I have seen this on ebay 8) .... http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/280950362900?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649 & although it looks very nice at £40.00 inc postage it does seem a fair price for a handmade everlasting vapouriser 8) , but you wouldn't want to buy one for all your lamps as this would seriously make a hole in your pocket ( mind you standard vapourisers aint cheap these days either ) so i thought i'd have a go at something similar using a standard Tilley vapouriser This is only a project at the moment & it is made using a worn out 606 Tilley vapouriser with a good bottom end , it could be used on a 169 too First the top inch is removed on the lathe , the tube is cleaned & all the carbon removed from the inside. Then a brass plug threaded to accept a 250CP jet is silver soldered in place of the original top inch of vapouriser , the bottom of the Tilley vapouriser is re bored out to for a new stronger pricker rod assembly with a 2mm threaded section on top which will accomadate the 250CP cleaning needle , a larger bore handmade return spring finishes this off I'm nearly finished on the machining work but i only have a couple of pic's to show so far , will post more pic's when i can!! This is my version so far next to a standard one Best regards Stu
Since hearing about these Tilley vapourisers with Petromax jets being made, I've wondered about how the burner sits on the top of the jet. Originally there was a solid ring of steel to support the burner. Now there are only six corners of brass. Will this wear out quicker? Will it affect the height of the fuel jet in the burner? And probably a few more questions. Back to the actual thread. That looks like a very good idea. Good work so far. It's always seemed a bit of a waste to throw out a complete vapouriser because the jet is worn or it's full of carbon. Needs a supply of used vapourisers though.
Hi All Still in the construction stage & untested as of yet , but not far off Nils , the Petromax jet is the same size as the original vap tube & the facets are untouched by the burner spigot so very little wear to worry about , just need to finish off the pricker rod assembly & warp speed Mr Scott. Regards Stu.
I wonder, like Nils, about the burner being supported on 6 corners rather than a full ring. Also IIRC, the 606 (and 169) have some sort of restriction along the length to reduce back-pressure into the tank. Has this been removed by the machining? If so, some sort of substitute mechanism may be needed - maybe a roll of brass mesh? What will the spring butt-up against? Some of those questions may have already been sorted but I'm at work struggling a bit trying to visualise the inside of a 606 in my head... It's a good idea, though, if it can be made to work. Somehow, Nils, I don't think there's going to be any shortage of used donor vapourisers any time soon.
If you are using 2mm cleaning needle rod, what inner diameter have you chosen for the vapouriser tube?
Hi Nils i have made the two openings to centre the new pricker rod 3.25 mm to allow the rod to be removed only when the needle carrier is removed from the end , this gives a similar size hole ratio although not perfect , the original hole is much smaller than the new pricker but the old pricker is only .85mm , only testing will tell l!!!! Stu.
A few thoughts to the vapourisers, I own several brass ones and two experimental steel ones with brass jets. The original vap has in the upper end a small washer that holds a spring in place. The spring acts as a guidance for the cleaning wire, it is formed like a funnel to guide the pin of the wire exactly to the orifice. A second function of the spring is to help the fuel to vaporise, it extends the hot surface inside the vap. This is essential because steel conducts heat compared to brass rather badly. The custom made vap has no upper spring, this is compensated by using brass transporting the heat very quickly, so making solely the upper part might work as well as the whole vap made of brass. In my opinion inner restrictions are not necessary, I have 606, 169 and 301 vaps made of brass, they all work as described above without any inner parts. The steel/brass vap where a brass jet is screwed in a steel body failed. The two materials expand different when getting hot and the jet loosened after two or three usages. I could fix them using a special type of »loctite« that stands the heat, it is usually used on turbo chargers. I think the concept of silver soldering an upper brass tube to the steel body is worth a try. There are no problems until now with the burner sitting on the six sided jet, in some cases it is necessary to file of the edges to make the jet fit into the spigot.
Thanks for the info Stephan 8) Some of the later Tilley vap tubes have no spring in the top either ( no doubt for cheapness ) just two inverted pressed steel conical cup guides which keep the pricker centered towards the jet orifice My idea to use an original vap tube means there is less machining work to do which makes the conversion cheaper & as you have said the brass will hold & transfer the heat to vapourise the fuel better & expand at the same time as the jet so it won't fall out at a most inconvinient time I've had a bad day so i've not completed it for testing but tomorow is another day & i'll get stuck in Stu
Great inovative project Stu! Hope it all works out well, and I do not see why it should not. Good luck mate - Steve.
You're welcome Yes, I remember to have cut one like this in half to inspect it regarding carbon deposits. I fully agree but I am curious how the soldered seam will stand the force of the two different metals expanding at different ratios.
Hi Stephan Good news & then back to the drawing board for a slight modification I did my first test yesterday on a really worn out X246B lamp & the new vapouriser conversion worked really well , the mantle had a really good bright light better than I have ever seen with this lamp if it works well on a worn out set up on a newer lamp it should be great. Then i noticed after about an hour & a half a small yellow flame licking from around the bottom of the burner spigot under the mantle , so i released the pressure & inspected the vapouriser & found that the silver solder seam on the join had failed { only a pinprick ) under the heat / pressure during the burn , must be more than 750 degrees celsius even inside the spigot & with 30 PSI of tank pressure it was too much. Back to the drawing board then , but i already have a cunning plan to sort out this little hiccup Keep you posted Stu.
Stu, Can't you "simply" only turn off the vaporizer top just enought to cut thread for the jet. Btw the jets have a flat "bottom". So the "six points" are not the points which would seal the jet on the vaporizer.
Why not cut the vapouriser off further down and make the brass bit longer. That way the join wont be at the hottest part of the vapouriser.
Hi Wim, the point is that the brass jet will get loose soon due to the different expamding ratios of steel and brass. As I already described I have two experimental steel vaps with brass jets that I had to glue with a special heat proof »loctite« to prevent the jets to fall out.
Hi All Nils has let the cat out of the bag i have already started modifying the design & should have a working model later next week 8) , i'm off to the Ipswich Transport museum annual light up with several other members tonight 8) , the first i've managed to attend this year May see you there 8) Best regards Stu
Hi All Well i have been working on the Mk2 version of the vapouriser & this is what i have now , this is also under test as we speak on the worst lamp i have an X246B with a dodgy burner this is it on test with a Hipolito 500cp lamp just for comparison The new join in the tubes is working perfectly
This is the pic of the join & finaly the Hipo next to the shabby worn out Tilley When fitted to a better lamp this should be a lot brighter & i'll post some more pic's when i have swapped it about 8) Stu .
Hi Stu, looks very good now and I am sure that the joint will last longer now that it isn't in the hottest area. It will surely perform better when a new burner is used. I would be interested if the shorter lower steel part still acts as an insulator. The fully brass made vaps have the disadvantage that the tank gets quite hot. What is your experience in this point?
Steel isn't an insulator. It conducts heat almost as well as brass but not quite - there's not a great deal between them. But it's all relative - either metal will conduct heat far, far better than a proper insulator such as wood, glass, plastics etc...
Insulator might be the wrong term but in my experience it is still possible to touch a steel vapouriser at the lower end when in use, you surely won't do that on the brass ones...
Hi Guys The steel Tilley vapouriser bottom that i used seems to do the job of the original & the founts get no hotter than they usually would Here is a picture of the Hipo 502 alongside an early chrome Guardsman fitted with the new vapouriser & the light output is almost the same to the naked eye even though the Hipo is a 500cp lamp & the Guardsman a 300cp , i am very pleased so far with the progress i have made & hope to make some more including 169's Stu
Ah yes, the Mark I human finger - hardly the best instrument in the world for measuring thermal conductivity or temperature...
Looks very good Stu, put me down for 3 Would love one for my CS56 & Bialaddin/Vapalux too. I have a question, why aren't you just turning the whole thing like the other one? seems like it is maybe easier that marrying the two together?
Hi John The idea is that a silp joint silver soldered to the original vap means less machining time on the lathe & unless you started with a brass blank the same size as the bottom knurled bit of the vap you'd be wasting a lot of brass by the time it had been turned to size , all it takes my way is a 3/8 blank 3 1/4 inches long the same diameter as the original Stu
Hi Stu, It looks very good so far mate! and I really do envy your skills. Absolutely correct about the wastage of making a complete one from brass, it would cost an arm & a leg because brass ain't cheap any more! Steve.
