Hi Guys The 169 test version is now complete 8) & i'll post some pictures tomorow with the construction & firing up If anyone has any dead Tilley vaps with good bottoms i could do with some please Stu
Hi Stu, that makes alot of sense, how long is it taking you right now to put one of these together? Looking great & I am looking forward to seeing the final product.
Unforunately I don't have any hanky-panky temperature gauge gimmick so you won't get any polished tables with temperature curves on it from me. We are not talking about a few degrees (Celsius or Fahrenheit is up to you) that you surely don't notice when touching the vapouriser, we are talking about serious differences that might cause burn blisters or not. I have several brass vaps, original steel vaps and custom made steel vaps and the difference between their temperature at the lower end when in use is significant. Try it yourself and you will notice how accurate the Mark I finger works.
Hi John Each one is anywhere from an hour & a half to two hours + which includes the making of the pricker rod assembly too The first units are still under test & are working well , i have been told in the past that similar units have been less than successful due to carbon build up or easily damaged , but mine are made of top quality materials & the center hole is only just under 3mm leaving plenty of strength in the new vapouriser tube . The end where the jet screws on is kept as shallow as possible this keeps plenty of material in the top end to help stop the top of the tube bulging or filling full of carbon & clogging the jet Here are some more pic's My workbench as busy as ever with the test lamp in full swing & nearly 12 hours on the clock More pic's of the 169 vapouriser ready to be silver soldered along side two standard types The light output is very good & has heavily dimmed the camera in close proximity Five more new vapourisers part machined & a trimmed of 606 teady to be adapted Keep you all posted , Stu
and Why on earth would I (or anybody else with a grain of sense, come to that) want to touch the vapouriser on a running lamp..?
It seems nobody gets the point of what I am talking. The problem is not if anybody with a brain would touch a hot vapouriser or not. The point is that the tank or fount of the lamp gets uncomfortably hot as soon as a brass vapouriser is fitted on a lamp. And I think we all agree, that everybody with a brain in his head might want to pressurize the tank every now and then and I think we agree too that this is only possible when touching the lamp base. In conclusion a brass vapouriser transfers more heat down to the fount as a steel one making it nearly impossible to pump air in the tank, regarding to the type of lamp. You can see the same effect on old X246 »Pork Pie« lamps that have a brass cage, in comparison to later »Guardsman« lamps with a steel cage the fount gets significantly hotter. On Vapalux with an alloy cage there is the same effect. Fitting a brass vapouriser on them makes things even worse. I hope I could explain understandable what I mean.
You have explained it very well Stephan, thank you. I suppose that the only way to prove it conclusively would be to actually measure the fount temperatures with the two types of vap tube fitted. However, I am sure that what Stu is doing is more by way of experiment at this stage. Fascinating to follow though isn't it? Steve.
Thank you Steve, I agree that the vapourisers that Stu produces are in an experimental stage at the moment. But I still believe and have made my own experiences that steel doesn't transfer the same amount of heat as brass downwards to the fount. And referring to the above I am very interested to get a response regarding the »steel-brass-mix« vaps attributes compared to the ones made fully of brass.
Ah, OK, Stephan, that was what you were driving at. I'm with you now - you should have said that right at the beginning rather than at the end! I don't know, but I wouldn't have thought the problem would be that bad that you couldn't put your hand on the tank to pump it up. I'd have thought the problem, if there will be one, would be that the fuel overheats and this has some sort of consequence. I wouldn't have thought there would be a safety issue with kero although there may be some pressure effects. I'm just guessing though. The Optimus 930 has a reputation for running with a very hot tank. Does this cause a problem with pumping? Mine doesn't run long enough for the tank to get overheated so I don't know...
Hi David & Nils No discernable difference in vapouriser to fount temerature that i can detect just the same as standard , but pre heating seems a bit quicker though due to slightly better thermal properties of the brass. Stu
That's good news, it would be a great improvement compared to the fully brass made vapourisers. You might have noticed that Dirk tried to compensate the »disadvantage« by reducing the wall thickness in the middle section of the vap so that there is less material to transfer heat...
Yes, you said that - but saying that steel acts as an insulator (which is just plain wrong) muddied your statement. And your use of the term "quite hot" was, for me at least, vague. If you'd said, "the increased thermal conductivity of brass over steel will mean the tank gets too hot to touch and pump-up", I would have understood immediately. Anyway, we got there in the end and Stu has confirmed what I felt would be the case all along...
Hi David, of course you are right. Compared to my rather basic english knowledges your sentence is much more elaborated. I will try to get more precise next time.
No, actually I think your English is excellent, Stephan. I have a bit of a science background, though, and my training causes me to read things too literally sometimes and over-analyse them. It can be a pain...
Thanks for the compliments David, I think I would survive with my english knowledge but surely not as a scientist, perhaps as a lamp trader
Reducing the thickness of the centre section of the brass vapouriser seems to me a bit strange seeing as brass regularly heated becomes soft through annealing & a stuck or sticky jet may twist the tube while trying to remove the said item I did accidently bend the test vapouriser slightly but this was easily put back true & is seen working in all the pic's so far over 16 burning hours now & on inspection only the pricker rod has been blackened slightly & there is no carbon build up in the center of the tube at all 8) Using the old Tilley bottom keeps the strength in that area & the wall thickness all the way down is just over 3mm on the brass adapter , the thinnest part is where the jet screws in but this has proved to be no problem seeing as the jet thread adds back the lost brass to give nearly the same thickness to the top of the tube again Don't forget any dead Tilley vaps with good bottoms greatly appreciated as a 606 can be made into a 169 Best regards Stu .
Yes, I got the point and you are absolutely right. Until now I have no problems with the reduced thickness on the 606 brass vaps. The weight of the burner and hood is mostly taken by the frame of the stormlight. The 169 brass vaps made by Dirk have the normal thickness due to the weight they have to carry (burner, gallery, glass globe on table lamps, wall lamps...) To fit/remove the jet it is strongly recommended to use a vice with prism jaws. BTW: Don't let David see you used »regularly«, it has to be »frequently«
Tilley vaporisers have to be reasonably strong because in the table lamps they have to hold the weight of the gallery and burner. OK that is not too heavy perhaps but still enough weight to distort a thin brass tube when it is heated. ::Neil::
Wouldn't I rather be "regular" than "frequent"? I'm not getting any younger, and these distinctions seem to be getting more important...
Well the testing is going well so i have started to machine up some more vapourisers The first 169 "7 inch" is ready to go as well & this is going to Jeff in the Shetlands for a working apraisal with a few spares he'd asked for , the gallery springs are made by me too there will also be a set of BR49 riser pins to convert a Guardsman lamp to use a 169 vapouriser Stu
Great work Stu You should set up an online shop before we start to lose track of all your fabulous products or you lose track of the orders!
The first batch well under way , if you would like a vapouriser when i have done all my testing this will be on an exchange basis an old one for a modded one 8) I have ordered some more brass & it should be here soon Stu
Hi All Like remoulds eh , well almost Well i haven't been sitting on my laurels in between work & homelife i've been busy in the workshop too & now have machined up some spares ready to do a small run of the vapourisers if anyone might be interested 8) The most difficult part has beem machining the needle to pricker control rod 2mm threaded sleeve , a bit fiddly but not impossible Here are a few attatched already to the rods , a 606 & a 169 Several folks have asked me if the 169 version of this vapouriser is strong enough to hold up a table lamp gallery & i'm glad to say that they are with no problems , i put one of my silly Tilley table lamp conversions which is really half a stormlamp & much heavier than a standard gallery & glass & here it is fitted to a standard Corinthian table lamp A bit of a closer pic This vapouriser on test is now ready for Shedman 8) who has sent me some dead vapourisers to convert 8) , when i'm ready i'll put out a post saying they are available but i will need a dead vapouriser in return/exchange All the best , Stu
The box of parts from Stu arrived today, all of the parts were very well made! These photos show the Stuman vapouriser and the cage extensions fitted to a Guardsman lantern. I also fitted an unused burner. A testing report will follow in due course, Jeff.
Fantastic! Have to put these on my "wanted" list! Stu, can you make the longer vap out of an old short vap? Best regards, Wim
