Open Response to Safety critques of modified SCBA valve for PB tanks from creator of valve

Open Response to Safety critques of modified SCBA valve for PB tanks from creator of valve

Joined: October 9th, 2005, 2:33 pm

May 1st, 2011, 10:46 am #1

Most of you all should remember my recently converted PB tank




A couple of you have had some safety concerns over a valve that I posted for making a PB tank into an SCBA pony tank. So I emailed the person that modifys the valve so that he could give his response to those that have questions. I also know that there are those wishing to purchase a valve from him, and would now lke to see what is said. Sooo below are replies reguarding the safety of his valve mods...


Greg,

Your valve was completely disassembled. The new thread was cut and anodized exceeding the requirements of ISO 10297. Complete cleaning and lubrication was done before assembling the valve. All parts were tightened at the required torque.
ISO 10297 is the document that set the standards for cylinder valves, and that is what I follow. The US and most of the world follows the guidelines in this document. I purchased a copy of the document in 2009 from Switzerland. I did that because nobody from the DOT in Arizona, California or Washington was able to tell me if changing the thread in a gauge was legal. So don't worry the thickness of the thread in your valve, and length is more than required.

I have been questioned before about this issue but mainly because some people think I am hurting their business. I am really not. In the last year I have probably sold 20 of my valves, so that is not what I would consider competition. I could not really sell much more than that as I have a full time job and I don't have the time to turn this into a business.

Just tell whomever asks you that they can do their homework and spend the money as I did if they want to find out what can and can not be done. Anybody can get a licensed copy of any ISO document if willing to pay its price.

On top of all if anybody who has one of my valves is ever not sure about if it is save you could tell them that I will be more than happy to buy it back; besides I have a family, if they were not safe I would not sell them. I would not play with anyone's life or do anything that would affect me and those I care about.

Anyway, I hope I did not sound to angry. If I did I apologize Greg, it is not my intention.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to give my e-mail to anyone who asks about safety. I will be more than happy to explain to them more.

Take care.

O.B.


Then in a Follow up of a request of mine he writes..

Greg,

I forgot to tell you about the wall thickness, I will have to measure it and get back to you.


The valve bodies are made out of aluminum alloy and they are thicker than the regular paintball regulator. When you first look at the valve, the hole look pretty big, but if you look inside you will see that it reduces to less than 1/8 before the o-ring, so compared to paintball regulators it is much stronger... also paintball regulators have safety slots in the threads and/or safety orifices. You would think that DOT would oppose all that because it weakens the regulator but it is the opposite... of course there are reasons for that but that would be another 200-word e-mail.

Cheers.

O.B.


As you can see OB is more than willing to walk over safety specs with anyone that cares to have the conversation whether you're looking to purchase one or just happen to be a critic. I know when we talked he didnt hesitate to answer any questions I had. So I know he would be willing to reply to any questions here reguarding what is required from a safety standpoint.



It is what it is, because it is!!!
Last edited by gregc107 on May 1st, 2011, 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Share

Joined: March 2nd, 2007, 6:18 am

May 1st, 2011, 3:27 pm #2

<p> a similar response. O.B. does exemplary work, and to go as far as getting an ISO license proves he knows, and cares, about what he is doing. </p><p>RicG</p>
Reply
Share

Joined: October 27th, 2003, 11:32 pm

May 1st, 2011, 3:44 pm #3

Most of you all should remember my recently converted PB tank




A couple of you have had some safety concerns over a valve that I posted for making a PB tank into an SCBA pony tank. So I emailed the person that modifys the valve so that he could give his response to those that have questions. I also know that there are those wishing to purchase a valve from him, and would now lke to see what is said. Sooo below are replies reguarding the safety of his valve mods...


Greg,

Your valve was completely disassembled. The new thread was cut and anodized exceeding the requirements of ISO 10297. Complete cleaning and lubrication was done before assembling the valve. All parts were tightened at the required torque.
ISO 10297 is the document that set the standards for cylinder valves, and that is what I follow. The US and most of the world follows the guidelines in this document. I purchased a copy of the document in 2009 from Switzerland. I did that because nobody from the DOT in Arizona, California or Washington was able to tell me if changing the thread in a gauge was legal. So don't worry the thickness of the thread in your valve, and length is more than required.

I have been questioned before about this issue but mainly because some people think I am hurting their business. I am really not. In the last year I have probably sold 20 of my valves, so that is not what I would consider competition. I could not really sell much more than that as I have a full time job and I don't have the time to turn this into a business.

Just tell whomever asks you that they can do their homework and spend the money as I did if they want to find out what can and can not be done. Anybody can get a licensed copy of any ISO document if willing to pay its price.

On top of all if anybody who has one of my valves is ever not sure about if it is save you could tell them that I will be more than happy to buy it back; besides I have a family, if they were not safe I would not sell them. I would not play with anyone's life or do anything that would affect me and those I care about.

Anyway, I hope I did not sound to angry. If I did I apologize Greg, it is not my intention.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to give my e-mail to anyone who asks about safety. I will be more than happy to explain to them more.

Take care.

O.B.


Then in a Follow up of a request of mine he writes..

Greg,

I forgot to tell you about the wall thickness, I will have to measure it and get back to you.


The valve bodies are made out of aluminum alloy and they are thicker than the regular paintball regulator. When you first look at the valve, the hole look pretty big, but if you look inside you will see that it reduces to less than 1/8 before the o-ring, so compared to paintball regulators it is much stronger... also paintball regulators have safety slots in the threads and/or safety orifices. You would think that DOT would oppose all that because it weakens the regulator but it is the opposite... of course there are reasons for that but that would be another 200-word e-mail.

Cheers.

O.B.


As you can see OB is more than willing to walk over safety specs with anyone that cares to have the conversation whether you're looking to purchase one or just happen to be a critic. I know when we talked he didnt hesitate to answer any questions I had. So I know he would be willing to reply to any questions here reguarding what is required from a safety standpoint.



It is what it is, because it is!!!
For all parties concerned with buying one!

Regards,

Tony
Reply
Share

Joined: October 9th, 2005, 2:33 pm

May 1st, 2011, 5:10 pm #4

<p> a similar response. O.B. does exemplary work, and to go as far as getting an ISO license proves he knows, and cares, about what he is doing. </p><p>RicG</p>
had no reguard that OB might of done any research into this at all. Tim was the only one to give some sound advice in lew of him not knowing what was what. He didn't assume the valve was junk science in anyway.

I knew it would be better for him to have his say through me, and I agree with him that he was being hated on because he was trying to make a dollar off of a place he saw a market. Sad how some will do others to try and stiffle an effort to do things imo.

It is what it is, because it is!!!
Reply
Share

Joined: August 14th, 2004, 2:44 am

May 1st, 2011, 11:05 pm #5

Most of you all should remember my recently converted PB tank




A couple of you have had some safety concerns over a valve that I posted for making a PB tank into an SCBA pony tank. So I emailed the person that modifys the valve so that he could give his response to those that have questions. I also know that there are those wishing to purchase a valve from him, and would now lke to see what is said. Sooo below are replies reguarding the safety of his valve mods...


Greg,

Your valve was completely disassembled. The new thread was cut and anodized exceeding the requirements of ISO 10297. Complete cleaning and lubrication was done before assembling the valve. All parts were tightened at the required torque.
ISO 10297 is the document that set the standards for cylinder valves, and that is what I follow. The US and most of the world follows the guidelines in this document. I purchased a copy of the document in 2009 from Switzerland. I did that because nobody from the DOT in Arizona, California or Washington was able to tell me if changing the thread in a gauge was legal. So don't worry the thickness of the thread in your valve, and length is more than required.

I have been questioned before about this issue but mainly because some people think I am hurting their business. I am really not. In the last year I have probably sold 20 of my valves, so that is not what I would consider competition. I could not really sell much more than that as I have a full time job and I don't have the time to turn this into a business.

Just tell whomever asks you that they can do their homework and spend the money as I did if they want to find out what can and can not be done. Anybody can get a licensed copy of any ISO document if willing to pay its price.

On top of all if anybody who has one of my valves is ever not sure about if it is save you could tell them that I will be more than happy to buy it back; besides I have a family, if they were not safe I would not sell them. I would not play with anyone's life or do anything that would affect me and those I care about.

Anyway, I hope I did not sound to angry. If I did I apologize Greg, it is not my intention.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to give my e-mail to anyone who asks about safety. I will be more than happy to explain to them more.

Take care.

O.B.


Then in a Follow up of a request of mine he writes..

Greg,

I forgot to tell you about the wall thickness, I will have to measure it and get back to you.


The valve bodies are made out of aluminum alloy and they are thicker than the regular paintball regulator. When you first look at the valve, the hole look pretty big, but if you look inside you will see that it reduces to less than 1/8 before the o-ring, so compared to paintball regulators it is much stronger... also paintball regulators have safety slots in the threads and/or safety orifices. You would think that DOT would oppose all that because it weakens the regulator but it is the opposite... of course there are reasons for that but that would be another 200-word e-mail.

Cheers.

O.B.


As you can see OB is more than willing to walk over safety specs with anyone that cares to have the conversation whether you're looking to purchase one or just happen to be a critic. I know when we talked he didnt hesitate to answer any questions I had. So I know he would be willing to reply to any questions here reguarding what is required from a safety standpoint.



It is what it is, because it is!!!
for the manufacturer to just say the minimum mandated thickness is _____, the thickness on mine is _____.




Does it exceed the spec by a factor of 2? 1.5? .0000001?



BS
Reply
Share

Joined: October 9th, 2005, 2:33 pm

May 2nd, 2011, 12:36 am #6

I did that in a thread a while back when some one questioned the actual thickness left to reinforce the neck area of the valve. Because he claimed that 1/8" was removed and hinted that no one have any idea about what was being done. Total material thickness at the machine area was more than .500" because the tank itself have a steel neck with a 1.237 overall diameter.

I seem to remember this same kind of thing when AZ came up with his Quickkfill for the Rapid Bottles. Some cried they were unsafe and someone would be injured because those bottles were not meant to have a hole machined into the bottom..etc. there was many excuses as to why it was dangerous. Now what look at what people are doing to quick fill and not have to remove the bottle.

Biker you saw the invite to ask any questions you like of OB about his process and conversation over safety standard. I would suggest you give him a shout if you really are genuinely interested. Mine is fine and still holding air.

Again here is the place: osbiel@cox.net

I really agree with him that sometimes stuff like this takes place because others can at times see folks as a threat to sales here, so they set their buddies off on a chase to discredit things they see as revenue breakers for them.



It is what it is, because it is!!!
Reply
Share

Joined: August 14th, 2004, 2:44 am

May 2nd, 2011, 12:52 am #7

it's not a threat to my sales... as I sell nothing. I have no agenda, stand to gain or lose nothing.

And the dimensions you mention are fine & all.... what is the spec?



BS
Reply
Share

Joined: October 9th, 2005, 2:33 pm

May 2nd, 2011, 1:56 am #8

figure out where that info is, Then you'll know what is and was said!!..

BTW I don't sell anything either,my sole reason for posting this is to give back to airgunners, not rape your pockets for dollars. Also I have no idea why you thought that comment was pointed at you, but cool that you don't sell a thing so you don't have to feel like you were a target. Since you didn't elect to follow my instructions to get more in fo that tells me alot!

You take care.

It is what it is, because it is!!!
Last edited by gregc107 on May 2nd, 2011, 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Share

Joined: March 2nd, 2007, 6:18 am

May 2nd, 2011, 5:19 am #9

for the manufacturer to just say the minimum mandated thickness is _____, the thickness on mine is _____.




Does it exceed the spec by a factor of 2? 1.5? .0000001?



BS
<p>The manufacturer has already done all the testing necessary to certify the valve in the first place for firemen to carry around on their backs in high heat environments. Just having an ISO rating should be enough for anyone who cares enough to look into things. I'll not go into that here as it's not airgun related, but a search of ISO on the net will cover it all. </p><p>RicG</p>
Last edited by wheelsroller on May 2nd, 2011, 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Share

Joined: October 6th, 2007, 2:57 am

May 2nd, 2011, 7:10 am #10

for the manufacturer to just say the minimum mandated thickness is _____, the thickness on mine is _____.




Does it exceed the spec by a factor of 2? 1.5? .0000001?



BS
I did put a lot of time into this... but that was almost a couple of years ago, so I did not memorize all the numbers... I could go back to the documents and post it but I am not going to waist my time.

Just know that the dimensions of the stem connections are not the only thing. Yes the thickness was reduced but also the area of the stem, so if you knew about the relationship between area and pressure and you were willing to calculate a bit you would understand why the threads meet the regulations.

Also you should understand that the 2-minute hydraulic pressure test is only done to 1.5 the working pressure and even a 1/8 thread passes that.

So, it is obvious that with an approved thread there is no danger of stripping the threads. So what is the danger? -Dropping a tank or hitting the valve against another object when installed. That could cause a problem; hence valves are tested for resistance to mechanical impact (If I was you, being concerned, that is what I would had asked about) So, would the valve pass the test now? Of course the answer is simple (something else you for sure you do not know) the concern is only for cylinders with a water capacity greater than 5L. This means that the weight of a paintball cylinder is insignificant, so much so, that Valve Impact Test for their valves is not required. (as they do not have a capacity greater than 5L) Remember that a 90ci bottle has a volume of just under 1.5L

There is a lot more to this but believe me it is too much to share here. It would take me forever and it would only prove the point that I know what I am talking about; which is not that important to me. You can believe me or not, it makes no difference. I am not really interested in being reassuring. I do not need more business. I have my job and I mainly do this for fun, whenever I can.

So enough for this post, I rather post beneficial information to many, and I think for most people out there this one might look like I am speaking in tongues.

Cheers.

O.B.
Last edited by copillas on May 2nd, 2011, 7:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Share