# Co2 Cylinder Screw-down Valve: Your Worst Nightmare



## cooperplace (19/5/09)

Like lots of people, I use a fire extinguisher (with pickup tube removed) to gas my kegs. I squeeze the 2 levers to turn on the CO2. BUT, the tiny little valve inside is doing a completely different job from that which it was designed for. As an extinguisher, it has intermittent use at most, but I use it all the time. So I'm having to have the valve rebuilt every time it is refilled.

Why not fit a screw down valve, you say? 

First, the valves used on beverage CO2 cylinders are completely different and don't fit. 

I've spent the day on the phone and at the workshop of my friendly fire extinguisher guy, trying to work out how to do it. He told me that there about 8 different threads on C02 extinguisher cylinders in Australia, not including aluminium-bodied valves, now condemned. 

My extinguisher is a 3.5kg Chubb, made in Sydney in 1988. It's aluminium, they nearly all are. What sort of thread does it have? I called Chubb, and eventually found someone in Chubb Melbourne who told me that they were made for Chubb by CIG, now BOC. I called BOC, an exercise in frustration until I got onto the wonderful Eleanor in customer service who said that the extinguisher factory was taken over by Luxfer in 1989, and gave me the Luxfer number.

So I called Luxfer and spoke to a very switched-on lady, I don't know her name, who said, yes, it will have either a 1" taper, 14 threads/inch, or a parallel thread, 3/4" NGS. And that if the flange on the valve is pushed down hard onto the shoulder at the top of the tank (no threads showing), it is parallel. If threads are showing (they're not) it is taper. The numbers stamped on the extinguisher don't help, she said, as CIG used the same numbers for two different extinguishers.

As an aside, blokes, please note that the best information came from the two ladies I spoke with.

Interestingly my extinguisher guy has given me a lever-type valve identical to mine (my cylinder is stilll half-full so I'm leaving it alone for now) and I found that a 3/4" BSB female compression fitting screws 99.9% perfectly onto it. It just seems a teensy weensy bit loose. Is that acceptable with CO2 under pressure?? Ha ha I think not.

So now I know that my cylinder has the very unusual 3/4" NGS (national gas straight, a US std) so I must get a valve with that, and an Oz type 30 outlet. What are my chances?

I am trying Gas Cylinders UK who claim they can find a valve for any thread 

http://gascylindersuk.co.uk/store/catalog/...b6fac0a6aa5b6b8

but I'm not holding my breath. 

I could go mad if this goes on. It might be easier to buy Ebay item 280345152266, 2.6 kg cylinder for sale for $149.95 from Beerbrewonline, (complete with screw down valve) and they have regulators for $60, great prices. BTW I have no affiliation whatsoever with these people, indeed I've never spoken with them.

If I get a good reply from Gas Cylinders UK when I call them tonight, I'll do another post asking if anyone else can use such a valve.

Meanwhile, does anyone know of some place local where I could get a CO2 screw-down valve with 3/4 NGS on the cylinder side and type 30 on the outlet?

Peter


----------



## manudh (19/5/09)

I could probably make you an adapter from the exotic threads you use to the more common threading used in valves
-> http://www.stainlessstuff.net


----------



## bigfridge (19/5/09)

peterspeck said:


> Like lots of people, I use a fire extinguisher (with pickup tube removed) to gas my kegs. I squeeze the 2 levers to turn on the CO2. BUT, the tiny little valve inside is doing a completely different job from that which it was designed for. As an extinguisher, it has intermittent use at most, but I use it all the time. So I'm having to have the valve rebuilt every time it is refilled.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Hi Peter,

Thanks for your very detailed post - it really tells the story.

I would suggest that you can easily buy a valve from someone like kegs-on-legs (available from your local brew shop) and you will find that the valve comes with a free, fully tested, new cylinder attached as a bonus.

 

It really concerns me that people are taking a device designed for occasional use and using it for gassing kegs on almost a daily basis. If fire extinguishers need to be inspected on a yearly basis when they haven't been used, how often do you think that they should be inspected if they are used regularly.  

HTH
David


----------



## TidalPete (19/5/09)

Very interesting.
Take a look HERE

TP


----------



## cooperplace (19/5/09)

bigfridge said:


> Hi Peter,
> 
> Thanks for your very detailed post - it really tells the story.
> 
> ...




You make a good point. I'm very aware that high-pressure gas is to be taken seriously, and yes, the brand-new tank + valve looks attractive,

Peter


----------



## smollocks (19/5/09)

Why not just buy the screw-down valve you want, and have someone tap a compatible female thread into the neck of the extinguisher?


----------



## browndog (19/5/09)

smollocks said:


> Why not just buy the screw-down valve you want, and have someone tap a compatible female thread into the neck of the extinguisher?



Even if you went to such a rediculous amount of trouble to get an adapter to fit a screw down valve to a fire extinguisher, do you think anyone with a brain in their head is going to fill it for him? I think not.

cheers

Browndog


----------



## claymen (19/5/09)

Honestly so long as the integrity is maintained and a cylinder place can stamp it then no one should care. This is what shits me a little bit, seems that there are plenty of places to get cheap tanks but the major refilling places won't touch any "unknown" brand tanks even if they are 100% legal and stamped properly. It honestly comes across as the big boys trying to price fix the tanks.

A tank is a tank, if its tested ok what is the damn issue?


----------



## Linz (19/5/09)

Guys,
from being in the fire industry...the point some may have missed is..Bugger the pressure its under, It boils off at -85oC..Instant frost bite, bits turning black before your very eyes and falling off, on to the floor in front of you.

I do have a video somewhere showing a 5.0kg CO2 bottle(full) being shot from distance and discharging its contents.

.also have been no more than 8ft from a 3.5kg co2 let go(safety device/bursting disc) due to excessive heat of direct sunlight!


----------



## cooperplace (19/5/09)

Hi everyone,

I've just been talking to Gas Cylinders UK (the website claims: "valves available for any thread size on request") but guess what: "NGS 3/4", no sorry, we only do the standard one" so it looks like I'll be buying a new CO2 cylinder from a retailer, as discussed above.

Also, I've been viewing an interesting video on U-tube: 



Admittedly it is an O2 cylinder that exploded, but heck, the pressure's the issue. It ripped the guy's arm off. It makes you think.

Peter


----------



## crundle (19/5/09)

I have been doing some research on this issue also, and have had the thread measured on the neck of my 5kg fire extinguisher as being 3/4" BSP (parallel). The type 30 fittings are 3/4" tapered. This presents a problem in that no one seems to be able to say with certainty whether or not a tapered fitting is suitable for use in a parallel thread, but my research has shown that according to ISO standards, tapered fittings are OK to use in parallel threads, as the seal is made by the thread itself, unlike the parallel fitting on my fire extinguisher currently, which seals at the end of the thread and was not a very tight fitting to undo when the bottle was empty.

The question that I am asking myself is, is it worth the money to get a type 30 fitting and it may or may not seal properly anyway (financial concern), and is it worth the money to take the risk that it may let go on me one day?

I think this is a question for each person individually. I know of some people who have used the type 30 fittings successfully, so I assume they do work, but just as those who don't consider it safe to use fire extinguishers per se may have a higher safety threshold than myself, is the use of a fitting not designed for a fire extinguisher a bridge too far in comparison with using a fire extinguisher's original parts in a role they were not designed for?

I have had the small valve in the top of the fire extinguisher pin go on me 4 times now. I have heard that you can use a slightly larger O ring on the valve and this can fix the problem, but I am unaware of what size it needs to be, so this may be an alternate way around the problem.

Here are some pics of the thread in the neck of the extinguisher







Here is the trigger assembled




Here is the inside of the trigger head looking from below




The valve stem




The base of the valve - this is designed to be closed for long periods and held in place by the spring




The top O ring - this is the bit that often fails me, and is probably designed to seal gas from exiting the trigger plunger for the time it takes to empty an extinguisher (60 seconds?) If this was replaced with a larger O ring, it may seal more effectively. think of it this way, if the original can seal for 6 months in the open position when it is designed to only work for 60 seconds, then a *slightly* larger one should hold for much longer again before it finally fails.




Exploded view




It seems to make no difference to my setup whether or not I keep the gas on the whole time. When I use it on demand, I am making the valve (and the O ring) move up and down which eventually leads to gas leaking past the O ring - flat beer. If I leave it on the whole time (longest has been 6 months with no issues, then at random it seems to start losing gas), eventually the gas works its way past the O ring and again - flat beer.

Perhaps it is safer to look at the option of replacing the original issue O ring with one that will hold the seal longer rather than mucking about with threads that are difficult to identify firstly, and parts that are near impossible to come by secondly (type 30 fittings). vented gas is vented gas, but an O ring is far cheaper to replace than the head of the unit, and if it stops the leaks, then it is fine in my books.

I hope that one day we can sort out this problem, as I for one hate coming home and finding I have no gas in my kegs when I go to pour a beer.

Crundle


----------



## bigfridge (19/5/09)

peterspeck said:


> Also, I've been viewing an interesting video on U-tube:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Peter,

Compressed gasses is a complex area - one that should not be simplified or underestimated. There is a vast difference between CO2 and Oxygen cylinders. CO2 is a liquid in the cylinder under the normal pressure of 600 PSI. Oxygen remains a gas under a much greater pressure - 3,000 PSI from memory.

The transport and storage of these gases is a specialised area of engineering and tampering with the design parameters by 'cutting new threads' or 'fitting new valves' is a recipe for disaster. There may have been some justification years ago when there were few alternatives available but now there is no excuse to be foolish.

If you cant afford to purchase a cylinder designed and approved for Australian conditions then you shouldn't be kegging - bottles are much cheaper and less life threatening.

To steal a worthy quotation - Don't send your good brewers to heaven, as heaven knows we need them here !

Dave


----------



## Leigh (20/5/09)

It astonishes me that people in this thread are _annoyed_ when they come home to an empty CO2 extinguisher...do people realise that this is a lethal recipe? An extinguisher discharging in a small can lead to CO2 concentrations at levels that can cause asphyxiation...people may have a "high danger level", but should they be exposing the rest of their family/housemates/guests to this danger?

Sometimes I think homebrewers are tightarses, this thread goes a long way to proving that!


----------



## mje1980 (20/5/09)

Don't want to jump on the bandwagon, but playing around with pressurised containers is a bit crazy if you ask me. I rent one, it's 100 bucks a year, or 2 bucks a week, no big deal, and every 18 months i replace it with a full one for 40 bucks. 

Obviously if you are miles from a gas place, it might make it difficult, but it's a bit of a risk.


----------



## quincy (20/5/09)

QUOTE (bigfridge @ May 19 2009, 08:25 AM) 
Hi Peter,

Thanks for your very detailed post - it really tells the story.

I would suggest that you can easily buy a valve from someone like kegs-on-legs (available from your local brew shop) and you will find that the valve comes with a free, fully tested, new cylinder attached as a bonus.



It really concerns me that people are taking a device designed for occasional use and using it for gassing kegs on almost a daily basis. If fire extinguishers need to be inspected on a yearly basis when they haven't been used, how often do you think that they should be inspected if they are used regularly. 

HTH
David


Gotta agree with bigfridge.

I hire a D size "beergas"cylinder from BOC. Costs me $10.87 per month and refills are around $35. I refill about every 18 months.

Advantages:

1. Refills are completely hassle free.
2. I don't risk anyones safety - hate to think what might happen with a dodgy setup  
3. If your concerned about cost, based on my circumstances, it's about $3 per keg. A small price to pay given the above 2 points.

Cheers
Q


----------



## crundle (20/5/09)

Leigh said:


> It astonishes me that people in this thread are _annoyed_ when they come home to an empty CO2 extinguisher...do people realise that this is a lethal recipe? An extinguisher discharging in a small can lead to CO2 concentrations at levels that can cause asphyxiation...people may have a "high danger level", but should they be exposing the rest of their family/housemates/guests to this danger?
> 
> Sometimes I think homebrewers are tightarses, this thread goes a long way to proving that!



My equipment is in an open area, so no issue with CO2 concentrations for me, but I get the point you are making, and it is valid. However, you can just as easily have a leak from the hoses or fittings with a commercially available cylinder, so both can be dangerous in regards to gas leaks.

Homebrewers tightarses? I would think most were in some regard, or many would never have started making their own beers. Sure, as they go along most learn to spend a bit more on better equipment or ingredients so as to make better quality beers, but there is still the incentive of making better beers for less money driving many people in homebrewing to this day. 

In all the years that people have been using fire extinguishers to gas their kegs, I have not heard of any fatalities or near fatalities on this forum. The worst that seems to occur is that the extinguisher loses gas, and as this is a very real possibility, precautions such as location of the extinguisher and ventilation must be taken into account, but these are precautions that surely one would also take for a commercially available CO2 cylinder also if they were prudent.

I see no reason why people shouldn't experiment within reason to adapt an object to another use to make beer with. Safety concerns are the reason that I am hesitant to fit a type 30 valve to my extinguisher until I can be shown that it is at least no more dangerous than the existing fire extinguisher head for flying off. If it wasn't for such experimentation, we would not have BIAB or no chill cubing.

cheers,

Crundle


----------



## claymen (20/5/09)

Leigh said:


> It astonishes me that people in this thread are _annoyed_ when they come home to an empty CO2 extinguisher...do people realise that this is a lethal recipe? An extinguisher discharging in a small can lead to CO2 concentrations at levels that can cause asphyxiation...people may have a "high danger level", but should they be exposing the rest of their family/housemates/guests to this danger?
> 
> Sometimes I think homebrewers are tightarses, this thread goes a long way to proving that!


If you have a leak then you haven't done it properly in the first place, regardless of whether its a fire extinguisher or not if your seals are not done properly you will have the same issue.



mje1980 said:


> Don't want to jump on the bandwagon, but playing around with pressurised containers is a bit crazy if you ask me. I rent one, it's 100 bucks a year, or 2 bucks a week, no big deal, and every 18 months i replace it with a full one for 40 bucks.
> 
> Obviously if you are miles from a gas place, it might make it difficult, but it's a bit of a risk.


 Starts to add up over the course of a couple years.



bigfridge said:


> Hi Peter,
> 
> Thanks for your very detailed post - it really tells the story.
> 
> ...


From memory the fire extinguishes are checked every year to make sure they have pressure so that in the event of an emergency they are actually usable. It doesn't hurt that they test them every year but its not because they are concerned of the tank exploding but more that they work when there is a fire. With that said I don't remember them ever taking the ones from our work away, they simply did a routine check onsite and stamped the tag which has 5 years of date stamp space on it.

In any case I picked up a CO2 tank 3.5kg for $160 from a local cylinder testing place. Looks like it might have been a fire extinguisher tank once upon a time but in any case it had all the correct fittings to suit your standard CO2 reg and is stamped and within code. He sells a lot of them to the homebrew guys so he knows what they are being used for and said its not an issue.


----------



## Leigh (20/5/09)

Yes the risk is less when in a large or open area, but people consider this route need to understand the potential issues. Likewise a leak after the regulator will be much slower and much less dangerous than one before the regulator...it's a rate thing leading to a concentration thing...

I have no issue with a certified tester making a CO2 cylinder out of whatever is available that he knows is safe, it is the home tinkerers above that worry me...

So there are 10,000 members of this forum, how many have been injured by bottle bombs? How many have burned themselves severely while brewing? How many have electrocuted themselves while brewing? How many have died while brewing...Who tells us abouty the non fatal accidents? What happened to all those forum members that no longer post? Can you be certain you know the answers?

That said I'm sure it would make the news somewhere had someone died, but a lack of deaths does not reduce the risk. Having seen with my own eyes the aftermath of pressurised vessels letting go, I wouldn't take the risk of modifying a fire extinguisher myself...


----------



## claymen (20/5/09)

Fair enough, its hard to tell whether people are against using fire extinguishers at all or whether its just the DIY aspect of it. Honestly I thought most people were smart enough to get the modifications done by a cylinder place such that its safe, then again really so long as the bottle itself isn't modified and correct adapters are used I don't see there being too much issue (assuming the fittings are suitable for pressurized gasses).


----------



## MHB (20/5/09)

Being a refiller this is a subject that I have a vested interest in.
Workcover NSW has just put out some interim rulings, soon these will be finalised and adopted Australia wide.

Where it gets really interesting form my point of view is that the onus is being placed squarely on the shoulders of refillers to insure compliance with the relevant Australian standards (in this case AS 2030 and AS 1777C). Work Cover only has control/oversight of what happens in the "Work Place" so effectively selling non-compliant bottles to domestic users isn't illegal, refilling them is.

If you want all the details you can read the two Australian Standards referred to above, with particular reference to AS 2030.1-2009 Gas Cylinders Part1: General requirements (if you don't want to buy it most large municipal and educational libraries have access).

Where it gets really interesting is that Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 and OHS Regulation 2001 must be adhered to, failure to comply can lead to penalties up to $27,500 that's just for filling noncompliant cylinders.
The following is an extract from an email I received on this topic:-



> The above legislation sets out the minimum requirements for gas cylinders before they can be legally filled i.e. put under pressure these being:
> 
> 1) The gas cylinder design must have a current design registration number from WorkCover (clauses 136 and 107)
> 
> ...



Further reading of point 1 indicates that no pressure vessel may be used for any purpose other than that for which the certificate was issued.
My reading of this clause leads me to believe that *modifying a fire extinguisher for any other use is illegal.*

Sorry, I'm not trying to be a nark, just remember that when you ask a refiller to top up your "illegal" bottle you are asking us to risk a $27,500 fine because you are too tight to spend a few hundred dollars on a proper bottle, don't be surprised if someone laughs in your face.

Mark
Marks Home Brew

MHB


----------



## claymen (20/5/09)

Where does the certificate specifically say it is for a fire extinguisher only? I'll try and get a copy of the documentation (such a pain they aren't freely available online being its a standard and all...).

To restate it, is the bottle being certified to hold a specific material at a maximum working pressure or is it stating the intended use of the canister which would imply what is being used in it to some degree? Logic would dictate that the bottle is certified for a material/working pressure rather than certified for "homebrew" or "extinguisher"

If what you say is true then this business is technically committing an offense just not the sale of the bottle only the filling. I just can't see a cylinder testing business doing that for the sake of a few homebrew people. It's like asking a sparky to do a dodge job it puts his business at risk if something goes wrong.


----------



## MHB (20/5/09)

Yes that is very specifically what the certificate says, this is a copy of an approval certificate that I found with a quick google.
View attachment 27307

In my experience with bureaucracy "Logic" has very little to do with anything, you or I might think it's perfectly reasonable that won't work as a defence in court.

That being the case, why would I or any other refiller take a huge risk for someone else's benefit?

MHB


----------



## mje1980 (20/5/09)

Claymen, MHB makes a good point, But if it works for you, by all means keep doing it, but don't argue with people who are doing:

A.) The right thing, legality wise

B.) The safe thing, 

It has nothing to do with money for me. I think the idea of playing around with pressurised vessels is a bit dodgy for something that's in/near your house. But hey, that's just me.


----------



## roger mellie (20/5/09)

mje1980 said:


> Claymen, MHB makes a good point, But if it works for you, by all means keep doing it, but don't argue with people who are doing:
> 
> A.) The right thing, legality wise
> 
> ...



Thats a bit harsh MJE - Claymen brought a cylinder off a chap who tests cylinders for a living - i brought mine from the same dude - fully legit - fully legal - very safe - in fact he removes the stupid handle thing (talked about in another thread) and replaces with the proper regulator valve.

As for Marks finding in the AS code - i would have though that re-certification of a cylinder would be possible in this instance. As it was performed by a person who is no doubt licenced to do so - indeed its his job.

I work for BOC (sort of) - and they would have no issue filling my cylinder at Canning Vale (unofficially) - as it is in test. The fact that it used to be a fire extinguisher is irrelevant as it has all the tank markings it needs. That said - I would always take it back to the dude I brought it from.

RM


----------



## claymen (20/5/09)

mje1980 said:


> Claymen, MHB makes a good point, But if it works for you, by all means keep doing it, but don't argue with people who are doing:
> 
> A.) The right thing, legality wise
> 
> ...


You are implying that what I am doing may be unsafe and/or illegal. I didn't buy an extinguisher and get it modified I bought a tank from a legitimate cylinder testing place for the specific use of homebrew beer carbonation and dispensing. I'm just trying to wade through the misinformation and crap that gets plastered around about it. There seems to be a fair bit of grey area and to be honest I believe some people do exploit that fact. I'm not saying that MHB is I just want clear information and I am glad he has pointed us to the proper standards.

What I was going to bring up was that those certifications for use have an expiry. What happens when that certificate date expires and you get it restamped, will it be a new certificate based on it being a fire extinguisher or something else. And how is a filler supposed to know what its intended purpose is for? Like for example a person brings in a fire extinguisher to be refilled that has been stamped accordingly. So if the user tells the filler its for a fire extinguisher and its cert is for one then the fill is legal, but if they say its for something else then its illegal... also it doesn't make the bottle itself illegal only the act of filling it under false pretenses. Does it make it unsafe.. maybe but that's part of the grey area as well..

The more I read up on it the more confusing it seems to be. One more thing is that certification appears to be for the unit as a whole, as it details the specific requirements for it to be used as an extinguisher e.g. that it is a 5B:E CO2 extinguisher. That would imply that it's certified to hold a specific material and to be used as a legal extinguisher asuming all fittings are there as per the AS/NZS 1841.6:1997 code is adhered to.

*sigh*


----------



## KGB (20/5/09)

^^^So you don't keg your beer or prime your bottles? :huh:

EDIT: In reply to mje1980's post.


----------



## claymen (20/5/09)

To put it all simply, it needs to be a lot clearer, either the code or just the general information. Bureaucracy at its best 

In any case I'm happy with what I got and it was bought for a specific purpose from a cylinder testing place for a price that is excellent.

If people want to do DIY things like modding the bottles themselves well.. that's a whole 'nother ball game and well that *may* be unsafe. It's the same as people cabling up their house with CAT cable. Technically illegal, doesn't mean its unsafe unless its a really piss poor job.


----------



## cooperplace (20/5/09)

Hi everyone,

I didn't think I would spark such fascinating debate but it is great to hear all these viewpoints. To all the people concerned about safety: you're absolutely right, all this pressure in a bottle is scary.

One reason I keg is that years ago a bottle I was capping exploded, slicing an artery in my arm and I came very close to bleeding to death and spent some time in hospital. You wouldn't believe how fast blood can pump out of an artery, try as you might to staunch the flow. Of course I use my cylinders in a well-ventilated area. Of course I check for leaks, using water/detergent mixture. And I wouldn't dream of modifying the tank+valve assembly: I leave that to my friendly, licensed, experienced, fire extinguisher guy. 

I thank those people who raise the important issue of legality of modifying an extinguisher and I will check the standards and ask my extinguisher guy his view.

The "tightarse" label is to an extent true, but as someone said, that could be said about all homebrewers. 

And, just because an issue is complex, that doesn't mean I can't dabble in it, but I've got to be sensible and know my limits. After all -I'm not doing this by myself- I've got everyone in AussieHomeBrewer to help.

Peter


----------



## cooperplace (20/5/09)

crundle said:


> I have been doing some research on this issue also, and have had the thread measured on the neck of my 5kg fire extinguisher as being 3/4" BSP (parallel). The type 30 fittings are 3/4" tapered.
> 
> 
> Here are some pics of the thread in the neck of the extinguisher
> ...




Hi Crundle,

Many thanks for posting those excellent pics. Can I ask what brand is your extinguisher? It looks absolutely completely 100% identical to mine, especially the innards of the valve. 

Mine is Chubb, and they told me that the thread is 3/4" NGS. 3/4 NGS and 3/4 BSP are almost identical in every respect, except that one of them has a 55 degree thread pitch and the other is 60, from memory. A female 3/4 BSP female will beautifully screw onto a 3/4 NGS male. I was convinced that my fittings are 3/4 BSP, but (see my earlier post) they're not. I sound a note of caution, make of this what you will.

Let me know if you want me to send you a copy of the relevant Australian standard (I hope I can do that legally!).

regards

Peter.


----------



## frogman (20/5/09)

6 kg my keg on legs cylinder $299 to own

365 days per year, 10 years between retesting = 3650 days.

3650 days/$299 =12.20735........

Less than 13c per day... BLOW YOUR SELF UP FOR 13C...

Think about it.

DAMIEN


----------



## cooperplace (20/5/09)

frogman said:


> 6 kg my keg on legs cylinder $299 to own
> 
> 365 days per year, 10 years between retesting = 3650 days.
> 
> ...




er, what is your point exactly?


----------



## roger mellie (20/5/09)

frogman said:


> 6 kg my keg on legs cylinder $299 to own
> 
> 365 days per year, 10 years between retesting = 3650 days.
> 
> ...



I spent half of that on a 5KG Fire Extinguiser

You sure its 10 years between tests??

How much does a fill cost?

Mines 20 bucks

What was your point again?

RM


----------



## Guest Lurker (20/5/09)

10 years? My whacky, zany, worksafe contravening, life risking, supposedly cowboy guy insists on inspecting my fire extinguisher and screw valve which he professionally put together with no thread mismatch every 5 years, and I have complete faith in him to keep me safe.


----------



## roger mellie (21/5/09)

Guest Lurker said:


> 10 years? My whacky, zany, worksafe contravening, life risking, supposedly cowboy guy insists on inspecting my fire extinguisher and screw valve which he professionally put together with no thread mismatch every 5 years, and I have complete faith in him to keep me safe.



Simon - there should be a rule about Moderators being Facetious.

Best left to the Proletariat.

RM


----------



## cooperplace (21/5/09)

Guest Lurker said:


> 10 years? My whacky, zany, worksafe contravening, life risking, supposedly cowboy guy insists on inspecting my fire extinguisher and screw valve which he professionally put together with no thread mismatch every 5 years, and I have complete faith in him to keep me safe.



Hi Guest lurker,

I would be very interested to know the configuration of your setup, ie, what sort of cylinder it is, and what valve (part no and brand?) is on it. Alternatively, the contact details (am I asking too much?) of the supplier.

Thanks

Peter


----------



## Doogiechap (21/5/09)

peterspeck said:


> Hi Guest lurker,
> 
> I would be very interested to know the configuration of your setup, ie, what sort of cylinder it is, and what valve (part no and brand?) is on it. Alternatively, the contact details (am I asking too much?) of the supplier.
> 
> ...



John from Eversafe.
Unit 1/ 29 Emerald Rd 6109 _Maddington_
0894933247
He has been extremely helpful to a number of brewers 
Cheers
Doug
edit: added interweb linky.


----------



## smollocks (21/5/09)

frogman said:


> 3650 days/$299 =12.20735........
> 
> Less than 13c per day... BLOW YOUR SELF UP FOR 13C...
> 
> Think about it


You should think about your maths a bit more there Damien.

What you've actually calculated is the number of days worth of gas per dollar, i.e. 12.2 days per dollar.

Perhaps what you intended was $299/3650 = $0.08 per day.

Personally I think a dollar figure per keg is more informative, but this is unique to each brewer.


----------



## claymen (21/5/09)

frogman said:


> 6 kg my keg on legs cylinder $299 to own
> 
> 365 days per year, 10 years between retesting = 3650 days.
> 
> ...



I rang all the home brew places I could locally and could only find one that had the 6kg and they had no idea when they would have any in stock. The biggest most places could do was the 4.5kg and that was $300-350. Maybe the case is different over east.

In any case, I'm not about to blow myself up and I am tired of the insinuation that I will. Like many of the guys we bought our tanks from a cylinder testing place asking for a tank to use for homebrew. Sure doing the DIY mod yourself to a tank might be a bit risky but honestly some of you guys blow a lot of this WAY out of proportion.


----------



## ozshots (21/5/09)

smollocks said:


> You should think about your maths a bit more there Damien.
> 
> What you've actually calculated is the number of days worth of gas per dollar, i.e. 12.2 days per dollar.
> 
> Perhaps what you intended was $299/3650 = $0.08 per day.



Exactly!

Better still, $15.000 boat over 10 years will "only" cost you $4 per day....

Now, try to convince you wife in this sort of math


----------



## mje1980 (21/5/09)

Claymen said:


> I rang all the home brew places I could locally and could only find one that had the 6kg and they had no idea when they would have any in stock. The biggest most places could do was the 4.5kg and that was $300-350. Maybe the case is different over east.
> 
> In any case, I'm not about to blow myself up and I am tired of the insinuation that I will. Like many of the guys we bought our tanks from a cylinder testing place asking for a tank to use for homebrew. Sure doing the DIY mod yourself to a tank might be a bit risky but honestly some of you guys blow a lot of this WAY out of proportion.



Fair point claymen. I was probably a bit blunt before, and i apologise for that. You are right in that in has been blown out pf proportion. I wouldn't use an extinguisher, but then again, i no chill, and we all know the dangers of that!!. 

Cheers


----------



## claymen (21/5/09)

AlexA said:


> Exactly!
> 
> Better still, $15.000 boat over 10 years will "only" cost you $4 per day....
> 
> Now, try to convince you wife in this sort of math



You don't sell it to her on the math, sell it to her with the diamonds and jewelery she gets. "Hi hun I bought you a diamond necklace, now don't worry it wasn't too expensive only $5/day over 10 years AND we get a free boat with the necklace!"


----------



## claymen (21/5/09)

mje1980 said:


> Fair point claymen. I was probably a bit blunt before, and i apologise for that. You are right in that in has been blown out pf proportion. I wouldn't use an extinguisher, but then again, i no chill, and we all know the dangers of that!!.
> 
> Cheers



No worries 

I had my hesitations at first about it as well which is why I asked the place I bought it from specifically about it. And he said there wasn't any issues with it, its a fully tested tank and has all the correct fittings. And he was right, I just hooked up my reg and it worked perfectly. Just need my keg fittings and I can start carbonating some beer!


----------



## KHB (21/5/09)

Im in the camp where i dont have a prob using one but the valve has failed on mine for the second time, it came from the same place as crundle who has had it happen 5 times! Gets me wanting to buy a kegonlegs cylinder.


----------



## claymen (21/5/09)

Scotsman06 said:


> Im in the camp where i dont have a prob using one but the valve has failed on mine for the second time, it came from the same place as crundle who has had it happen 5 times! Gets me wanting to buy a kegonlegs cylinder.



What's actually failing?


----------



## paul (21/5/09)

It seems that people are too tight to pay the rent on a cylinder.

Rather than dicking around with fire extinguishers why don't people just acquire an empty co2 cylinder, in the same manner that they acquire pub kegs?

Once you have a cylinder you can either get it filled by your fire extinguisher mate or hire one from the company whos cylinder it is and return the empty. This gets you into kegging with the right gear to do the job and away from the hassles of paying rent.


----------



## crundle (21/5/09)

In the pictures that I posted on this thread, there is one of the pin inside the handle assembly. The O ring near the top of the pin eventually lets gas past it, and this vents the cylinder, slowly, but surely. Another forum member has fixed his problem by using a slightly larger O ring, so it gives a more positive seal, as when I checked mine once it had emptied, it gave almost no resistance against the tunnel it travels in.

Crundle


----------



## claymen (21/5/09)

I think everyone is forgetting that a fire extinguisher is still just a CO2 bottle with a different fitting for dispensing the gas.

As paul changed his post I cant quote him but there are single use extinguishers and there are those that can be refilled.

Turning it on and off shouldn't be an issue if the right fitting is used on the bottle which I think is where people are getting confused. Hacking up the standard fitting isn't a good idea, using a proper fitting should be fine.


----------



## cooperplace (21/5/09)

Claymen said:


> I think everyone is forgetting that a fire extinguisher is still just a CO2 bottle with a different fitting for dispensing the gas.
> 
> As paul changed his post I cant quote him but there are single use extinguishers and there are those that can be refilled.
> 
> Turning it on and off shouldn't be an issue if the right fitting is used on the bottle which I think is where people are getting confused. Hacking up the standard fitting isn't a good idea, using a proper fitting should be fine.




Claymen,

you're 100% right, but getting that correct fitting is well-nigh impossible, it seems.

Peter


----------



## Justin (21/5/09)

Lots of discussion here and lots of arguments. I have no concerns with using a fire extinguisher, it is safe if used properly like any pressurized cylinder. It may leak eventually but it is a safe CO2 bottle as it was designed, the possibility of leakage is the trade off with an extinguisher. Modifying was not in the design parameters however.

My point of concern is those people "trying" to match up the right thread wondering if tapered will work with parallel, 3/4 this 5/8 that, whatever they are trying to do. This is absolutely the wrong area to entertain your DIY brilliance. You are dealing with threads cut in aluminium, it is an incredibly soft metal and it's strength is pathetic. If you dont get the exact correct threads you run a huge risk of the thread cut in the aluminium cylinder stripping out and then you have a rocket on your hands (or out of your hands as the case will most certainly be) and one hell of a lot of not-so-contained energy. Use the correct original fitting or a original equivalent (eg. the screw down valve) designed for the cylinder or dont do it at all. If you mess up with your calculations you place a lot of people at risk. "It looks pretty close" is a recipe for disaster with potentially fatal consequences, it's just not an area where she'll be right works. I acknowledge the efforts to try to get the correct information on the thread type, it's unfortunate it seems to be a tough one to find an answer to, but if any of you even thought "it looks pretty close" then you dont know what you are dealing with and I suggest you go get a cylinder from BOC and live another day.

FWIW, just because someone works/runs the place that fills the cylinders does not necessarily elevate them to an expert and it would be foolish to assume that they actually know what they are doing or qualified to make the call on what you can get away with. Hell, there has never been a work place accident from an "experienced" person or some one who should have known better and even the best make mistakes or use poor judgement.

Now using the cylinder without modification poses no greater risk. If you can deal with the likely eventual leak then your golden. If you dont want to do that then get a kegsonlegs or BOC. Just whatever you do please dont try to get creative with a valve fix. The guy filling your cylinder is going to be a great risk and I think if you told him you switched out the fitting he'd be none to impressed to put his life on the line.

Sorry for being the party pooper and assuming the worst but you may only get one shot at this and worst still you may put someone elses life unwillingly at risk. Good luck in your search for solutions.

Justin


----------



## claymen (21/5/09)

Justin said:


> Lots of discussion here and lots of arguments. I have no concerns with using a fire extinguisher, it is safe if used properly like any pressurized cylinder. It may leak eventually but it is a safe CO2 bottle as it was designed, the possibility of leakage is the trade off with an extinguisher. Modifying was not in the design parameters however.


Again it shouldn't leak if done properly. I am not advising people to use the wrong thread or guestimate one. You can still get a leak on any tank just as easily as anything else if things aren't done right.



Justin said:


> FWIW, just because someone works/runs the place that fills the cylinders does not necessarily elevate them to an expert and it would be foolish to assume that they actually know what they are doing or qualified to make the call on what you can get away with. Hell, there has never been a work place accident from an "experienced" person or some one who should have known better and even the best make mistakes or use poor judgement.


That may be the case but we aren't asking him to do any of the mods with fittings we provide. We are asking a licensed workshop to tests cylinders for a tank suitable for homebrew. If it's not safe then he is selling a defective and dangerous product and I doubt any business would want to risk the liability of doing so. It's the same reason places won't fill unknown tanks which is fair enough (although annoying if its stamped right and has the right fittings).



Justin said:


> Now using the cylinder without modification poses no greater risk. If you can deal with the likely eventual leak then your golden. If you dont want to do that then get a kegsonlegs or BOC. Just whatever you do please dont try to get creative with a valve fix. The guy filling your cylinder is going to be a great risk and I think if you told him you switched out the fitting he'd be none to impressed to put his life on the line.


I don't see how there will be a leak if the fittings are done properly. Any tank can leak for a variety of reasons.



Justin said:


> Sorry for being the party pooper and assuming the worst but you may only get one shot at this and worst still you may put someone elses life unwillingly at risk. Good luck in your search for solutions.
> 
> Justin


I'm all for being safe, hence why I went to a place to buy the tank for a specific use. Whilst I agree that doing a DIY and attempting to match threads is a recipe for disaster I don't believe that a fire extinguisher tank is any more likely to leak if the correct fittings are used and its done by a professional. A tank is a tank, and saying that a fire extinguisher is more likely to leak just because its a fire extinguisher is false logic. If that were true then they wouldn't pass the proper testing ever. You don't exactly want a leaking CO2 tank, especially one that for most people will be indoors in the case of an extinguisher.


----------



## Justin (21/5/09)

Hi mate, I dont disagree with any of your points and in fact most of my comments were not even really directed your way. I acknowledge your efforts to do it properly and you are being very thorough, it was some of the other comments of what the thread "might" be and what other people were doing to try and make these work that were worrying particularly those instances where regulators have blown off. F$&k me, if the threads aren't right do you think a bit of teflon will hold 800psi on a thread that you can basically rattle the fitting loose on? These are the worrying actions. However in your specific aim I wish you luck and hope you can find a solution, you certainly are going about it the right way. It's just the other stories that scare the life out of me and it worries me what people will do and what they think is safe.

Regarding the leaking fire extinguishers, i agree there is nothing about the fact of it being a fire extinguisher that means it will leak. If you have the right fittings and set up it wont leak, it's just a tank. I'm refering to the use of the original squeeze grip valves which seem less than ideal for our use, obviously they aren't designed to be repeatedly opened and closed and thus they end up leaking past the oring. If you can get a better valve (screw down/gate valve) it will work much better for longer. I have a Chubb 5kg cylinder that has a slow leak past the oring, next time I fill it I will replace the oring and I will make particular note to not use the valve to open and close the cylinder but will instead just use the regulator. Someone else mentioned they still leak if used like this, to be honest I dont know if it will solve it or not but I initially didn't use the valve for exactly that reason and just used my regulator to turn it off and it was working fine for a very long time. I eventually got a bit lazy and started using the valve to give bursts for whatever I was doing at the time and it eventually started leaking. I've had my extinguisher for probably 6(?) years now and been using it for a very long time. If you search back you can even find my original posts on the chubb extinguishers fitting CO2 regulators directly.

Good luck with it. Justin

FWIW I know just how dangerous pressure can be. I've had a 4500psi 44cuft scuba tank shift in the car and crack the valve open, it didn't open fully but it dumped probably 3500psi in a few seconds before I could shut it, it fogged all the windows in the car, froze the bottle and was unbelieveably loud. Luckily I was still in the car park and not on the freeway and luckily I had secured the bottle or it may have taken off, it had just shifted slightly and knocked open the valve when something else moved past it. In the same week the airgun shop I go to was filling a 4500psi bottle when the line blew, it sat spinning at god knows what speed on top of the work bench before it flew out the door across the car park and slammed into a parked car. Yes this is 4500psi, but even 800psi with 5kg of CO2 is a massive amount of energy and if your reg blew off you now have unregulated gas venting that could cause a flying cylinder. Just passing on a few personal experiences.


----------



## claymen (21/5/09)

Fair enough, apologies if you took offense in any way.

You are 100% correct, the DIY way that some are attempting is not cool with the wrong fittings. It has to be the correct fittings or nothing. Coming from a background building up my car there is no way in hell I would use the wrong fitting for any fluid connections, and CO2 tanks are no different (albeit gas connections). Maybe people see CO2 as "harmless" or something, but you wouldn't use an incorrect fitting on say your fuel line/fuel rail would you? So why do the dodge on a CO2 tank that's probably even more dangerous.

In any case, I would suggest people get a professional to install the correct fittings and test things properly. Not that expensive to get done. And if you can't spend the time to chase that up just buy a mykegsonlegs or similar. Do a little research and do things properly and we can all enjoy a nice cold beer at the end of the day


----------



## KHB (21/5/09)

Claymen said:


> What's actually failing?




The little button that depresses when you push the handle down.


----------



## MHB (21/5/09)

What I was trying to get across is that "Work Cover" is taking an interest. They will be looking at bottle refillers and I hear sending in mystery shoppers to see if refillers are complying with the rules and handing out fines if they aren't.
Be aware that if this starts happening it might start getting a lot harder to have questionable bottles filled.

If you are thinking of buying or modifying an extinguisher take this into account.

Hay I'm not saying that the law is always sensible, but I once got a ticket and a defect notice slapped on my old jeep, for fitting "Lap Sash" seatbelts, the car came with only a lap belt, I had to go and get an engineer's certificate to change the car to make it safer. Crikey this thing had no doors, sharp cornering got real scary real quick.
OK I was young and stupid and I wound the copper up lesson learned.

MHB


----------



## claymen (21/5/09)

I still think there is something missing here...

Even that certification doesn't sit right. Upon further reading it is simply stating that the product being sold as a fire extinguisher complies with AS 1841.6:1997. This seems to be more to define it as a suitable fire extinguisher, not that the bottle is certified. If you check out the firebox website they list all their certificates and they cover everything from tanks to hose reels and that they are suitable for use as fire suppression devices. I can dig further but my guess is this would tie into the legality surrounding businesses and the requirements to have adequate fire safety and probably work cover ties in there also.

Also, further to your original post regarding the work cover aspects on page one.


MHB said:


> Further reading of point 1 indicates that no pressure vessel may be used for any purpose other than that for which the certificate was issued.
> My reading of this clause leads me to believe that modifying a fire extinguisher for any other use is illegal.



This looks possibly incorrect as per "The Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001" Section 136A Use of plantparticular risk control measures sub section 1b it would imply otherwise.

```
136A   Use of plantparticular risk control measures

		(1)  An employer must ensure in relation to use of plant that:

			(a)  plant (with the exception of lifts that are operated by members of the public and coin-operated amusement devices) is not operated by a person unless the person has received adequate information and training and is supervised to the extent necessary to minimize the risks to health and safety, and

			(b)  plant is used only for the purpose for which it was designed unless a competent person has made an assessment that the change in use does not present an increased risk to health or safety, and
```

In our case a plant is defined as a gas cylinder as per section 107 table Part 1 General Plant

```
Part 1   General plant

Boilers and pressure vessels categorized as being of hazard level A, B, C or D according to the criteria in AS 43431999

Gas cylinders
```

After reading that, it would appear that it is legal and completely within the guidelines so long as a competant person has checked it out. However, this does not cover a home DIY job. I can only see this being valid in the case of say a cylinder testing shop or someone else accredited checking it.

Short of the tank being in breach of AS 2030 Workcover would have no grounds in issuing a fine for filling these types of bottles. Now the only outstanding part is reading up on AS 2030 which I hopefully should have a copy of soon.

References:

Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001


----------



## Leigh (22/5/09)

Claymen,

Your interpretation may well be valid, and many may operate in this manner under the assumption that the courts will agree, but until the courts make a ruling, it is only an interpretation, and not the current legal status...

Legal advice we get at work always revolves around precedents set in other cases or the level of comfort the lawyers have that we will be able to convince the courts to agree with us.

The law works in mysterious ways...

Cheers


----------



## claymen (22/5/09)

Seems pretty clear to me, the only issue is the definition of "competent"

It does concern me a little that it says competent and not "licensed" as that would have been even clearer that DIY @ home is not ok. However as it stands it could be argued either way. With that said, I don't see there being any issue with a licensed/accredited person or workshop making the assessment that it is ok, else why bother having people accredited at all.

The law does work in mysterious ways, but its bent and twisted by lawyers who want to get the best result for "their" client regardless of what side they may be on. So the question comes down to, who would benefit the most by swinging it one way or the other?


----------



## crundle (22/5/09)

Just to clarify things as to what I am hoping to achieve, I was researching on ways to overcome the inherent problem with using a CO2 extinguisher as a kegging cylinder, namely that the O ring in the valve pin eventually fails as it was not designed to hold pressure for long periods or (many) repeated uses. I was open to many ways of overcoming this, from using screw down valves rated for CO2 at typical cylinder pressures, through to using a slightly larger O ring to give a tighter seal and retain pressure longer.

In all these ideas, I have been communicating with the licensed filler who has worked with fire extinguishers for many many years. He is no fool, and would not agree to anything that would be dangerous or suspect in his opinion. He sees that using a screw down valve may be quite suitable, and this has been done by other licensed fire extinguisher refitters/refillers with success. However, the valves are hard to come by these days, and there are many different threads to deal with also, so this may not be the best way to pursue the matter.

On the other hand, if the original O ring could be *safely* replaced with one that is slightly larger, and therefore able to give a better seal for a longer amount of time, then what is the harm? Fire extinguishers used for kegging seem to eventually leak through the O ring, so if the larger one leaks eventually you are still in the same position you were before, but if it can seal long enough to allow the gas to be used before it fails, then it can simply be replaced at each filling. A larger O ring is not likely to cause any other issue that I can see, as long as it is able to travel up and down the tunnel without deforming in the process.

As always, I will discuss the use of the larger O ring with the licensed refiller first.

Crundle


----------



## crundle (22/5/09)

Claymen said:


> The law does work in mysterious ways, but its bent and twisted by lawyers who want to get the best result for "their" client regardless of what side they may be on. So the question comes down to, who would benefit the most by swinging it one way or the other?



Being a lawyer, I agree with you that the law is bent by lawyers for the benefit of their clients. We like the law to be grey as that gives room to maneuver. As homebrewers, it is in OUR best interests to find safe ways to use fire extinguishers for kegging, and having an open discussion on how to improve the mechanics of the fire extinguishers is part of that process. I appreciate the comments of those who don't advocate using fire extinguishers as they provide balance, but perhaps combined, we will be able to find a solution that is safe and effective.

Crundle


----------



## claymen (22/5/09)

crundle said:


> Being a lawyer, I agree with you that the law is bent by lawyers for the benefit of their clients. We like the law to be grey as that gives room to maneuver. As homebrewers, it is in OUR best interests to find safe ways to use fire extinguishers for kegging, and having an open discussion on how to improve the mechanics of the fire extinguishers is part of that process. I appreciate the comments of those who don't advocate using fire extinguishers as they provide balance, but perhaps combined, we will be able to find a solution that is safe and effective.
> 
> Crundle



Is your guy just a filler or a cylinder tester as well? Just wondering because if he isn't a tester maybe it would be worth a call to one to pick their brain on getting the right fitting. Never know might get lucky and they have done it before  Alternatively what about a fitting place? Something like Enzed who do hose and fittings, it may not be something they cater for but only the cost of a phone call to find out. Last I remember they did high pressure hydraulics, fuel and air lines etc.


----------



## crundle (22/5/09)

My guy tests also, so I trust what he says to me, but the homebrew stuff is only small change in his business, so not really worth his effort in pursuing. I have tried places like Enzed and Pirtek, but have not had any success. For me, I think the best path now is to try the slightly larger O ring and see how it goes. If my guy is happy to give it a whirl, so am I. I can always put in a larger O ring while it is disassembled and see how it goes in dry use, as a mate has lent me a spare CO2 cylinder to use in the meantime (proper cylinder with screw down valve!).

The search goes on......

Crundle


----------



## claymen (22/5/09)

crundle said:


> My guy tests also, so I trust what he says to me, but the homebrew stuff is only small change in his business, so not really worth his effort in pursuing. I have tried places like Enzed and Pirtek, but have not had any success. For me, I think the best path now is to try the slightly larger O ring and see how it goes. If my guy is happy to give it a whirl, so am I. I can always put in a larger O ring while it is disassembled and see how it goes in dry use, as a mate has lent me a spare CO2 cylinder to use in the meantime (proper cylinder with screw down valve!).
> 
> The search goes on......
> 
> Crundle



It's funny but what you just said also lends credence to the fact that it is legal. What business would risk huge fines for a small group of homebrewers..


----------



## cooperplace (23/5/09)

Claymen said:


> It's funny but what you just said also lends credence to the fact that it is legal. What business would risk huge fines for a small group of homebrewers..




Crundle's summing up is 100% on the money.

BTW, the right valve can probably be got from an Italian crowd called Cavagna, according to their catalog. I've been trying to contact them and their Uk agents. Their Oz agents in Brisbane were quite unhelpful, and so far their UK agents likewise. If I get lucky I'll let the forum know.

Peter


----------



## KHB (25/5/09)

Well i got my fire extinguisher filled again today and the valve replaced for the 2nd time in a year and no more than 8 hours after getting the valve replaced its failing again and this time worse! When i depress the handle and let it come back up again it leaks until the reg drains then stops. luckly the valve dosnt keep emptying the cylinder but im not taking the chance that it will. Off to buy a MKOL cylinder tomorrow.

Scotsman


----------



## claymen (25/5/09)

Scotsman06 said:


> Well i got my fire extinguisher filled again today and the valve replaced for the 2nd time in a year and no more than 8 hours after getting the valve replaced its failing again and this time worse! When i depress the handle and let it come back up again it leaks until the reg drains then stops. luckly the valve dosnt keep emptying the cylinder but im not taking the chance that it will. Off to buy a MKOL cylinder tomorrow.
> 
> Scotsman



Why are you trying to use the handle valve? Why not get a correct fitting replacement valve assembely? Just seems like the whole issue could be avoided by using the correct valve in the first place.


----------



## KHB (25/5/09)

Claymen said:


> Why are you trying to use the handle valve? Why not get a correct fitting replacement valve assembely? Just seems like the whole issue could be avoided by using the correct valve in the first place.




I thought the whole argument on here was about how hard it is to match these up. Im sick of my gass running out because of leaks and wish i spent the money on a MKOL cylinder in the 1st place


----------



## cooperplace (26/5/09)

Scotsman06 said:


> Well i got my fire extinguisher filled again today and the valve replaced for the 2nd time in a year and no more than 8 hours after getting the valve replaced its failing again and this time worse! When i depress the handle and let it come back up again it leaks until the reg drains then stops. luckly the valve dosnt keep emptying the cylinder but im not taking the chance that it will. Off to buy a MKOL cylinder tomorrow.
> 
> Scotsman




Depressing, and I sympathise. The right screw-down valve is the answer, is it not? 

Peter


----------



## KHB (26/5/09)

peterspeck said:


> Depressing, and I sympathise. The right screw-down valve is the answer, is it not?
> 
> Peter




Yep picking up MKOL cylinder today


----------



## claymen (26/5/09)

Scotsman06 said:


> I thought the whole argument on here was about how hard it is to match these up. Im sick of my gass running out because of leaks and wish i spent the money on a MKOL cylinder in the 1st place



No the argument was about the suposed "modding" of the tanks themselves e.g. using the existing handle valve instead of replacing it properly. With that said surely a cylinder place could sort you out with the correct valve so you don't get leaks. I mean if they can do it in WA surely they can do it anywhere.


----------



## crundle (26/5/09)

Claymen said:


> No the argument was about the suposed "modding" of the tanks themselves e.g. using the existing handle valve instead of replacing it properly. With that said surely a cylinder place could sort you out with the correct valve so you don't get leaks. I mean if they can do it in WA surely they can do it anywhere.



It would seem the answer to that is no. People from WA seem to have found the only guy in Australia who has the correct type of extinguishers (steel, not aluminium) and the correct valves to attach to them. And he has pretty much run out of those for now. I am going to get mine refilled again and see how it flies, but I may have to go the path of Scotsman06 if it happens again, or brew much more beer so I use up the gas before the valve gets a chance to fail on me!

Crundle


----------



## Snow (26/5/09)

I don't understand why you guys with fire extinguishers keep turning your valves on and off? I have had an extinguisher for 5 years and when I get it re-filled, I just open the valve once and it stays open for the 1-2 years it takes for me to use the gas up. The valve on the regulator works just fine when I need to turn the gas off.

Cheers - Snow


----------



## cooperplace (26/5/09)

crundle said:


> It would seem the answer to that is no. People from WA seem to have found the only guy in Australia who has the correct type of extinguishers (steel, not aluminium) and the correct valves to attach to them. And he has pretty much run out of those for now. I am going to get mine refilled again and see how it flies, but I may have to go the path of Scotsman06 if it happens again, or brew much more beer so I use up the gas before the valve gets a chance to fail on me!
> 
> Crundle



Hi all,

My numerous phone calls to Perth completely confirm Crundle's view of things. 

Peter


----------



## cooperplace (26/5/09)

Snow said:


> I don't understand why you guys with fire extinguishers keep turning your valves on and off? I have had an extinguisher for 5 years and when I get it re-filled, I just open the valve once and it stays open for the 1-2 years it takes for me to use the gas up. The valve on the regulator works just fine when I need to turn the gas off.
> 
> Cheers - Snow



Snow, you may be right. I do suffer from what some call an excess of paranoia, which in other areas (eg motorcycles) has served me well. 

Peter


----------



## crundle (26/5/09)

Snow said:


> I don't understand why you guys with fire extinguishers keep turning your valves on and off? I have had an extinguisher for 5 years and when I get it re-filled, I just open the valve once and it stays open for the 1-2 years it takes for me to use the gas up. The valve on the regulator works just fine when I need to turn the gas off.
> 
> Cheers - Snow



Hi Snow,

I have tried both only using the gas on demand and leaving it on the whole time. Both have failed me. When I use the gas on demand, the O ring gets worn down in the tunnel eventually, then it leaks gas when I turn it on the next time. When I leave the gas on permanently, it works for much longer (around 6 months) but then it too fails on me, with the O ring letting gas past. I am checking out some replacement O rings from Fitch the Rubber Man today, and will test them in my fire extinguisher head in a dry run to see how it goes. I intend to press the handle repeatedly for as long a time as possible to simulate on demand use, and then check the O ring for damage after.

When I spoke to Paul from WA (the screw down valve fire extinguisher guy as people over there know) he said that it might be a good idea for me to apply some food grade lubricant to the O ring to help protect it from both wear and I presume oxidation or similar (much like O rings on kegs that develop cracks in them if they are not kept in use, either through exposure to air or sunlight - not sure which really).

I measure my existing O ring as being 5mm outside diameter and 1.5mm inside diameter. I might take the fire extinguisher handle to the fitters at work to get measured for the diameter of the tunnel the pin fits into.

Crundle


----------



## KHB (26/5/09)

crundle said:


> Hi Snow,
> 
> I have tried both only using the gas on demand and leaving it on the whole time. Both have failed me. When I use the gas on demand, the O ring gets worn down in the tunnel eventually, then it leaks gas when I turn it on the next time. When I leave the gas on permanently, it works for much longer (around 6 months) but then it too fails on me, with the O ring letting gas past. I am checking out some replacement O rings from Fitch the Rubber Man today, and will test them in my fire extinguisher head in a dry run to see how it goes. I intend to press the handle repeatedly for as long a time as possible to simulate on demand use, and then check the O ring for damage after.
> 
> ...




I was the same on all the time and failed after about 6 months but then it failed the same day it got replaced!!


----------



## crundle (26/5/09)

Scotsman06 said:


> I was the same on all the time and failed after about 6 months but then it failed the same day it got replaced!!


That sucks big time. I hope all works out well with your new cylinder.

Crundle


----------

