Hi all I just completed the fettle of 3 Coleman lanterns, namely the Coleman fuelled 236 and 236A and the kerosene fuelled 237. Displayed from left to right: A 236 dated July 1952, A 236A dated February 1968, A 237 dated August 1954. These 3 lanterns are excellent workers each having a very good light output. Cheers Pete
Thank you @Alex Smith. Yes I’m very pleased with them as they look good and work very well. They’re real dark killers as well. Cheers Pete
@AussiePete Pete, fine grouping of some really great Coleman lanterns! Super condition! Keep'em coming!
@AussiePete Pete I have a couple of 237s and one 236. I have found my 236 is a bit on the thirsty side of things with fuel consumption. Cheers, Norman
@Norman Perhaps it’s just a characteristic of this particular kerosene fuelled 237 but it appears to have a greater light output than either the Coleman fuelled 236 and the 236A. Have you found this? Cheers Pete
@AussiePete To be truthful Pete I haven't compared them side by side but I do believe the 237 is a bit brighter then the 236. My preference is the 237 mostly because it's kerosene and it is a much safer fuel to use and this is why many of my Coleman fueled lanterns have been converted to kerosene. Cheers, Norman
Cheers mate, I’ll have these running on our conference call with the Veritas Guys at our usual time. We can shoot the breeze about their respective dark killing attributes. These 3 are really bright lanterns, I’m surprised at their dark killing abilities ..... Cheers Pete @Norman
These big single Colemans are rated at 500cp but all the examples I have tested have run at 300cp or less. That is a bit unfair as they were all well used lamps but it does mean that there could be considerable differences in light power in the used lamps we gather in and fettle. ::Neil::
I have a 639 and a kero converted 635 and they are extremely bright. I haven't got the ability to test the candle power but they're certainly as bright as any of my Petromax style lanterns.
The problem is always that the Mark I eyeball is not calibrated. It sort of works OK to compare but even then is not so good when the colour of the mantles vary. Hard white tends to look brighter than a yellowish light. Only a photometer will do the job with any accuracy. I use this rig and as you can see this Primus 1060 is only making 375cp when it is a 500cp rated lamp. ::Neil::
@Mackburner I agree with you totally when scientifically comparing a lantern’s light output. My entire work life as a consulting engineer commissioning intricate control systems supports your instrumental comparison and approach. This is the only way that the light output can be measured where the myriads of eyeballs along with the countless ambient variations will perceive light output sometimes quite differently. However the end result will be from the uncalibrated eyeball. In the everyday environment, it’s the eyeball, Mark 1, that will experience the light output, not a laboratory instrument. I guess it comes down to perception of the beholder and the ensuing ambient conditions. It’s the beholder that subjectively makes the comparison. So the instrumental approach is invaluable for “apples with apples” type comparison but for the everyday use, I believe it’s the eyeball of the beholder, however subjective that may/will be, that will the definitive test. Just saying ....... Cheers Pete
I was just thinking the same thing @AussiePete and also.... if you could tune the light output to optimize it for human vision you might be able to lessen the power requirements.
