Some curious valve differences

[Menace_AO]

Okay, gang, time for some valve schooling for yours truly.

Can someone explain to me the reason for the following differences in the following valves:

1. Mistaken question, withdrawn.
2. Mistaken question, withdrawn.
3. If, as Tuna says, the reg spring packs in the classic valves never wear out, why did AGD elect to go with a dual counter-wound spring system in the RT-style valves? Answered!
4. Related to #3, do these dual counter-wound springs ever wear out? Answered!
5. Why do the RT (classic) and ReTro (and some E-Mag?) valves have only the single o-ring hole milled in the on/off well rather than being completely bored out like the earlier Classic and later X-valves? Also, is it in fact true that some E-mag valves have only the single o-ring hole? Answered!
6. Why is the reg/valve body threading on all RT-type valves different from that of the classic valves? Answered!
7. Is the back cap of the RT-style valves stainless? If so, what prevents it from wearing the ano on the reg body during adjustment? Answered!
8. Did later versions of the ReTro valve move to the double o-ring well after the fashion of the later E-mag valves?
9. Did all, some, or none of the RT Pro valves have the double o-ring well?

Thanks very kindly!

[Nobody]

No more cigars for you. Too many questions that i don't have answers for.

[Dayspring]

I can answer some of number 5-

Yes - some emag valves did in fact only have the 1 o-ring instead of the 2. There was a certain valve # that it started changing at, but I don't remember it.

[Menace_AO]

No more cigars for you. Too many questions that i don't have answers for.

It probably was the influence of the good cigar and the better company, not to mention the fine mags. It's their fault, not mine. Whatever the cause, I figured either somebody could help me, or Nobody could help me.

I can answer some of number 5-

Yes - some emag valves did in fact only have the 1 o-ring instead of the 2. There was a certain valve # that it started changing at, but I don't remember it.

Good to know. Thank you kindly.

[OPBN]

I don't have anymore E Mag valves , but didn't realize there was any length difference on the reg? I will say that I measured my Retro Valve and the reg is the same size as the X valve.

[Cyco-Dude]

#7: anti-seize compound?

[Menace_AO]

I don't have anymore E Mag valves , but didn't realize there was any length difference on the reg? I will say that I measured my Retro Valve and the reg is the same size as the X valve.

It is entirely possible that all of them are the same length. I've never actually had them in my hands side by side. The first and second questions are based only on multiple photos I've seen with both retro and e-mag valves side by side, and the regs definitely appear to be a bit shorter on the e-mag valves. That could of course be an optical illusion, and if so, it would be good to lay it to rest and be done with it, since the size discrepancy (if it exists) really makes no sense.

[OPBN]

It is entirely possible that all of them are the same length. I've never actually had them in my hands side by side. The first and second questions are based only on multiple photos I've seen with both retro and e-mag valves side by side, and the regs definitely appear to be a bit shorter on the e-mag valves. That could of course be an optical illusion, and if so, it would be good to lay it to rest and be done with it, since the size discrepancy (if it exists) really makes no sense.

I have had both and really don't remember there being a size difference at all.

As for #5, I believe this had to do with the introduction of the ULT didn't it?

My GUESS for # 6 was going to have to do with the differences in strength between aluminum and SS making the aluminum valves needing to be thicker walled for safety, but then I remembered the original RT style valves had SS front sections so that blew that out of the water.

[Menace_AO]

I have had both and really don't remember there being a size difference at all.

Here is an example:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]89725[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]89726[/ATTACH]

E-mag reg is clearly shorter, or seems to be. The difference is even more pronounced when directly side by side in other pics I've seen.

As for #5, I believe this had to do with the introduction of the ULT didn't it?

No, this started with the classic RT back in '96, well before any ULE/ULT stuff came into being.

My GUESS for # 6 was going to have to do with the differences in strength between aluminum and SS making the aluminum valves needing to be thicker walled for safety, but then I remembered the original RT style valves had SS front sections so that blew that out of the water.

I was thinking maybe owing to higher internal pressures, or maybe the tendency of classic valves to unscrew under pressure, but that is simply a guess.

[OPBN]

I just took calipers to both of your pictures and the regs in both are the same length.

And I meant when they changed to the X Valve, they began doing the double O-ring which is used in a ULT. ULT isn't used in the Classic Valve.

[Menace_AO]

I just took calipers to both of your pictures and the regs in both are the same length.

Just did the same, and looks like you may be quite correct. There is a slight variance, but probably owing only to picture distortion. Seems I mistakenly conflated the E-mag valve with the Classic RT valve, which is the same length as the classic valve, both of which are shorter than the X valve. Made sense that the newer RT-type valves would be dimensioned differently than the classic RT valve, but made no sense that they would then be different from one another. Good. That seems settled.

And I meant when they changed to the X Valve, they began doing the double O-ring which is used in a ULT. ULT isn't used in the Classic Valve.

Understood. But given that some of the stainless E-mag bodies had the double o-ring well, presumably before the advent of the X valve, then maybe there were other motivations besides the use of the ULT kit.

[OPBN]

Understood. But given that some of the stainless E-mag bodies had the double o-ring well, presumably before the advent of the X valve, then maybe there were other motivations besides the use of the ULT kit.

I'm not sure about that. I know some of the early Emag valves used the Urethane O-rings, but were they single or double? My Retro valve has a single o-ring in it, not the quad o-ring found in Emag valves.

[Menace_AO]

If I understand correctly, E-mag valves went to the buna quad ring owing to the need for reduced friction on the on/off pin to aid in reset. The only exploded views I've seen are the dual ring setups with quad ring nestled inside poly. The other systems had no such need, hence the poly rings were used since they are vastly more durable than buna.

[Spider-TW]

Machining-wise, you would only bother with the shouldered pocket in order to get rid of one of the o-rings. That didn't prove particularly useful and a quad o-ring should be tight in that pocket since it sits inside the larger o-ring with the edges hanging over (defeating the low friction need of the emag). I always thought of the shoulder as another vestigial feature of the classic RT that just didn't add as much value as the difficulties it caused. It just didn't suffer immediate demise like the banjo bolt and hard line.

[Cyco-Dude]

Just did the same, and looks like you may be quite correct. There is a slight variance, but probably owing only to picture distortion. Seems I mistakenly conflated the E-mag valve with the Classic RT valve, which is the same length as the classic valve...

since i have all three in possession, i'd just like to mention the rt classic, rt pro and emag reg bodies are all the same length. makes sense, as they're all basically identical internally.