Petromax - Using Gasoline

[Ref: Q2487...more commercial] by Diana (diana@petromax.com)

Posted: Oct. 07, 2003 @ 21:54.

John: Actually, to insinutate that "Diana"...."works for and is paid by Geniol" is WRONG!! In fact, yes....I am the owner of BriteLyt, Inc., and when I see postings, that provide the improper information, regarding my product, as well as the older generations of Petromax, then, yes....I do have the obligation, and, as a corporation, to make regular reports to the USCPSC, as well as other government organizations, who are trying to prevent such mis-information, for public safety. The USCPSC has tested the lanterns, very thoroughly, as has the NSIE, as I had stated earlier. Please note: We do, personally, use gasoline, on a regular basis, in our BriteLyt-Petromax lanterns, and we do not sell anyone, anything that we do not use ourselves. So......From my reply from John, I am assuming that he purchased his lantern from GENIOL....is this correct? If you did, then you have the 4th generation Petromax, and it is NOT for use with anything BUT kerosene, and, you should have received a letter from that company, advising you of such. NOW....In regards to EXPERTS..........Our research is not a "fly-by-night" ordeal. We have top advisors, who are associated with such organizations as the National Bio-Diesel Board, the National Methanol Institute, and others. Our Chief Fuel Advisor, Dr. Charles "Andy" Stokes (PhD), has been involved in more fuel experiments than any of you can imagine. I am sad to say that Dr. Stokes passed away this past weekend, and he will be sorely missed. Dr. Stokes has been instrumental in testing, producing, etc., more fuels and fuel additives than you can possibly imagine. HE is the expert, and, unless you have had the experience, training, and education, as Dr. Stokes, then you cannot lay claims to all the knowledge of our products. Also....Please note.....Dr. Stokes has worked with such lanterns as Optimus, Petromax, & Tilley, so he had all the inside information, in order to provide ACCURATE information, in regards to our lanterns. Please be advised that, if Mr. McRae, has all the information & history, regarding these lanterns, then why all the phones calls to BriteLyt, Inc. to obtain the CORRECT info??? Hmmmm........Anyway...Yes....I do believe in God, by the way, and IN NO WAY ashamed, nor apologetic for that. As I stated before, safety is our concern, for our clients, and we do all we can to show them the proper lighting proceedures (hence......Instructional video....it's up to the client, whether they lose that or not...but...if they do, they can contact us for another one...NO PROBLEM!!!), and we provide an ACTUAL PERSON (oh my gosh!!) who will guide anyone through the lighting & safety process. Go figure!!! So.....Please be advised that Diana is not associated with Geniol, and if Mr. Kluksdal had a problem with his lantern, from Geniol or their dealers, he should have contacted the USCPSC. I know .....I did, as per legal obligation to do so. And.......God bless you all!! Keep up the good work, with the research, but if you have any problems, just contact us. We'll be happy to assist you, or refer you to the real experts.

On Oct. 08, 2003 @ 01:29, Dave Nelson (oilhead@cox.net) wrote:

Ms. Clifton: As I'm now in possession of the failed BriteLyt as reported by the Boston Jake, I'd like some advice; Do I send it back to you so you can check it out? Am I to be charged for such a service? Will both the failed main valve be replaced as well as the broken preheater that snapped off like so much potmetal? At no charge? It was yourself that chose to make your input an infomercial....Care to back it up?......Dave

On Oct. 08, 2003 @ 02:33, John at Light International (lightinter@aol.com) wrote:

The operative word here appears to be "had" (worked with etc), since your pet academic is now dead. I go by advice that is current and up-to-date, advice by an acknowledged world expert - not some (now-dead) little-known academic. I am sorry Diana, but you will have to do better than just trust to your "God" when peoples' lives are at stake: I know Mr McRae personally and can thus vouch for his extensive (PRACTICAL) knowledge of his subject over a period of many years. John.

On Oct. 08, 2003 @ 06:53, Gerard (g.terheerdt@wlb.amsterdam.nl) wrote:

Dear Diana, The discussion is drifting away from the main issue: what makes the fith generation safe for the use of gasoline where other petromax-type of lamps are not? Is there a valve added that shuts of fuel-supply thoroughly enough, as in the Coleman-types? If so, the lamp should be safe, otherwise it is not. Can you tel us what changes you made? And, how can we see the difference between generations if not stamped clearly on the tank. Letters get lost, mistakes are easily made....WHOOF. I think that a completely different design is needed. Besides, gasoline remains nasty stuf and should be kept away from children. Use kerosine lamps only on camps with children. Greetings, Gerard

On Oct. 08, 2003 @ 07:13, Boston Jake (jakescorner@comcast.net) wrote:

Diana, I had the unpleasant experience of having this lantern fail to shut off. Regardless of any supposed changes you've made to your "generation" of product, this is not acceptable with low flashpoint, high vapor pressure fuels, PERIOD. I had only just stopped using gasoline in the lantern the week before the incident, after reading the information posted on this board. Perhaps you've made changes to the pump check valve; that is not my issue. But the valve exhibited the exact type of failure which Neil McRae has described. I think you HAVE TO look into this seriously before something truly regretful happens. BTW, my lantern (Britelyt 829 Rapid) was purchased directly from your website. Jake (Mark Souza)

On Oct. 08, 2003 @ 09:09, Fil Graff (fgraff@comcast.net) wrote:

Friends: As noted in the previous question, this is all sales and marketing BS! The lady seems to be trying to defuse the criticism of one aspect of her product by a) entering a second "question" and b) trying to qualify her "fuel" expert, rather than dealing with the DESIGN problems that Neil addressed.

Diana, the qualities of the fuels are not the problem! Your late expert may have been the world authority on FUEL, but that does NOT at all qualify him as an expert in design and construction of a lantern! Suggesting that it does is simply an attempt, either out of business blindness or ignorance of the design itself, to baffle us with BS when you cannot impress us with your brilliance. Your Petromax is capable of an awesome amount of light output, has a wonderful 70 plus year history, is as well known as any lantern in the world, but is NOT, and never was suitable for use with gasoline as its fuel! The German army discovered this, and banned the use of gasoline even in the lanterns supposedly designed for it! That is simple fact. Your marketing enhancements, personal faith, helpful people on the phone and an ostensible concern for safety are wonderful atributes I am sure. But insistance on selling a lantern for use with a fuel that is inherently dangerous because of its volatility, without correcting the design elements that fail to provide POSITIVE prevention of mishaps, is either simple ignorance, greed, or arrogance. All the marketing BS you have offered does not come close to answering the basic problem raised. There are design flaws in YOUR lantern, and your competitor's, and every other Petromax ever sold that prevent it from operating every time with absolute assured safety if gasoline is used as a fuel. Your competitor evidently learned their lesson, and withdrew the recommendation that gasoline was OK. Your insistance that it IS an approved fuel seems almost criminal. How many "exploding" or run-away BriteLyt stories do you want? I am sure that the users of this page can provide a few more! If you insist on continuing your marketing attempts on this site, you'll be digging your own grave!

Thanks for the good wishes. We DO have problems, as you will note if you read what is being said here. Our problem cannot be resolved by talking to a helpful real person on the phone! Our problem at the moment is BriteLyt and your insistence on promoting a dangerous fuel in a product NOT designed to handle it. ALL the good intentions in the world cannot make up for that fact. :: Fil Graff, Guild Secretary ::

On Oct. 08, 2003 @ 09:33, Neil A McRae (tilleydoctor@nmcrae.freeserve.co.uk) wrote:

Diana: I have not published any "improper information". I have stated my opinions which in your country as well as mine I have the right and freedom to do. So far, in spite of much protestation, all I have had as criticism of those opinions is you telling me I am wrong without giving any reason why. OK so disagree with me, that is your right, but please tell me why. Don't just tell me I am wrong because I have little experience compared to your experts. Maybe that is true although I don't believe it but it does not affect the design issues we are discussing. Give me informed reasons not simple rejection. There is a very nice cut away drawing of the BriteLyte Petromax lantern on your web site. This drawing clearly shows the design is unchanged from the 1950s except for the addition of a heat shield. The design of the burner may have been changed slightly to accommodate a range of fuels but the design of the fuel valve and pump arrangement has not changed. The fuel valve is a spring loaded rubber faced seal as is the pump check valve. This pump check valve is still located in the fuel. Your lantern also has a pressure release. Those design features are not suitable for use with gasoline as a fuel. I see you assume John Klucksdal's lantern was a Geniol. He stated it was a Petromax and I would have thought if it was a Geniol he would have said so. He says Petromax and his instructions did state that gasoline was an acceptable fuel. This probably means one of your lanterns. However that is not important as there is virtually no difference in the design of the two lanterns that I can see and, before you refute that, I may say as an engineer I am very capable of reading an engineering drawing. You also say your lantern is different to Geniol being the next generation. I can't see any difference in the basic design so what changes have been made that make the BriteLyte safer with gasoline? I am not interested in changes to the burner, only changes to the design that take account of the more volatile fuel. So far you have avoided giving any technical detail but if you say your lantern is safe with gasoline I, and no doubt many others, would very much like to know why the design of a BriteLyte is safe with gasoline and if so then why a Geniol is not. Please don't tell me it is safe because you or someone else says so. I want you to convince me with engineering design details and reasons that I am wrong. I would also assume that a such a radical change in design from the Geniol type to BriteLyte was patented so can you tell me what the patent number is please so I can look it up and see what changes have been made.

I will not denigrate any expert until I know what he has said or written and I have no knowledge of Dr. Stokes or his work. However you say he is, or was, your fuel expert. It seems to me that a fuel expert is not likely to be an engineer, he would be a chemist surely? An unlikely qualification to assess engineering design although being an intelligent man it is possible he understood enough to have a reliable opinion. It is interesting to see he worked with Tilley & Optimus product. They are both exclusively kerosene products as neither of those companies ever made a gasoline lamp. Both types of product differ in design from Petromax to a greater or lesser degree but share with Petromax the spring loaded valve seals and a pump tube discharging in the fuel. Tilley in their instructions state "The use of petrol (gasoline) in this lamp will cause an accident". No maybe here. So Dr. Stokes worked with three different types of lamp? I have been collecting, using and researching pressure lighting for 38 years and in that time have probably worked on a few thousand lamps. I have some 630 in the collection and most have been restored to function so I have probably worked with 200 to 300 different makes and around 700 different models. Working with old lamps, some of which are over 70 years old with no instructions or even any indication of the fuel used, studying how they work and what makes them safe is essential if you want to stay alive. So I know a great deal about safety in design and use for pressure lighting. A lifetimes experience in fact. I also know a lot of other collectors and researchers, several of whom have similar experience to mine, and so far not one has rejected my conclusions. May I suggest you print out the article from Wim's web site and have it looked over by an engineer. You say you have "Real experts" available so give them a copy of the article and ask for their opinion. I hope one of those experts is a competent engineer who can understand the design implications. You have my permission to copy the article for your own use and for the purpose of getting independent reports on my conclusions. If you prefer it I can email you the original published article complete with the illustrations used in Light International. I am not looking to score points here and if some competent engineer tells me I am wrong then I will be most interested to discuss the design issues involved.

The phone calls to you are probably as a result of an abbreviated version of my article in the Aladdin collectors magazine The Mystic Light. I cannot comment on why they ask you and not me. I have no way of controlling what readers of my articles do or say. It does seem reasonable though, for anyone owning a Petromax, to ask the manufacturer why our opinions vary. I know the lantern will work with gasoline but that is not a safety issue. It is a fact that rubber faced spring loaded seals will fail. I have had that happen to me a few times down the years so I know it happens. Twice now I have had a pump valve fail and dump nearly two pints of fuel out of the fount through the pump tube. Tilley lamps do this regularly and one of the two failures I have experienced was an Optimus which has precisely the same pump design as a Petromax. We also know that at least two Petromax type lanterns in the US have exploded although we don't know exactly why. We also know that the German army had several catastrophic failures with their gasoline lanterns and those are built to the same design as the modern kerosene lamps. The introduction of the heat shield implies a realisation that the top of the fount was over heating in some cases and it is possible that the explosions were due to the solder seals in the top of the fount melting which the heat shield is designed to prevent. I think it is design that makes some catastrophic failures inevitable with gasoline and not quality of materials, quality of construction, or misuse, and I have stated my reasons for thinking this. I am still waiting for someone to refute those arguments which so far neither you nor anyone else has done. I like being proved wrong because that way I learn. So prove I am wrong and I will be pleased and grateful. Finally I admire your courage in repeatedly using one of these lanterns with gasoline. Your lantern is an excellent product with kerosene but in my opinion lethal with gasoline. God must surely be looking over you because I think you are putting yourself and your customers at risk. ::Neil::

On Oct. 08, 2003 @ 10:04, Boston Jake (jakescorner@comcast.net) wrote:

Diana - In the spirit of a quest for information so well put forth by Neil, I would like to hear the official Britelyt-approved procedure for extinguishing a runaway 829 Rapid. Thank you...... Jake (Mark Souza)

On Oct. 08, 2003 @ 10:58, Paul (brelaird@charter.net) wrote:

As an aside, Neil is correct concerning Dr. Stokes profession. He (was/is) a PhD Chemical Engineer. His resume seems to concentrate on energy production from biomass and methanol use as a fuel for appliances. He was president of Stokes Consulting Group of Naples Florida.

On Oct. 09, 2003 @ 06:59, Jurie (juried@yahoo.com) wrote:

As an engineer I am extensively involved in safety testing of the products we design. One of the most important issues is failure of safety devices in the design - testing and examination is done by having one safety device fail, and checking if there is danger to the operator. Petromax type lanterns do not have this backup safety design philosophy in them while using gasoline, which means that a single failure can result in a deadly situation, and it is a very serious oversight that apparently the USCPSC do not apply this fundamental safety philosophy. What makes this matter worse is that rubber will certainly deteriorate and therefore has a lifetime failure mode associated with the valves, not to mention the fact that the springs will also corrode and fail. So failure of the valves is a certainty. Diana, don't take a safety agency's seal of approval as the last word - they can be wrong. Field experience must play a role as well, but even there the absence of a failure doesn't mean all's well. Apply sound safety principles. As an aside - I am surprised at the amount of invective flying around a forum which is supposedly academical.

On Oct. 09, 2003 @ 09:13, Fil Graff (fgraff@comcast.net) wrote:

Jurie: Don't be surprised that we are upset by a vendor promoting unsafe products. We are "academic" only in the sense that we like to analyse how the objects of our affection work, and we share that information. But we are first and foremost collectors and USERS of these lighting products. We are, for the most part, VERY careful when we are dealing with products that have long since lost any instructions, and where we have to figure out a procedure to restore, then operate the device (regardless of the fuel). With any gasoline lighting device, the caution is greatly magnified. When we find a product like the BriteLyt that purports to be universally safe for practically any common petrochemical or similar fuel, and we KNOW that this claim is fatuous where "lifetime failure mode" is concerned, and we have specific reports actual product failures, we get a bit upset, and try to alert potential buyers and users of the product.

BriteLyt's competitor withdrew the gasoline recomendation, but BriteLyt steadfastly, and incorrectly, maintains their erroneous conclusion that because it is "accepted" by the USCPSC, it is universally safe for gasoline. You have analysed the failure point exactly. THIS is the message we're trying to get across to the public and other collectors-users. Clear and simple: despite what BriteLyt claims, gasoline is not, and never was a safe fuel for the Petromax! We'll likely keep saying this over and over, until Diana and her company listens, and changes the recommendation. Or until there is a fatal accident, and she is sued for every last nickel in the company till. I would think that the fear of this eventuality would have her MUCH more concerned than the carpings of those she considers unqualified, inexperienced or worse. :: Fil Graff, Guild Secretary ::