King of all Lanterns. the NEW BriteLyt XL

King of all Lanterns. the NEW BriteLyt XL

So I was wondering if one of you did buy this lantern and used it.

For 650 us dollar you get a (multimulti fuel) 500cp lantern (230 dollars) and nice case.

 

I briefly talked with Eddie the Brytlyt owner some years ago about parts for a vintage lantern and he seemed to know lanterns and generously shared his time. Too Brytlyt repair new and vintage lanterns which is a reassuring detail. I've thought about buying one but I'm not a big PetroMax fan anymore, they need too much fettling and I'm lazy.

 

"We started from scratch to design the most durable, functional and innovative lantern the world has ever seen"

Looks like a Petromax to me!

 

Eiremax - exactly what I was about to say!

Clearly, they believe their own bollocks, er, hype...

 

Brytlyt its been said owns the Petromax brand rights in America . Its a P'max but with some differences in parts , whether that matters significantly I don't know. Some parts for the XL won't fit P'Max and vice versa. XL parts are more expensive as well. Can't really blame them for hyping their product they need to sell, sell, sell, that's business and paying the mortgage.

There is a rancorous relationship between BL and some in the lantern community. You can't even mention them at the Coleman forum. But until someone with knowledge of lanterns buys , tests, evaluates a BL, I'll try to be fair minded about Brytlyt . I bought many spare parts from them in the pass, most ok , some not but their customer service was top notch.

 

Dear @Hanzo,

If you speak the guy again, ask him about the multi fuel idea.

As for difference in parts, well that is something I don't see on the website. I would love to know how you can burn diesel as well as alcohol or salad oil without changing anything.

As for tests: you don't have to test something if it is obvious that a construction doesn't work or worse: is straight dangerous.
They mention a multifuel paptent but without the patent number. Show me the patent and I tell you if it works.

 

Wim

Brytlyt has always sold different parts for their XL versus other parts for P'Max and clones. For example they sell the inner casing part 117 for P'Max and 117B3 for the XL or part 115 for P'Max, 115 XL only etc. .

The most contentious part of the BL debate is the safety of the multi fuel use. Lantern people base this on science and lantern experience and they are on firm ground I'm sure and the safety concerns are hugely important. My problem is none who are skeptical about the BL have actually operated the lantern. In other hobbies people review the actual product then draw conclusions and discuss on the forums. In discussions of BL on the lantern forums their is strong feeling, sarcasm, skepticism,teeth gnashing and no one has even seen a BL in person. " Skepticism of the intellect, optimism of the will" is an old saying. For me I appreciate the skepticism about the BL but there is a lack of good will or fairness toward BL that seems unreasonable when its based on no experience with the actual product the vendor is selling.

 

I've never jumped out of a plane without a parachute but I've looked at the science and I'm as convinced as I need to be that the outcome wouldn't be a good one...

 

There is mentioned a Patent number on their website ( check BriteLyt XL lanterns have been Army tested ) : Patent number 9,316,367.

 

USPTO > Sorry, no results found for '9,316,367'. Try entering fewer or broader query terms.

Only result can be found with google: US9316367B2 - Multi-fuel lantern - Google Patents

The pictures show a petromax design, slightly modified in some areas but nothing that underlines or proofs the multi-fuel idea.

Figure 15 on page 8, shows the same old valve design. Which can NOT be trusted with flammable fuels by design.
Figure 17 page 9, shows the same old design pump. Which can NOT be trusted with flammable fuels by design.

If they only had changed the main valve to one like Coleman has and made an air tube up above the fuel level, like Coleman has, THEN only then they would have made a safer lantern of the Petromax design.

Having written this: it doesn't make it a multi-fuel lantern. Why ? Simply because you need other bore holes in the jet and you need another air/fuel mixture. I don't need a lantern for that, its physics.


@Hanzo, selling different parts, hence you made some changes with the original design, doesn't make it a multi fuel lantern.


So where E&G mad ? did they design a dangerous lantern ?
NO, take a close look at these vaporizers from the old catalogues:


See the difference with the gasoline ones (two on the right) ?
Yup they have a double valve ! Even the shut off valve is drawn !


So is using kerosene safe then ?
Yes and No. A faulty pump seal or main valve will spill kerosene (petroleum) but that is not that volatile as gasoline or alcohol (spiritus).

 

Wim

I never made any claims about the BL parts, just stated a fact as I know it, the parts they offer differ between their own proprietary parts and the parts they sell for generic P'Max.

You start off the thread soliciting opinions from actual BL users to help you draw your own conclusion. Even if you have suspicions about the lantern you realize you need something more than just your own reflections on lanterns in the abstract to reach a satisfying conclusion about a particular lantern. Then you contradict that and say you don't need to know the lantern , other opinions or see an example of it to be able to tell whether it works or not. This is a contradiction made so by the angry bias that's typical of discussions of BL. Claims made about the lantern based on everything except the thing itself. I don't accept BL claims at face value . Why should I accept on faith your conclusions about the BL when you can't substantiate them with anything like real experience and start out seeking the opinions of actual users yourself? This just seems a dead end like all discussions of the BL lantern.

 

Coleman set a standard for safety in gasoline lamps/lanterns/stoves. The "check valve" design; the locking pump shaft; and the air tube above the fuel are three ways that liquid gasoline is prevented from being discharged from the tank while the lamp is under pressure and operating.

Inherently, a "Primus-type" NRV is less safe to use with gasoline than a Coleman-type check valve. Kerosene is far less volatile than gasoline in operation and kerosene vapour will not ignite at "room temperature", while gasoline will.

Now, it is a fact that, for example the Optimus 111B, stove was made to run on gasoline, but it has the standard Primus-type NRV and tank set up and is therefore inherently more dangerous to use than a kerosene-fueled Optimus 111.

I have an Optimus 111T, meant to run on kerosene, gasoline and alcohol, but I only run it on kerosene for safety reasons. If it was an emergency, I would run it on gasoline, but only after thorough testing and taking addition precautions while operating.

As to running regularly running a lantern on gasoline that has the minimum of safety features
inside or in close proximity to people or valuable gear... I just would not take the risk.

I know nothing of Britelyt. But I do have a post-Petromax "Petromax", the so-called "Petromax 830". I haven't fettled it, but I'm assuming it runs on kerosene.

Cheers

Tony

 

The BL debate began in about 2001-2 when I first saw their instructions Etc which said they were selling a multifuel lantern that would run on Gasoline deisel or Kero. They also had some bizarre notions of the history and developement of the Petromax lantern. When the Guild suggested to BL that there were dangers involved with gasoline they got aggressive and insisted the lamp had been tested with gasoline. Truned out this was true but the engineer who tested the lamp was only reporting on function and not safety. He reported that the lamp did work well on gasoline which was not really surprising as we know very well they do.

As far as I am aware the BL lamp is a good working lantern made in Hong Kong and is good as anything from there. BL insist the lamp is German made because that is where they import them from but we know very well they are Chinese. So to sum it all up our problem with BL was never about the quality of the product as it is pefectly OK as a kero lamp. Our problem was always with the way the owners described the product and how they suggested it could be used. ::Neil::

 

Correct, until now nobody said he/she did buy one.

I am not sure where I write that I don't need other opinions.
But with the patent number and its drawings, I can see if something works or that it is another design then that of the original petromax design.
For that I, indeed, do not need the lantern. Why ? Well the nature of drawings is that they tell you how something works. And since they are with the patent, I know that the lantern will be made according to the drawings.

Angry bias ?
Well I am not angry, I am sceptical about the multi fuel claim and want to know how this works. Typical for the britelite discussions is always the lack of proof of the company's claims.
For the record I also have had this same discussion with Diana in the past. The answer is always the same, You don't get an answer on why it is a new design or better or safer.

 

@Tony Press

Tony talked about the dangers of using very volatile fuels with a stove or lantern designed for the much safer paraffin (kerosene).
He mentions the 111B stove which relies on a few mm of nitrile in its non-return valve for its safety.
If that valve fails some paraffin will leak out the pump - no big deal.
But if filled with Coleman Fuel etc. and the valve fails you get the following (the flame was about three times the height two or three seconds earlier).

 

Wim

Neil gives a even and fair summation of the BL controversy. He says its probably a good kero lantern. In all the highly charged discussions of the BL across forums we never understand that simple point.

What if you or other experienced lantern hands here had the product for test and review ? I would trust your evaluation and we'd probably arrive finally at the end of the discussion instead of just fruitlessly kicking the BL can down the road. Its better than a new P'Max? The new XL design makes it a safer lantern? Its not worth twice the price of a Butterfly Lantern? Its a ISIS IED with gasoline in it, don't trust it matey? It performs better than expected with some fuels rather than others?

Its fruitless to cross examine or argue with Diana or Eddie about the lantern they sell. How could they be impartial when they have so much invested ? I would never expect them to talk down their product but to be on the defensive and even to defend the indefensible . I'd just look at the lantern and separate fact from fiction, I already know their stance as owners of the company.

This is why the members here can be so handy. They can tear a XL down, put it through its paces, separate claims from the truth. To me that would be a wrap on the XL, I'd know what I need to .

 

@shagratork

You can't get away with posting that photograph and not identifying the startled punters standing nearby (or the unfortunate owner of the fireball...).

Cheers

Tony

 

@Hanzo, well last try:

Neil writes it's a good KEROSENE lantern. Like, I would write a Petromax is too.

But I read on the BL website , its a great MULTI FUEL lantern.
THAT is what I want to know. BL never offered me or Neil a lantern to test. I can't buy one here and buying one in the USA plus shipping cost it is way to expensive for me.
BUT if the lantern works fine on citronella oil, my thumbs are up, if I empty the tank refill with alcohol and it works fine, two thumbs up, and after refilling with diesel and it work also fine I would be more then happy to write a review. But when I have to change parts, adjust things or whatever then it is not a multifuele lantern but a kerosene lantern that can be adjusted to burn other fuels. Which btw a petromax can do too.

 

@Tony Press

Tony, you are a little devil!
I do not want to embarrass people, but I will say that the stove was owned by a well known kilted member and the startled punters included the site owner!

 

@shagratork

I suspected as much!

Cheers

Tony

 

You missed out the words 'running away' between the words 'punters' and 'included'.

No embarrassment, Trevor. This was the first time the (very inexperienced at the time) member concerned had lit the stove after purchase and under the tutelege and encouragement of many experienced stovies from the site owner downwards. In fact, it was the first time he had ever lit a stove claimed to burn safely with gasoline, Coleman or panel wipe.

The blaze was dealt with by Ian Marson who expertly fettled the stove after the incident. The cause was found to be a bit of shite detritus in the NRV - which only goes to show how potentially dangerous it is to use the very volatile fuels mentioned above in appliances which incorporate kerosene technology only; no matter what is claimed by the manufacturer (in this case, Optimus - the stove was a 111B). This exactly parallels the situation with BriteLyt i.e. claimed multifuel capability with only kerosene technology in the design. In my opinion, an accident just waiting to happen.

BTW, the member concerned owns the stove still but prefers not to use it - very much a case of 'once bitten: twice shy'...

 

Oh, and I should say that the member concerned has subsequently lit many lamps, lanterns and stoves using Coleman fuel and panel wipe on many occasions entirely without incident. These appliances have, however, all been designed to burn the more volatile fuels SAFELY by the inclusion of such features as positive shut-off valves, shrouded pump tubes venting above fuel level and locking NRVs.

It's not rocket science is it...

 

@David Shouksmith

Lucky "the owner's" sporran didn't catch fire.

Cheers

Tony

 

Aye, the owner's bottle of Scotch whisky is at the back of the table if you look closely enough...

- and a Bialaddin spirit can...

- and a fuel bottle full of highly inflammable panel wipe...

 

@David Shouksmith

Mmmm... that's why I have a good looking, but unfettled, 111B.

Cheers

Tony

 

Isn't the 111B a gasoline only stove? I think the 111C and T burn Kero (as well as gas and meths with an adapter).

I have several 111B stoves at home and I've never had an issue with any of them, mind you they all have new "rubber" from the Fettle Box. I also check the safety valve regularly to be sure it functions.

If I see the pump move out I do shutdown the stove and replace the pip.

 

@Tony Press

I agree Coleman eventually set some good standards.

You may not know this but it is believed that one of the reasons W C Coleman set out to make his products safer was because one of his early lamps (1906) failed and as a result a 16 year old boy being held in a county jail was killed. He died of horrendous burns. The Coleman rep that was attending the lamp was badly burnt too.

I can assure you, it cost W C a pretty penny in restitution. I assume it cost his and his then company, The Hydro-Carbon Light Co, a fair bit of their reputations as well.

Despite all their efforts to keep their product as safe as possible they (Coleman) still made mistakes. I think it is their 500 or 501 stove (perhaps both) that they were forced to destroy when a customer brought it in for service. They were and are, that dangerous.

 

@Matty

I think it was the Coleman 501 stove that was recalled; and they fixed the issue with the release of the 501A. Coleman stovies rate the 500 quite highly, I gather.

Cheers

Tony

 

@Tony Press

Nope. Perhaps the ones that are unaware of the danger perhaps, but that would be it.

I've read topics on another forum where they are used as target practice. Actually, knowing the Americans love of guns, perhaps they are paying hommage to the stove by shooting it to bits?

 

@Matty

Do they use them as skeets?

Tony