Is that really a risk? Tubes are extremely difficult to crush; that’s how tunnels work! On the other hand, if you were filling the lower half of the fount to protect the base but had a higher level of water in the fuel tube then I could see it being very easy to split it.
@Matty Understanding, a tube is inherently strong in its resistance to being crushed, however the surface of the fount is in comparison with the strength of the pickup tube, weaker. This is why the dent is removed as the icing up of the water expands and importantly, why the expansion is to be halted immediately when the dent is removed. The expansion is expended on the fount’s weaker dent. I have used this method over 7 times with no consequential damage to the fuel delivery tube. I’m not claiming the water to ice expansion method is infallible, I’m saying it’s a useful method and it’s up to the individual to decide on its use. Cheers Pete P.S. Captain Smith didn’t like lists either. (He was the Captain of the Titanic)
As owners of your lamps, I certainly won't further challenge your wisdom to do as you see fit with them. If you are comfortable with the process that's all that matters. One would think that 7 lamps is enough samples to think it is unlikely something will go wrong. I am probably over cautious. I collect some pretty old stuff and it isn't possible to retrieve the fuel line on some of those lamps, without surgery and repairs afterwards, if something did go wrong.
Has anyone tried any of these(-Paintless-Dent-Removal-Dent-Puller-Lifter-Lifter-Tools-Kit) advertised on evil bay
@Graham P I haven’t tried this method, however, I believe, or sort of remember someone amongst us was going to try it. I would be very interested in seeing the results. If it works on a car’s steel body then there’s a good chance that it may work on a brass fount albeit the fount is spherically shaped whereas the car bodies tend to be flatter. If it works it would be another tool in our fettle box. Cheers Pete
Metal car parts are normally way thinner then a pressure bowl of our lamps. I doubt if you can get enough pulling/pushing power into it.
And finally I got some time to assemble the 200P. Here it is, a rugged but now usable workhorse. Now the glass frame sits straight. The long dent pressed out but still very much there. I had to solder a little around the pump tube, I guess the ice moved it a little bit during freezing, since it leaked a bit from there. /Matti
Just got a late night idea! Have a Radius 119 with the top of the tank compressed. Just filled it with water and pushed the garden hose to the fill hole. Even though I couldn't hold quite tight, the tank popped up! The thread on the radius tank lid seems to be half inch - same as a garden hose connector. I will try that tomorrow on another lamp with the same problem. I think pressure here is 5-6 bar so at least the tank can stand that. Leaked a little through the jet, but that didn't matter. Next step is pressure car washer - if I can lower the pressure - 120 bar would surely blow the tank apart. Has anyone ever tested how much pressure a tank can hold! Should you blow the bottom out I think water is much safer - much less stored energy.... /Hans
I don't know if its OK to share a link from another forum but here is what I did on my 242C viewtopic.php if no Ok please delete this
@HasseO - Great idea ! and pleased it worked. Pre, during and post photos would be really interesting
Air pressure acting on water or any liquids would effectively turn it into hydraulic pressure, which is even harder on the metal surface. There'd be a smaller air volume to provide any cushioning. It depends whether the fount or bottom is brass or steel. And of course, the intergrity of the folded seams and solder. I've pressurized a brass one up to 4 bar. That's enough to cause some bulging.
Well, here's a little movie of the progress. As file is not allowed here, a link to my Google drive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WYHG8z8xONkdLc6ZBZrOyyakuPvGOY7f/view?usp=sharing Please let me know if I started sharing everything on my drive! /Hans
Are you really sure about hydraulic pressure being "harder"? Just made a calculation and now I got scared!!! Heres the maths: radius of The Radius is 8 cm - area of the bottom 8x8x3,14 around 200 sqcm - 6 bar almost the same as 6 kg/sqcm - which means there's a push of 1200 kg to the top and the bottom!!!! Sounds an awful lot - but the bottom of the Radius 119 is curved about the same shape as the top. As I see it the same power will "push" the areas with air.... Well, can just say nothing was damaged.... /Hans
Well its not really harder in the sense that the resulting forces acting on the fount's inner surface would still be the same, be it water or air. So long as we're talking about the same pressure being applied. What I meant was, air is still compressible and provides some cushioning like a spring. Water is hardly compressible(the volume would not get any smaller) no matter how high the applied pressure is. Therefore, there's near zero cushioning and not as forgiving as air, in case you overpressurize.
My thoughts on "forgiving" is that there will be much less problems with "blowing up" a tank with water than with air of the same pressure. Just a small amount of water getting out the pressure is zero but the air still has stored energy to send the tank flying around. So my "conclusion" is that water is safer than air in this operation. Thumbs up or down on this one???
I think Wim is right. What about the test that proves the boilers on steam locomotives? It has to be the same problem! I'm sure I saw them doing this at the Severn Valley Railway workshops some years ago.
You may be well be right in this sense. Pressure tests with most items, are generally done using liquids;, water for example. Or in case of store energy in the form of pressure, water is zero or near zero. Air or other gases, which are compressible, would have some figures. Also, its easier to visually identify leaks with water or other liquids than with air. Water has a somewhat better capillary action to 'fill' all the tiny crevices in an enclosed space for a more uniform exertion of forces on the entire inner surface. Therefore, its more appropriate to use water for testing purposes. My earlier mention on 'forgiveness' was from a different point. It stemmed from comparisons between the effects of the following scenario: the shock that would be experienced by an object when an explosive charge is detonated. For instance, depth-charges used against submarines in the past great war. The force from its explosion is transfered without cushioning to the submarines in the watèr. The submarine would have experience less shock if there was no water.
Hello! Just want to add info on actual pressure: I have been informed the pressure is 4-4,5 bar here in Jokkmokk. So not 5-6 as I guessed.
I know nothing about pressure, or anything else really, but I do know that I just love that lamp with the red fringed shade Hasse0.
Have you looked in the Frankenmods section? More pictures there. https://classicpressurelamps.com/threads/custom-radius-table-lamp.1639/
@HasseO .. forgot all about this .. ‘Across the water’ is a local term for ‘Across the Mersey’ ps also I still haven’t checked out any scouse belly dancing supply shops either think I’ll stick to ebay