DIR Valves- Service Kits?

[fatone]

Thanks Paul, as i mentioned, i often wondered what the thinking was behind this 232 / 300 bar thing.
However as most, if not all manifold manufacturers use the same centre section for either 232 or 300bar, and, its only the pillar valve / din stem thread interface that changes, then the manifolds are no stronger, just the DIN Stem thread connection, as it's 8 threads instead of 5, to deal with the greater forces exerted by 300 bar.
But how much do the type of DIN threads, (5 or 8) pose a risk if used with the right pressure ? In fact you could allmost argue that by fitting 300 bar pillar valves to 232 bar cylinders, a person could potencialy over fill the cylinders, and maybe cause a problem, thus negating any benefit from the additional strength of 8 thread valve stems ?
I think Garf's post ..............

"Manifolds should have barrel-style o-rings, no face seals, and should be adjustable. The 300 bar manifold provides more threaded depth and a more secure attachment. Valves should face straight, with no angles. "

makes a lot of sense mostly, but i am not sure i understand the logic for 300 bar 5/8ths threads over 232 bar 5/8ths threads, it kind of suggests your (DIR) worried about the structural integrity of the 232 bar, 5 thread pillar valve, and want the 8 thread 300 bar version ?, but accept the integrity of a 232 bar cylinder, and not have the 300 bar version ?

Most pillar valves are made to 8 thread, 300 bar when cast, and just machined down to 5 thread, 232 bar as demand calls, and then, chrome plated, hence the fact that a lot of 300 bar pillar valves strangely have an "A" clamp dimple on the back of them.

[MarkP]

Hi Garf,
without trying to be controversial, is that why we see "DIR configured" 232 bar cylinders with 300 bar DIN pillar valves / manifolds in them ? I have often wondered what the reason is behind this idea as it seems a little strange, allthough i am a firm advocate of DIN.

It's an old chestnut. It was the recommended set up a few years ago. It was so that when you're 3KM into a cave at 90m you have the strongest possible reg-valve connection.

Also, I can't remember for sure, but wasn't it difficult getting hold of low pressure DIN fittings? I'f I'm right, then another reason was so that there wasn't excess thread sticking out of the valves, giving less headroom and more snag potential.

Probably. I'm getting old you know, the medication doesn't work as well as it used to.

D'oh! just seen the replies to your post.

[Garf]

It's all irrelevant anyway. If MDE can make their new barrel-facing o-ring manifolds as smooth and realiable as their old range, then they are just going to take over the world.

In reality, we all use 232 manifolds.

[wilbo]

In reality, we all use 232 manifolds.

except Milldog.

[Gary K]

Hi Garf,
without trying to be controversial, is that why we see "DIR configured" 232 bar cylinders with 300 bar DIN pillar valves / manifolds in them ? I have often wondered what the reason is behind this idea as it seems a little strange, allthough i am a firm advocate of DIN.

wasnt it because they bend out of shape when you knock those fragile 232 bar manifolds against the platform at Vobster?

[Gary K]

In reality, we all use 232 manifolds.

except Milldog.

he'll be the only one I know with a box thats needs 300 bar 3L cylinders on it

[mjgreen]

a valve that complies with the DIR standards, which means that

"Manifolds should have barrel-style o-rings, no face seals, and should be adjustable. The 300 bar manifold provides more threaded depth and a more secure attachment. Valves should face straight, with no angles. "

However, in this instance, the original poster meant a DIR-Zone valve, which is a brand that complies with the above standard.

Yup, I was well aware of what he meant & what he said. Was just having a spot of fun