I was looking at the Brytelyte lantern page. The new lanterns are supposed to be "Multifuel" lanterns. What is specifically different about these and original Petromax lanterns? Is it just a matter of replacing the vaporizer, generator and Jet? It looks like I can rebuild an older model to be multifuel.
Correct. But its not recommended to use other fuel than kerosene. This is due to missing positive shut-off valve. And same for the pump valve. Those are risks with volatile fuels such as gasoline and alcohol, at valve fail. Technically of course proven work. At many collectors.
Kerosene is the way to go unless there are safety valves / cut offs like Coleman lanterns ... this should help to convince you ... even Colemans come to grief https://www.google.com/search?q=ble...i199i433j0.5949j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Exactly - "supposed" to be. They will burn multiple fuels, of that there's no doubt, but the real question is, will they burn multiple fuels safely? The answer in my opinion is, categorically, NO. In essence, they rely on basic kerosene technology which will fail sooner or later i.e. develop a leak. With kerosene, you get a mess to clean up but with more volatile fuels such as Coleman, white gas and the rest, you run a real risk of damage to property, injury or loss of life. Of course it's up to the individual to decide what risks s/he is prepared to take - on your own head, be it. Convincing the owners of BriteLyt of these facts has proved impossible over many, many years...
If you really want a multifuel, study which lantern is safe for white gas/naphtha ,my opinion only since they have positive shutoffs in both the pump tube and valve it should be safer for other types like kerosene,diesel or alcohol. Then modify the gen/ vaporiser as you go along with the fuel you want to burn. Probably the same as the modern remote stoves like omnifuel,xgk, the likes change the jet/gas tip and needle grab spare generators for the mods!
I looked at this problem in 2001 when the question of "why my Petromax exploded" was posed on the Guild web forum. Investigating the design prompted this article in Light Internationa, https://classicpressurelamps.com/threads/exploding-petromax.238/ ::Neil::
It is interesting, and I do not doubt (nor have any engineering or other reason to) Mackburner's appraisal of the design and its suitability for gasoline or naptha. What strikes me as odd is that in a country where litigation is seemingly preferred over regulation, they continue to market them as suitable for both fuels, and even more so that their product / public liability insurer would continue underwrite them. Chris
I guess it’s partly because in general safety doesn’t sell and partly because an exploding lantern is a pretty rare occurrence. I only know for sure of two deaths caused by a gasoline lamp fire and they were actually a Coleman lamp in 1906. I did hear a rumour of a Thermos brand lamp on fire in a tent that caused a death but I couldn’t confirm that. There may be a few more that I am not aware of though as mostly any such accidents will only make local news if at all. Investigating the fireball in the article did reveal a probable second similar event with the same make of lantern which didn’t cause any injury and again I couldn’t confirm that. I know of a Tilley FL6 that severely injured a lady when the tank ruptured and produced a kerosene fireball and I heard a rumour of a Tilley lantern that attempted a low earth orbit from a lamp used for beach fishing but that was a pressure fail not an explosion. My guess would be that mostly leaking gasoline igniting when it does happen is extinguished before it gets too exciting and never makes headlines. You also have to consider Britelyt have a safety report which gives them a good defence in any litigation. I consider this report to be no kind of risk assessment and a nice comforting piece of fatuous nonsense but likely to carry weight in court and help a judge to seriously consider operator error. ::Neil:
Kenneth Skelly from NASA. so so. Was he involved in risk assessment at the development of space shuttle? Of which two shuttles and many lives were lost.
I'd agree with them about the so-called 'Protection Plate' but the paragraphs about preventing injury to the operator's thumb (ah, the poor wee lamb) are tripe. The report doesn't consider (or conveniently neglects) what might happen in the event of a runaway lantern - how is the operator going to shut off the fuel supply? How is he going to dump pressure? - by opening the pressure release thus allowing a stream of hot fuel vapour around a red-hot mantle and burner? Really? - that's likely to end only one way with Coleman fuel, white gas etc. As you say Neil, fatuous nonsense. And the ignorant grammar... P.S. Do BriteLyt lanterns really have a fuel cell? - or is this just more mumbo-jumbo and what they have in reality is just a tank or, if you prefer, a font/fount...
