Discussion in 'Fettling Forum' started by Juan, Jan 10, 2019.
Hi. Should I service this vaporizer? What is inside it?
If your pricker is working, I would service this vapouriser by soaking it for 24 hours in acetone, then soaking it in Coleman fuel. If the vapouriser will then not allow the passage of fuel, you might have to replace the packing (which is most likely asbestos). The asbestos packing can be replaced with fibreglass.
Thank you, Tony. The pricker works very well and specifically I was asking for the second part you wrote.
Just of interest what model gloria is that from .
Gloria or Knight?
From this one
Typically these have a steel rod inside the generator with asbestos string wound round it. Sometimes you may find a small staple shoved at the end to stop the packing cigar rising up the tube. The packing does clog with carbon and often requires burning out or replacing. Simplest solution is to re pack with a fine brass wire mesh but I normally make a new cigar with a wire rod and new asbestos string. ::Neil::
Yes, I guessed that a spring or something similar should be inside it but there is something carbon clogged. When I try to blow through the bottom hole, the air passes but hardly.
So: if I completely remove the whatever is inside by any way I will not destroy the vaporizer. Is correct? In this case brass mesh is easiest to find for me.
Thank you very much.
I just replaced the packing in this Gloria generator:
Excelent! How did you get the old asbestos?
You won't damage the generator at all. They are always just a metal tube where the liquid is vaporised. The packing is a filter and an aid to vaporisation. As there is a pricker the filter is less important but the heat transfer is vital for smooth running. I often give up on being carefull and just run a drill down the tube to clear it and then use asbestos to re pack. But with a pricker, because the filter is less important, inserting a wire mesh will do the heat transfer job and is an easier fix. ::Neil::
That answers my question!
A little brute force and ignorance sometimes works. I tend to be a bit impatient sometimes. That's how I discovered heat & quench as a quick fix. Why bother with a screwdriver when I have a large hammer handy? ::Neil::
Juan, I just wanted to let you know this is not a Gloria generator.
Interesting? I have seen a few of these and they were always either on Gloria or Knight lamps. That bottom fitter was only used by Gloria, Powerlight and Thomas as far as I know and only the Gloria with a top pricker. So maybe you can educate us and show us what it belongs with please. ::Neil::
I'm glad that you have shown the dissembled generator. I have one to refurbish and now, from you pictures, I know that it's possible to take apart fully. To date, I have only managed to get one end. I was starting to think that the other end was silver solder or something. It seems that I have to be a bit more brutal with the persuasion.
O' my generator was/is fitted to a Gloria table lamp.
I regret posting what I did because I should have known scrutiny would have followed. It isn't that I don't welcome scrutiny it is that my previous experience's haven't gone well when I try to explain and the topics never ever end well. This topic will be no different so I won't try.
I don't know what lamp you have but it is very possible that you have to re-think if it is a Gloria. Of course, it could also be a replacement generator.
With the greatest of respect - I believe you know how much I respect your incredible knowledge - what I quoted is part of the problem. Any lamp that half looks like a Gloria is constantly being added to the Gloria manufacturing list when in fact they aren't Gloria's. Gloria, USA, I am talking about. Not just table lamps, it extends to all of Gloria's - Non Gloria - lighting appliances.
I believe the root cause is a patent taken out by Doran that has been misunderstood from the time it was found by collectors.
Again, I regret posting what I did because I don't want to cause ripples and I should have known such statements that I made would cause a ruckus. It is best that my crackpot post be ignored and the rest can carry on as usual.
I believe that what Tony has in the bag was sold as "safe asbestos".
Did an ebay search .
Exhaust Sealing Modern Safe Asbestos URAL K750 DNEPR MT M72 IZH string 1 metre | eBay
I cannot even try to imagine what “safe asbestos” could be.
I treat it like “unsafe asbestos”.
Hi, Tony. Thank you. It passed a lot of time since I serviced mine so, I can't remember if I putted something inside it. I could to take it apart and the lantern runs fine!!
Matt. Not a problem at all. I do agree we tend to lump stuff in Gloria as a default. In this case we have the problem of identity again. That turban fount was used by Coleman, Gloria and Knight. We have tended to assume they were all made by Coleman but I am not so sure they were since they appear in paper from three well established manufacturing companies. Maybe all three companies bought in founts from a specialist spinning company? I have several examples marked as Coleman and Knight and one unmarked. Can't argue who sold two of them but who knows who made/sold the unmarked ones. The accepted wisdom is the unmarked are Gloria but in truth that is a guess. The generators are never marked and in this case we can only be reasonably sure it's not a Coleman. Thomas and Kaufmann didn't use a turban fount so it is unlikely to be from either of those which leaves us with just the usual suspects Gloria and Knight again. Now I want to know as much as anyone who made what here so given a hint that a similar generator was not a Gloria I had to ask the question, if it’s not Gloria then who might it be?
We are both researchers always looking for a truth. Sometimes I may not agree with a conclusion but never doubt that I respect the research you do so diligently. So I won’t agree it was a “Crackpot post”, it was part of an ongoing researchers discussion about the companies who made lanterns with that fount and generator. I don’t know who else may have produced such a beast and that prompted the question. ::Neil::
Thank you Neil. The main reason I am so reluctant to reveal information that I have is because of some of the batterings I have suffered from a very small group on this very forum. So rather than show and discuss things I find, I simply keep it to myself. Lesson learnt. I'm sure they are happy with themselves.
I firmly believe that is extremely unlikely that Coleman or Gloria manufactured the founts. It is an ongoing search for me but I most definitely have made inroads. Still, it is extremely hard to find the knockout bit of information. I do think if I wrote up and submitted all the information I have, anyone with an open mind would start to understand that things simply weren't how many of us today think.
I know quite a few pieces of information that I need to try and verify not just rely on the one source. A lot of that information, if verified, will have to change how we as researchers understand what happened back in the day. In fact, I have a few bits of startling information, stuff I wouldn't have thought of in a million years.
A week or so ago I found the patent for the generator that Gloria used and it isn't a Gloria (Doran) or Coleman patent or any other 'known' GPA company. I knew it wouldn't be.
I'd like to add that it isn't just Coleman or Gloria we don't quite understand. The Akron Gas Lamp Co, its history, as written by today's researchers, is missing a crucial element that changes how we should understand the company and the dynamics surrounding it.
I had written a long further response but removed it because I didn't want to bore you to death.
A patent is just an idea. The fact that several companies made/used a very similar generator may only mean they all licensed the patent from the same patentee and we can't know if those companies bought the idea or the actual product.
The same applies to the turban founts. I would expect there to be a design patent for that which we have never found. It is a specialist piece of manufacture because that shape couldn’t be stamped it has to be a spinning and that means a specialist. Now spinning is a dying art today but back in the day perhaps less so. I agree the similarities do suggest a single source but all the companies involved had machine shops so could have employed such a specialist. So I think “extremely unlikely” is perhaps a little strong but the similarity does lean that way.
At this remove it is perhaps understandable that we have trouble determining the truth. Quite a few companies have convoluted histories and I know only too well we don’t understand much in many cases. The official record doesn’t tell the story either. We have the incorporation record for a lot of the companies but they never reveal the details of mergers or purchases. All we can go with is all too often newspaper reports which we know can be flawed. What we need is minutes of board meetings and to date I don’t know of any that have survived.
What you said is exactly correct in some circumstances but not others where we have evidence of a patent being more than just an idea, it was produced because we have physical examples of the item.
Nearly all inventors that had an item patented mentioned in their patent text that those familiar with manufacturing didn't necessarily have to manufacture the patent to the exact drawings of the original patent. Coleman certainly put such a message in a couple of his patents at least. The following is one such an example.
So, having established that patentee's allowed for variations of their patent to be manufactured, the original patent was still the standard. The only way you would be able to manufacture the patent as drawn by the inventor or as modified by you, would be through a license agreement with the patent holder. In other words, you couldn't just change a few things and that nullified the original patent - it did not.
When we find patents, it is difficult to know if the patent is the original or a variation of the original. The following patent is what I believe to be a variation of the original patent and of course, as long as you paid a license fee or royalties you were quite within your rights to alter the original patent then patent your version. However, your version of the patent did not nullify the original patent and you would have to continue to pay royalties depending on what arrangement you made with the original patentee.
You may or may not be familiar with this patent.
Many of those that have found the above patent may well believe it is an original idea that was patented. Those that are familiar with OXOGas or the KK lamp burners would know this is a variation of them.
So why did inventors go to the trouble of altering the original patent? Why not just use the original patent as drawn and save the cost of re-engineering and applying and paying to register a patent. Those costs would have been considerable.
I think the most obvious reason companies altered original patents were to make a burner that suited their current generators, cowlings and shade holders as examples. I also suppose that there was the possibility that other companies might like your version of the original patent and they would pay you royalties to use your version in their lamps.
For the reasons above, I think we need to be very careful of what we think is an original patent. I'd caution against thinking that AGM patents that have been found are the originals. I would also caution against thinking that Doran was the original inventor of the common burner Gloria and others used on so many lamps such as the 'Gloria Model B'
Back to the generator. I am happy to believe I have found the original patent for the generator that Gloria and so many others used. The generator as seen in this topic is a variation of the original and came quite a bit later.
Yes that is US patent 1337620 applied for 6th September 1919 and can only be a later variation since Gloria were using that generator type from at least 1914 ish. Odd patent too when by 1919 I doubt anyone wanted to think about making new types of torch lighting burners with the possible exception of folk like Thomas and Kaufamannwho were making kero lamps but they were using a similar generator from 1916 anyway. Seems to me that patent is more to do with supporting the burner and shade than re-inventing a generator. The original patent for the Gloria generator has to be at least 5 years older that this one and probably dated around 1910 to 1913 or even earlier perhaps. The above patent cites US pat 1142815 and that is a Kaufmann patent applied for 10th June 1914 but that is just for generation support and not a generator patent. However it does reveal something interesting. Pat 1337620 is in US patent class 431/107 and that is a classification the Guild did not search. The Kaufmann generator is shown in US pat 1144684 Appl 24th October 1914 which is pretty much the same as the Gloria OXO-Gas generator but I suspect that is also a bit late. I don't know of the original patent for the Gloria generator. ::Neil::
Separate names with a comma.