luis wrote:Some reserves had a tight sealing seat and some didn't. Like Scubapro DCAR valve didn't even had a real seat. It just had a brass plunger that restricted the air flow. The reserve doesn't have to totally seal.
I know that doubles weren't being referred to in the original question, and Luis wasn't specifically talking about USD J-valves, but he does bring up a point which is related to something I've been wondering. Maybe someone can help to explain this to me. It may even help conclusively answer the original question posed by ebj.
I have never dived a single-type early USD J-valve, so I haven't experienced this leakage which is being described, but this subject has come up before and so I am curiuous. I can see where this described "restriction" design would work for a single cylinder type J-valve, but not for doubles.
So, specifically regarding the old USD 1/2" J-valves and 1960 series (3/4") J-valves:
The single cylinder-type J for either model had J-valve parts which were identical to their manifold-type J counterpart. A single J-valve could be designed to allow some bypass of air once the valve seated and the diver would still feel the resistance. However, on doubles, one cylinder drops pressure to whatever the J-valve is rated before it allows air to drain from the J-valved cylinder to maintain the designed pressure differential between the two cylinders. That is why the gauge pressure drops so rapidly in the first part of the dive on j-valved doubles. For the remainder of the dive there is a, say 700 psi, differential between the cylinders due to the action of the J-valve, until the non-J-valved cylinder pressure drops to a point where breathing resistance is first felt (say 80-100 psi on my DAAM). Then, when the J-valve is tripped, the 700 psi differential equalizes to 400 psi as it should. If there were any leakage through the J-valve other than to maintain the 700 psi differential, then less than the expected 700 psi differential would exist. The longer the dive or the worse the leak, the less the differential between the cylinders at the time the J-valve is tripped and there could be no reliable consistency from dive to dive.
Now, the flow check/disc-and-retainer part numbers are identical for either the single J or the doubles J. Does some design difference exist in the J-valve portion of the valve casting of the single-cylinder J (like a bypass port) which would cause a designed leakage in the single-cylinder type, but not the one made for the doubles manifold? If not, then I would have to conclude that a leaky 1/2" or 1960 series USD J-valve would be defective, whether on a single cylinder, or a doubles manifold.
I hope this isn't confusing.