Talk:Diving cylinder

message: 12/14/06
Discussion regarding the phrase copied below:
A diving cylinder (the term which tends to be used by divers) or SCUBA tank (more often used colloquially by non-divers)
As a NOWI Certified Diver and a PADI Certified Diver for more than twenty-five years, I can attest to the fact that I have never heard an American diver or American Oceanographer refer to our "Dive Tanks" as anything other than "Tanks." Therefore, the author's statment as prefaced above in parenthesis may be not be valid.
In any case, the reference to "non-divers" seems a bit unnecessary and sounds more like personal opinion rather than an actual fact.  I recently, reviewed my old dive manuals whereby, the official terminology used here in the USA is "Tank" and not "Cylinder." The only exception I found was at a PADI web site tonight. However, I noticed the date of birth on the registration page of the website is European I.e. day/month/year as opposed to American month/day/year. Therefore,the term cylinder would be more appropriate coming from European divers. There is also a dive master video on the NOWI website regarding equipment. The term tank is being frequently used by the dive master when referring to the breathing unit.  
European divers would generally refer to them as "tanks" - the proper name being a "cylinder" however, its not used in general speaking. Perhaps non-english speakers translate as cylinder?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.72.84 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to indent paragraphs (screws things up if you do). Otherwise you did fine.  I get three times as many Google hits on scuba tank as scuba cylinder. But I do notice that makers and engineers tend to call them cylinders. Perhaps this filters down to those who want to sound like the people who make (and service and hydrotest) the stuff, rather than just use it. SBHarris 08:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should Diving tank  be added as a redirect to this article? --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 08:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think so, and have done so. Along the way I fixed the definitions so that I think everyone will be happy and satisfied. "Gas cylinder" is the generic term used by engineers and the ACGA people who use all kinds of sizes of compressed gas containers, not just the ones for scuba. Even the big H cylinders get called tanks by the non-cognoscenti, but never by people who work on them for a living. The same kind of distinction carries over to scuba. SBHarris 18:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: "Breathing industrial compressed gases can be lethal because the high pressure increases the effect of any impurities in them.". I breath welding oxygen on a regular basis and so do a lot of other people. My research says it's the same oxygen used for both applications. Maybe that should be clarified. 142.165.246.187 16:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would wish to take issue that welding and breathing oxygen can be regarded as the same product. In the UK, USA and Europe there are both civilian and military specifications for welding oxygen and for diving quality oxygen (and medical oxygen). I would suggest that you could safely use diving oxygen and medical oxygen, if you wished, for welding but it would not be sensible to do so as these products are more expensive than welding oxygen. Likewise, you could use industrial grade oxygen (welding oxygen) for diving, however it is not sold (in the UK and Europe) as a breathing gas; and that it would be safer to use one that is sold for that purpose. Perhaps, that partially answers your point.Pyrotec 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My anecdotal experience comes from talking to someone who worked for BOC (British Oxygen Company) some years ago. He maintained that all of the oxygen sold came from the same source, i.e. there was only one process used. The only exception being "Aviation grade" oxygen which had an extra stage of processing to remove any remaining water vapour because of the low temperatures that this oxygen may be exposed to. So medical, breathing and welding oxygen all came out of the same pipe. The catch was that BOC rented large cylinders to the end-user to hold the oxygen; when empty, these would simply be swapped for a full one. There was no procedure for ensuring that the cylinder was clean for customers who purchased welding oxygen, while the "higher" grades had the cylinders cleaned regularly. All of this seems to make commercial sense to me, so I have no reason to dispute his claims. Bottom line: you have a good chance of getting the same oxygen when breathing "welding grade", but no guarantees. RexxS (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The pipe bit" is not the whole story; as you say an important part of the filling process is ensuring that the cylinder is clean before it is filled. Any hospital or dive shop that "plugs" a patient or diver into a cylinder of welding grade oxygen is going to get a large legal bill if someone suffers as a consequence. If its a proper medical or diving cylinder, then BOC or its competitors carry the consequences of "dirty" product being supplied. Pyrotec (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Diving Oxygen

message: To calculate the quantity of gas:
  quantity of gas = volume x pressure
But:
 3 litres * 200 bar = 60 kilojoules
Should the article clear this up?
Also we might want to include some mention of the energy content (compressed air) of scuba tanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glueball (talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 July 2007(UTC)
: The formula only works in metric units - it's just Boyle's Law (and subject to the same limitations). Should be
:: "Volume of gas at atmospheric pressure = (cylinder volume) x (cylinder pressure) / (atmospheric pressure)"
: I'll change it. And it would be of interest to show the energy stored in a cylinder - maybe with some comparisons to TNT, etc.? RexxS (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This assumes a ideal gas. Air at 200 or 300bar is NOT an ideal gas. So 10L at 300bar ends up at only about 2700L air, a full 10% shy of the teoretical 3000L! --StefanHuszics (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true and it's mentioned in the article. At 232 bar, the deviation from ideal gas law linearity is about 5% (assuming temperatures around 300 K). There's an article Compressibility factor that has lots of good data. --RexxS (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gas quantity calculations 

message: The formula and example are wrong, imho. They miss the point that ambient pressure should include the contribution of the weight of air above the water. In metric terms, you need to add 1 bar (or atmosphere - I know they're strictly not the same). The current formula leads to the conclusion that you can breathe off the cylinder for an infinite time at a depth of 0 metres! I would suggest:
AP = D * g * rho + atmospheric pressure
in proper units. However, gravity and water density are near constant compared to other variables, so this approximates to:
AP = D / 10 + 1
for all practical purposes. Remember that analogue depth gauges and analogue pressure gauges have errors both in linearity and readability, so there's little point in trying for absolute accuracy here when other variables can easily be out by 5% or more. Not forgetting of course that "depth gauges" work by measuring ambient pressure anyway, so correcting for water pressure is pointless as you really ought to correct the depth read by the same factor in the opposite direction - unless somebody has invented a dive computer that knows if it's diving in fresh or salt water. And of course, the biggest variable is breathing rate, which is difficult to keep within +/- 10% even for the most experienced divers.
Finally, there's no point in using the term (CP-AP) when CP is much greater than AP in all practical circumstances. If the purpose of this section is an illustration of how dives may be planned (rather than a sterile demonstration of how long before a cylinder becomes unusable), may I suggest that (CP-RP), where RP is the reserve pressure, would give more real-life information to the beginner and non-diver alike?
RexxS (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breathing Time 

message: I'm looking at trying to clarify the sentence "From August 2008, these shall be required for all diving equipment used with Nitrox or pure oxygen."
The word that needs clarification is required. Required for what?
EN 144-3:2003 (ISBN: 0 580 41367 5) Respiratory protective devices. Gas cylinder valves. Outlet connections for diving gases Nitrox and oxygen does not address 'requirements' and is not legislation per se. It is true that if equipment is to be CE certified from August 2008, then it must comply with this European Norm. Note, though, that it says nothing about procedures for filling cylinders or using them safely. It certainly does not make the use of M25x2 connections illegal when used for nitrox or O2.
The EN which deals with requirements is in fact, EN 13949:2003 (ISBN: 0 580 41368 3) Respiratory equipment. Open-circuit self-contained diving apparatus for use with compressed Nitrox and oxygen. Requirements, testing, marking. It is interesting to see what EN 13949:2003 says about cylinder connections:
4.4 Pressure vessel valve(s)
Pressure vessel valve(s) shall comply with appropriate national or European Regulations and shall be approved and tested for use at the rated working pressure and pure oxygen.
The threads for connecting the pressure vessel(s) and the valve(s) shall be M 18 x 1,5 or M 25 x 2 as specified in EN 144-1.
Safe connection between the pressure vessel valve(s) and the demand regulator shall be ensured by using the connections as defined in EN 144-3.
So a little bit of drafting inexactitude? Both norms published on the same date, but the latter (although mentioning EN 144-3) fails to include M26x2 threads as permissible!
--RexxS (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of pillar valve - EN 144-3:2003 

message: Although "Spare Air" is a trademark, that doesn't prevent the phrase being used in Wikipedia. Since the Spare Air is the only device of its type that I'm aware of, I'm unable to find a generic term to describe it. A "micro-aqualung" doesn't fit, since googling for that only brings up hits for the magical device used by James Bond in Thunderball or something similar used in Pokemon. I've referred to Spare Air by name and cited the website as the source. I must say that although I regard these devices as almost worthless, they exist and divers do use them, so they deserve a mention in the article. --RexxS (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are Bail-Out Bottles. Regardless of size.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.236.2 (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Spare Air

message: For an article that is 36 kilobytes in size, there is a woeful lack of referencing to reliable sources. When assessing the article on the quality scale, I had difficulty in deciding if it should be a stub or start-class. There is one undoubtedly reliable source, but that is to a study mainly concerning impurities in the breathing gas (and is more relevant to the article on compressors). If there really is such a lack of sources, then perhaps this topic is not notable enough to warrant an article? --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The references are out there, but editors have choosen to add material without providing citations. Pyrotec (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: File:Sportsways "Waterlung" Regulator from 1960.jpg ‎
File:"J" Valve on Diving Cylinder from 1960s.jpg
These are two photographs which may add clarity and interest to the text of "Diving Cylinder".  They are my photographs of my equipment taken yesterday, 2010-07-22, and are made available to you with my blessings.  All substantiating paperwork is included in the "Gallery" with the .jpg images themselves.
As was mentioned, "J" Valves are not normally found today on modern equipment.  However "J" Valves were incorporated in the earliest SCUBA gear from the time of Jacques Yves Cousteau and Emile Gagnon original invention and were the normal reserve systems until they became obsolete when high quality diving computers incorporating tank pressure gauges made them superfluous.
John W. Goodspeed
"TheGoodspeeds
(TheGoodspeeds (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs of "J" Valves.  1) incorporated in regulator, and 2) "J" Valve on Diving Cylinder. 

message: It's generally accepted that EU regulations require a diving cylinder to have a label that describes its contents. We know this because dive shops tell us so when we take in an old cylinder for a fill or test. However, here in the UK, it's not well-known what the relevant legislation actually says about diving cylinders, not least because it's not immediately obvious what the actual regulation number is.
There's a good leaflet from the UK Health and Safety Executive (INDG308(rev1) 4/02 C250), which is free to reproduce as long as the HSE is credited. A copy can be found online at http://www.lambaydiving.com/ukhse.pdf and it summarises the regulations that apply to the manufacture, testing, filling, and transportation of gas cylinders.
The standard EN 1089 Gas Cylinder Identification sets out the EU requirements for stamp marking, precautionary labels and colour coding. There's a summary online at http://www.ukdivers.net/equipment/cylinders.htm which is usually pretty accurate, but I wouldn't feel comfortable using it as a Wikipedia reliable source. I'll take a trip to the library this week to see if I can find the wording of the actual regulation. --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU regulations 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Diving cylinder's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "NOAA":
From Scuba diving: NOAA Diving Manual, 4th Edition, Best Publishing, 2001
From Scuba gas planning: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, (); NOAA Diving Manual, Fourth Edition, U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Diving cylinder]] 

message: Re. the following text under "Manifolded twin set/doubles with two regulators":
"The pros of this configuration include [1] a large gas supply, [2] no requirement to change regulators underwater, [3] automatic gas supply management, and [4] in most failure situations the diver may close a failed valve or isolate a cylinder in order to leave himself with an emergency supply."
Let me use "manifolds" to mean a twin tank system where the two tanks are joined by a manifold; and "independents" to mean a twin tank system where the two tanks are totally independent.
* [1], as stated, is just not true as an advantage of manifolds over independents. Two tanks, manifolded, have no more total gas than the same two tanks rigged independently. I suspect the author was actually thinking of [4].
* [4] is true, but doesn't actually state the critical benefit of manifolds - namely, that closing valves or isolating cyclinders generally lets you retain access to *all* the remaining gas *on both sides* - unlike independents, where a failure on one side will generally result in losing access to all the gas on the failed side.
* [3] is a poor choice of words. Most technical divers would understand "gas management" as meaning a range of things, such as, choosing the right size tanks for the dive; filling them to adequate pressures; being aware of differing personal gas consumption rates for different members of the team or group; following the "rule of thirds" when entering overhead environments, and so on. None of those things are specific to manifolds. All of them are equally applicable to independents.
I suggest replacing the quoted text with something like this:
"The pros of this configuration include: automatic balancing of the gas supply between the two tanks; thus, no requirement to constantly change regulators underwater during the dive; and in most failure situations, the diver may close a failed valve or isolate a cylinder and thus retain access to all the remaining gas in both the tanks."
TC 203.122.223.123 (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your well reasoned and constructive comment. It has been used in the article almost as stated. The advantage of a larger gas supply is valid when compared with a single cylinder (in most cases) and has been changed to specify that point. Gas management would include the balancing of available gas during a dive, but your version is unambiguous and an improvement on the original text. Please feel welcome to make further comments on any of the diving articles, and when you have an improvement which is unlikely to be controversial, you are free to edit the article yourself. It will be checked, and may be modified again, that is how this wiki works. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor "advantages" for manifolds 

message: 132.3.29.79 posted this comment on 1 August 2013 (view all feedback).
The web page could benifit from US equivalent information, as it caters to metric users. While the Aluminim 80 is mentioned almost as an afterthought, common tank sizes such as a steel 100 and steel 120 are completely missing. Also missing is a discusion of low pressure vs high pressure steel tanks.
This is a good point. Any volunteers? This equipment is not used much in my part of the world. Alternatively point me at a good reference. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Found some refs and added some content. Any comments? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader feedback: The web page could benifit f... 

message: The list gives the impression that these are the same for every cylinder of this type. This is frankly not correct. I have several sets of 12l tanks weighing ~14kgs. 
They generally seem to be about two KGs too heavy. Maybe this can be reworded to make clear that this is an example, because the general message is still true.
 
But overall, I do not see why there even needs to be this full table. I think it might suffice to say that 1L of tank volume at 200 Bars corresponds to ~250 grams of air, and maybe show the common 10/12/AL80s in comparison. --Data2 (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table showing the buoyancy of diving cylinders in water when empty and full of air. 

message: The article meets the six B-Class criteria:
#The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.
#The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article.
#The article has a defined structure. Content is organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
#The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly.
#The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are adequate. Diagrams and an infobox etc. are included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
#The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with a broad audience in mind. The article does not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms are explained.
If anyone disagrees, please specify where it falls short, so it can be fixed. 
Suggestions for upgrade to A-class are welcome. It is probably pretty close already.
• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Peter. We don't have A-class criteria for WikiProject Scuba - only the big projects like Military History have the resources to undertake rigorous reviews like that. However, it would certainly be a good experience for you to look at taking this article through the Good Article Nomination process - the six Wikipedia:Good article criteria are not too different from the B-class criteria, but you have an external reviewer who makes the final judgement. It's a fast way to iron out the minor wrinkles that may be present and helps maintain consistency of quality across different topics in Wikipedia. Having been through it a few times myself, I'd be more than happy to lend a hand if you decide to go down that route. --RexxS (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I will give it a go. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few outstanding citations, some for things for which I have no references, but are probably true and uncontroversial, just uncited. How do we deal with this? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ask , of course! If sources exist, I'm willing to bet that Gene knows where to find them. If he can't find sources, take out the cn tags that you placed for anything you think is uncontroversial. Should facts then be challenged at GA review, the correct action would be to remove the text (and put it on the talk page, pending sources being found). Take a look at the three GA reviews at Talk:Oxygen toxicity/Archive 1 and you'll get some idea of the process of refinement that a review provides for the article (and how valuable it is to have Gene as a collaborator). What I learned there allowed me to take the oxygen toxicity article to Featured Article status soon after. --RexxS (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of the unreferenced items relate to EU requirements/standards, which tend to be rather expensively paywalled, so I will just remove the cn for things that are unlikely to be challenged, like the Hydro test period in Norway. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Upgraded to B-class

message: Starting a list of illustrations which could improve the article. Just in case it encourages people to upload them to Commons.
*Photos of diving cylinders at various stages of manufacture.
*Exotic or unusual cylinders and configurations.
Please feel free to add to this list and strikethrough items as they become available on commons, even if not actually used in this article. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations wanted 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Diving cylinder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018035711/http://xsscuba.com:80/downloads/cylinder_specs/catalina.pdf to http://www.xsscuba.com/downloads/cylinder_specs/catalina.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150415190644/https://www.divegearexpress.com/library/tanks.shtml to http://www.divegearexpress.com/library/tanks.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151226215532/http://www.hawaii.edu/ehso/diving/Cracking%20and%20Ruptures%20of%20SCBA%20and%20SCUBA%20Aluminum%20Cylinders.pdf to http://www.hawaii.edu/ehso/diving/Cracking%20and%20Ruptures%20of%20SCBA%20and%20SCUBA%20Aluminum%20Cylinders.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151225165352/http://www.luxfercylinders.com/about-luxfer to http://www.luxfercylinders.com/about-luxfer#about163
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160127151055/http://www.psicylinders.com/inspectors/library/16-cylinders-are-hazmat to http://www.psicylinders.com/inspectors/library/16-cylinders-are-hazmat
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150617213357/http://www.luxfercylinders.com:80/support/technical-bulletins/4-sustained-load-cracking-slc-in-ruptured-scuba-cylinder-made-from-6351-aluminum-alloy to http://www.luxfercylinders.com/support/technical-bulletins/4-sustained-load-cracking-slc-in-ruptured-scuba-cylinder-made-from-6351-aluminum-alloy
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xsscuba.com/tank_steel_specs_metric.html#2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Diving cylinder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xsscuba.com/downloads/cylinder_specs/catalina.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161104080007/http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_reg/ohasa85o1993rangnr41716/ to http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_reg/ohasa85o1993rangnr41716/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.luxfercylinders.com/support/technical-bulletins/4-sustained-load-cracking-slc-in-ruptured-scuba-cylinder-made-from-6351-aluminum-alloy
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xsscuba.com/tank_steel_specs_metric.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Diving cylinder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924020808/http://www.gasdiving.co.uk/pages/misc/kit/cylinder.htm to http://www.gasdiving.co.uk/pages/misc/kit/cylinder.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.imca-int.com/%28F%28HgoxzyeluluOK_Nh2f6_zim-2B84gkOvCTu_AmwHNcKDtdlHYtGfqT-wmnIrcBoQE0ipE1nbMQerGIKG2VBUAyxvfXjbagbYuWkWR7ajBSMlpv65vptXhWARBOd7Y7opa-v9UX7emzJTcA9qeePkvrwLsv_G1ymrPxbJKe_w__w1%29%29/media/71123/imcad043.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I know, most divers use the term "tank", which is incorrect usage, but we all know what they mean, and I use it myself simply because it doesn't sound as "geeky" as cylinder.
By CGA, PSI, DOT, and OSHA standards, all of which govern the scuba cylinder industry, a "TANK" is a permanently attached vessel.  A "CYLINDER" is a portable, mobile vessel.   For example:  My RV burns LP gas.  It has a TANK that is mounted to the vehicle frame.  It can't be easily removed and is considered to be an integral part of the vehicle. When I get ready to fill the tank, I drive to the truck stop and fill the RV tank up with LP gas.   
A forklift that runs on LP gas uses a CYLINDER.  It's strapped onto the back of the forklift, and when it's empty, I don't take the whole fork lift to the gas station.  I take the 30 lbs cylinder off and just replace it with a full one that's stored in the supply room.   When they're empty, I throw them on the back of the truck and go get them filled.
My gas grill uses a 20 lbs CYLINDER.   When it;s empty, I take it off and go have it filled.  I don't take the entire grill with me to the fill station.
A car has a fuel TANK.  It isn't detachable.
Since I'm PSI/PCI certified, I go by their terminology when in formal conversation.  Hanging around the dive shop It doesn't matter, tank or cylinder's is all the same to most people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.248.75 (talk • contribs) 
:It is not clear what point you are trying to make here. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: OK Here is the scoop

message: Hi. I am going through Good Articles with clean up tags on them. Currently we have an expand section tag under the "Surface finish, colour-coding and labeling" sub heading asking for more info on   Looking at the article we are sitting at 68KB readable prose. We are into the probably should be divided territory (and considering this is an article on one piece of Scuba equipment an argument could probably be made that it falls short focus wise). Anyway I was wondering whether we really need more info on surface finish. From a bigger picture point of view, has there been any thought to splitting this? AIRcorn (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I have been considering splitting out the content on valves to scuba cylinder valve. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for late reply. I would encourage any splitting you see necessary here to keep this more aligned with summary style. AIRcorn (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Better late than never. I will try to remember to get round to it soonish. Splitting out Scuba cylinder valve would remove about 18KB, but the summary would put a bit back. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand section tag 

message: :, I have been considering splitting out the content on valves to scuba cylinder valve. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for late reply. I would encourage any splitting you see necessary here to keep this more aligned with summary style. AIRcorn (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Better late than never. I will try to remember to get round to it soonish. Splitting out Scuba cylinder valve would remove about 18KB, but the summary would put a bit back. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed split