Answers to important Orlando questions

On Oct. 07, 2003 @ 06:53, John at Lightinternational (lightinter@aol.com) wrote:

What a long tale this cat appears to have! I shall recommend that Petromax lanterns continue to be used with paraffin/kerosine only; as for using diesel? I shall always be guided by the personal experiences of the German Army in spite of the recommendations of any academic - of which I know not. Instructional videos often get lost!! I guess "Diana" works for and is paid by Geniol and her advice can hardly be regarded as being unbiased - with her God's blessing or not! Evacuating a burning tent full of sleeping kids in the middle of the night is no fun. John

On Oct. 07, 2003 @ 07:56, Fil Graff (fgraff@comcast.net) wrote:

Friends: A severe caution about this posting. "Diana" is Diana Clifton, the owner of BriteLyt, and thus not exactly a unbiased opinion! Take what is said by Diana with a LARGE grain of salt, as it is extremely self-serving! It does NOT address the specific design issues raised in the previous postings.

The posting should probably be deleted, as it is pure propoganda. Those of us who work with and study pressure lamps and lanterns still maintain that NO device rated for gasoline fuel that does not have a POSITIVE fuel shut off valve (not just a pricker control and spring loaded fuel valve!) is NOT a safe device, despite an educational video and the protests of the distributor. Yes, the Pertomax Diana sells probably CAN be operated safely. But if safety was their primary concern, as she states, they would not recommend gasoline as a fuel, as they forget the inevitable idiot factor, a possible second owner, or just someone other than the owner (the "novice" she mentions) trying to light or operate the lamp. They also ignore the inevitability of the failure of springs and rubber seals. If you cannot turn the fuel OFF completely, or there is the possibility of venting fuel vapor near an open flame, then NO appliance that has an open flame or an incandescent mantle is truly SAFE with gasoline as a fuel! :: Fil Graff ::

On Oct. 07, 2003 @ 10:02, Neil A McRae (tilleydoctor@nmcrae.freeserve.co.uk) wrote:

Diana: I find it a little sad to realise you actually seem to believe what you have said. I also seriously resent the implication that I don't know what I am talking about and telling people here that we know nothing is downright insulting. I am one of the worlds leading experts in pressure lighting. Nobody knows more than I do about the history and use of these things. There are a few who know as much as I do of course because we share what we know. You seem to neither understand the history behind the lanterns nor the engineering design of them. We are not a bunch of mildly interested collectors. We are researchers who take what we do seriously and history of lighting is something we are very well qualified to comment on. I am an engineer who has carefully investigated the design of lanterns and in particular the design of Petromax and all the copies. 5 generations sounds fine as a marketing device but has little truth in reality. Erich & Graetz bought out J Hirschhorn in 1928 and from that time owned the Aida brand name. As the lanterns being discussed were not patented until after 1928 we do not have to consider Aida before this as a separate company. Both Petromax and Aida lanterns were then made in the same factory side by side from the early 30s to the end of Production in Germany sometime in the 60s. So Petromax- Aida is one and the same "generation". Production was moved to Casa Hipolito in Torres Vedras Portugal and there both Petromax and Hipolito were made again in the same factory at the same time until production of the Petromax was moved to Hong Kong. So that makes a second "generation". By now the parent company is Heinze GMbH and Christof Heinze had both Petromax and Geniol brands made by Santromax in Hong Kong where they are still being made today. So now we have the third manufacturer. Now I calculate that makes three generations not five. However that is actually meaningless because the design of the lanterns has not changed since the early 30s apart from a minor tweak of the design of the hood in the early 50s. Build quality is another matter but that is not really an issue here because the Chinese are perfectly capable of making a sound product and I have no problem assuming a modern Petromax is actually well made. However where they are actually manufactured or assembled is irrelevant. The type of fuel used is something else though. Petromax never, and I do mean NEVER, made a multi fuel lantern. We have a lot of catalogues going back to 1912 and in none is there a hint that any product can use more than a single fuel type. They made lanterns to use different fuels but they were always fuel specific never Multifuel. In fact the Bundeswehr used a gasoline lantern for some time which was model 829B. The "B" denotes Benzin as fuel. Those lanterns will run on kerosene but they don't run well. However even those are not safe to run on gasoline because the design is not suitable and the Bundeswehr recognised this by banning the use of gasoline in their lanterns. The modern Petromax lantern is exactly the same design as those 60's lanterns and it is design that matters here. I find it interesting that consumer protection law in the US seems to be sloppy in this area. Petromax lanterns are not sold in the UK because they do not meet with the British Standards required for pressure lighting. We at least are protected from potentially dangerous devices. Your Experts may have looked at safety in materials, construction and as a pressure vessel, but they certainly have not considered the implications of use with different fuels. Different fuels have different properties and some of those properties affect design, or they should, but in the case of Petromax this has been ignored both by the original designers and modern retailers.

So then these modern lanterns are Multifuel? They are manufactured to the design Petromax lanterns have always been since the early 1950s. They will certainly work on all manner of fuels but that is not the same as saying they are safe with all those fuels. The lantern referred to in Q 1491 was a Petromax bought in the US October 11 2001. Now I have carefully not mentioned before now what I thought that lantern actually was but a new Petromax bought at that time in the US I assume had to be a BriteLyte-Petromax and it exploded. Note this well, EXPLODED i.e. Big bang, lots of flame Etc., and it was running on gasoline, that's GASOLINE, the stuff you say is safe in Petromax lanterns. It was actually a second one because the retailer who sold that one had had one returned a few weeks earlier which had also exploded. In my opinion selling devices that can explode and that sometimes demonstrate that ability is not good marketing practice. We still don't know exactly why but it did make me look at the design carefully and I discovered some design features that make an explosion a distinct possibility when gasoline was used in any lantern of this type. These design features and my conclusions are discussed fully in my recent article published in Light International Vol 6 No3 Summer 2003. A copy of this can be viewed on Wim Van Der Velden's web site. I do not expect you to agree with me because there are none so blind as those who don't want to see but I know I am right and you are wrong. Incidentally I only know of two lanterns of this type being advertised as Multifuel and they are both in the US. I am not aware of any Chinese or Malaysian "Copies" that make that claim. The other US make does have one design change that makes it better for use with gasoline but the other design features have not been changed so both Petromax and Adams lanterns are in my opinion not safe with gasoline.

Finally John, if you have a tent full of children when one of these lanterns lets go with a bang you don't rescue them you just carry out the bodies. It takes about 20 seconds for a tent to go up in flame which gives no time to do anything but watch. :: Neil ::

On Oct. 07, 2003 @ 10:37, John at Light International (lightinter@aol.com) wrote:

Neil - I bow to your infinitely superior knowledge; perhaps Diana's "God" does not allow such dreadful events to happen in the first place - or perchance - she has such an amazing faith in her "tame" academic! John

On Oct. 07, 2003 @ 20:05, Neil A McRae (tilleydoctor@nmcrae.freeserve.co.uk) wrote:

John: I have seen a tent burn and by the time you realise it is on fire it is just about all over. It is possibly a survivable fire but you have to hold your breath and get out quickly. As a long time served Scout Leader fires in tents were always in mind so any tent with a fitted groundsheet was never allowed to have any naked flame device such as a stove or lamp inside. We did permit it with a standard Patrol tent because there was always an escape route under the side walls. ::Neil::

On Oct. 07, 2003 @ 11:33, Boston Jake (jakescorner@comcast.net) wrote:

Three weeks ago, the Britelyt 829 I was using suffered a sudden failure of the main valve, and I was unable to shut off the fuel supply to the generator. I say sudden because there had been no indication prior to the event that anything was wrong with the valve. I had been using the lantern with regular unleaded gasoline all summer and switched to kerosene only one week before the valve failed. Venting pressure at the fill cap bleeder extinguished the burner. But had I still had the gasoline in the tank this would not have been an option.

On Oct. 07, 2003 @ 19:50, Neil A McRae (tilleydoctor@nmcrae.freeserve.co.uk) wrote:

Jake: Interesting and reinforces why you should not use gasoline in this type of lantern. The valve is a spring loaded rubber faced seal down at the bottom of the fuel feed which is opened by a rod driven by the cam in the control wheel pushing the seal away from the small orifice. As with any rubber seal continually being applied and released, it will in time fail. If you are sensible then there is no real immediate danger because you can just let the lantern burn until it goes out from lack of fuel. I also don't believe it is all that dangerous to open the pressure release a little to bleed of the pressure slowly. I don't think it is a great idea to do so but if it is imperative to shut down the lantern then I would remove the runaway to somewhere it can do no harm and tweak the release open. You might also quickly remove yourself to a place of safety but I doubt there will be a problem. Petroleum vapour requires air to burn or explode. However the vapour vented from the top of a lantern fount has little volatile vapour in it. Mostly it is air that you pumped in so the mixture is weak. That weak mixture is immediately weakened further as soon as it hits the outside of the lantern and will be so weak it will not burn. The release orifice is quite small so there is little danger of a flash back into the fount but the possibility remains, however remote. So I think a pressure release on a gasoline lantern is not good design. I don't think it is all that dangerous but I would still use it with the lantern well away from where an exploding fount can cause any injury or damage.

What is extremely dangerous is a pump check valve failure. This device in a Petromax is exactly the same as the fuel feed valve i.e. a spring loaded rubber seated seal. This valve is located in the fuel near the bottom of the fount and if it fails fuel will discharge from the pump tube very quickly. It can almost empty the fount in 30 seconds or less. Now if the fuel is kerosene it makes a mess and smells a bit but the lantern will go out and you have a clean up job. If the fuel is gasoline you have around a pint or more of gasoline free within 6 inches of a burning mantle and a very real chance of a considerable conflagration. In my opinion any lantern that burns gasoline absolutely has to have a positive lock shut off valve and a positive lock pump check valve or better yet two pump checks like a Coleman or Primus lantern. Coleman even go one better and have the pump discharge up at the top of the fount so even if both pump checks fail the fount will only vent air not fuel and the lantern will just go out from the reduced pressure. No danger of a flash back either as the pump tube is itself a restriction to flame having very small holes at both ends and a 4 inch long small bore tube from the end of the pump barrel to the top of the fount. So my advice is if you want the quick light of a gasoline lantern then get a Coleman. If you want the power of kero then a Petromax is fine. I regularly use Petromax types and they surely do give a good reliable light but always with kerosene as fuel. Gasoline in a Petromax is a disaster waiting to happen. ::Neil::

On Oct. 08, 2003 @ 06:21, Boston Jake (jakescorner@comcast.net) wrote:

Thanks for the technical info, Neil. As to replacing the Britelyt, it's already been done. A Coleman 237 and a 639 are providing me the 500cp the Britelyt did, times 2. Somewhat more slowly at first given the alcohol preheat but just as brilliantly. Meanwhile, the errant 829 Rapid has been sent to an associate in the midwest who is likely converting it to a hood ornament. Cheers.