G'day all, I came across this 1915 article from an engineering magazine, that tested this water heater and a lighting gas machine. The engineers found the water heater and gas machine worked as described, were efficient and were perfectly safe. The article went on to contemplate how difficult it was to get those, in areas without electricity, to trust and feel safe using gasoline appliances. Many farmers for instance, felt it was unsafe to have gasoline in the house. The farmers would more often than not, prefer to use their wood fired stoves - stoves they felt perfectly comfortable with. The article, which I have only reproduced in part, compares the farmers fear of gasoline to their comfort of using dynamite around the farm. I found it an interesting read, I hope you do too.
The farmers may have stored their dynamite in a metal ‘tank’ well away from the house. That was the practice here where the homestead was a special place-even dogs were not allowed in the ‘home paddock’ or homestead because they were ‘working animals’. I’m imagining that the gasoline water heater goes in the house, perhaps in the laundry? So the whole family would be exposed to the ‘risk’, which may have been the real issue.
This gasoline water heater is gravity fed with a tank attached so yes, the gasoline would have been in the house by way of being stored in the fuel tank. There are hollow wire versions of heaters, furnaces, stoves, cookers, hot water and lights etc. That way the petrol tank can be stored outside and the fuel is fed via pressure through the hollow wire (copper tubing). There were kerosene versions of all the above appliances, gravity fed and hollow wire. I can't say this with any certainty - I think gelignite was used in Australia far more than dynamite. I think dynamite was pretty dangerous stuff even if it was stored in a metal box. If the dynamite wasn't used up or replaced and it leaked and pooled in the metal box - sooner or later - no more metal box, just a hole in the ground.
Where I grew up, in rural NSW, dynamite was around on farms- but I never heard of gelignite being used except in the mining industry. But: the homemade explosive was superphosphate and diesel, packed hard, then ignited. Cheers Tony
Well, I've actually blew up my uncle's lantern when I was a kid. I think it was a compromised Butterfly pressure lantern which, I filled up with gasoline and lit. If I recalled correct, it started with a leak near the jet, which quickly developed into an inferno engulfing the whole lantern. The steel fount blew up shortly with a 5 metre high(I think) fireball and the lantern cage/frame was a mangled wreck, recovered at about 8 to 10 metres away from ground zero. The hood, generator, glass globe and all other parts couldn't be found at all. I fled from the scene after that.
The thing will a lot of safety issues is, what the 'public' is scared of isn't the statistical chance of an accident at all, it's the mode of failure. For example, flying is statistically safer than driving cars, catching the bus, trains... and many more, but, and it's a big but, the mode of failure for passenger aircraft accidents is all but binary - death or survival, with very little grey area in between. Contrast this with the mode of failure for say a car, which is a fairly linear curve with whiplash at one end and death at the other witha lot of gradations in between. This is seldom mentioned, but it's the mode of failure that people fear!
@ColinG Colin, the point you raise is a very good one and the fear factor of what could happen was amplified by electricity companies and GPA companies playing mind games. I have seen dozens of ads where an electricity company will be advertising their services. To get a readers attention, they would begin their advertisement like it was a news story. For instance, "Family burnt to death after gasoline lamp explodes If you connect to electricity a terrible tragedy like that can't happen to you. Gasoline is deadly and does kill in horrible fashion." The ad would continue on explaining the virtues of electricity and why you should use the company.
...I also forgot to mention the perceived lack of control over the eventual outcome within a system, for example, if we drive safe then we should be safer because we have a degree of control, whereas in some systems our level of control over the eventual outcome is tending to zero.
Colin makes a good point, it's the lack of control over events that puts people off of taking certain 'risks'. I would rather ride my bicycle/motorcycle/car than ride in a bus, let alone an aeroplane, not that I haven't ever flown - I have, and found the experience exciting rather than frightening, but that's largely down to the fact that pilots are highly trained and aeronautical standards are higher than automotive ones (in general). I was trained to drive buses in public service, also to drive tower cranes on building sites. In both instances I was in control, I experienced no fear. I could have fallen from the crane, but training and commonsense (along with a head for heights) kept me safe. I can understand a farmers fears about gasoline in the house, as it introduces a comparatively 'new' source of danger. If it's an unfamiliar quantity introduced by 'change', and one that is potentially volatile - who wouldn't be cautious?
