciao.
    Hahaha!!! Very good.. many ways to skin a cat. I came from a fairly punk background where the word subtle Was a word to be be taken only as a reason to be even more extravert. Brilliant.
    "corners should be round" Theo Evo .22/.177 - Meopta 6x42, DS huntsman classic .20 vortex razor LH 3-15x42 under supervised boingrati tuning by Tony L & Tinbum, HW77 forest green - Nikon prostaff 2-7x32 plex.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Near Ipswich, Suffolk
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitslayer View Post
    For anyone who might still be interested.. I contacted the IDEST chief engineer regarding my experience as per my opening post. In short the outcome was as follows:

    Q1. Do the DIN threads form part of the test?

    A1. Valve assemblies fixed to the bottles have to be tested. The threads checked are the cylinder threads, valve stem threads and the DIN outlet threads.

    Q2. Is it normal in your experience that DIN outlet threads with such little and very careful use fail. Are they that fragile?

    A2.No not usually, but we often have problems with tolerances. If a male thread has a low end measurement and the thread gauge has a high end measurement then it will indicate a fail and vice versa. They are not fragile but can be damaged.

    Q3.Should the test centre have given me the option to purchase a valve from elsewhere for them to fit free of charge as they would have to refit the valve anyway after disassembly?

    A3. Yes most definitely. All options should be made clear to the customer i.e. source their own preferred valve (free fitment) or test centre to supply.

    Q4. Given that it was only the valve assembly that failed (DIN outlet threads), is it correct that the centre can withhold the bottle (which is OK) or even scrap it if I do not authorise the valve replacement?

    A4. Definitely not. The bottle cannot be withheld by the test centre and should be returned to the customer if this is their wish.

    After talking this through in some detail, we came to the agreement that in terms of the test performed, there is no evidence to say that the test centres findings were not justified, no matter how rare it may be that DIN threads with such low and light use fail.

    However the way in which the test centre chose not to fully inform me (the customer), of all the options open to me along with falsely giving the impression that the bottle would also have to be destroyed was not in my best interest.

    He finished off by saying that IDEST cannot get involved with a business' chosen practices and can only police that testing practices / methods are correctly applied and performed. He did say that he would be including details of this in their monthly news letter / magazine and although he would not be mentioning any names, hopefully, they would recognise the details which might make them look at their ways.. Not convinced but who knows?

    So that's it in a nutshell. Take from that what you will... but I know I'll not be giving them anymore of my money.

    Bye the way, the IDEST engineer was very helpful and informative. He wanted me to pass on (to those interested), that he welcomes anyone who has any concerns around practices or questions regarding testing of bottles to contact him without hesitation.

    His contact details are on the IDEST website ---> https://www.sita.org.uk/idest/
    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    Very useful information, thanks. Worth a new post so it can be made into a sticky.
    Knowing how stuff disappears on the web, I've copied and saved as a word document on my PC (including the link)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •