Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 18 July 2002 - 01:32 pm |        |
At last I have fuelled up my old bull's-eye lantern and tested the power of its beam.
The flame is adjusted by turning the knob on the burner which raises the wick. However, there appears to be an optimum setting, below which it is too dim and above which it smokes badly and gets hot. Assuming that the patrolling Victorian policeman would have it set around this level I tried it out. To actually discern what you are looking at in reasonably dark conditions about ten yards appears to be a maximum distance. Beyond this the light is very diffused and loses its power. At a reasonably close distance (7 yards and under) quite a good beam, yellow in colour, is produced.
For what it's worth. |
Author: Eduardo Zinna
Thursday, 18 July 2002 - 02:57 pm | |
Hello Stewart,
I feel this is the sort of information to be treasured and to be taken into account at all times in the future, as opposed to the idle theories many of us come up with from time to time. What it's worth is, to my mind, a lot.
All the best,
Eduardo |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Thursday, 18 July 2002 - 03:32 pm | |
Stewart -
Many thanks for this information, which I have squirreled away in my files should I ever need it. A series of questions: what would the policeman of 1888 have used to fuel his lantern? Is there a modern equivalent? And would the older version have impurities (possibly mitigating the illumination) that the modern would not? Just curious, having never had a bull's-eye lantern. I've got a Met police whistle, though, which is a useful thing to have when walking down dark streets at night.
CMD |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 18 July 2002 - 03:37 pm | |
Hi, Eduardo, CM, and Stewart:
Many thanks, Stewart, for carrying out this experiment with your old police bull's-eye lantern. I fully agree with Eduardo and CM that such "hands-on" tests and demonstrations are worth more than scores of pages of hot air! Thanks for carrying out this wonderful experiment, Stewart.
All the best to you three.
Chris |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 18 July 2002 - 04:05 pm | |
Thank you all for that, I think it was Monty who wanted the test carried out. I would think that the paraffin (kerosene) used then would be pretty much the same as that used today.
I hasten to add that by the time I joined the police force (1969) we were using electric torches (flashlights). |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 18 July 2002 - 04:40 pm | |
Could carbide have been used for police lamps in 1888?. I remember we had some fun as kids with carbide, making "bombs" and such.
Rick
P.S. it was used for bicycle lamps before the second world war. |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Thursday, 18 July 2002 - 07:12 pm | |
Rick,
The process for manufacturing quantities of calcium carbide wasn't discovered until 1891.
Calcium carbide lighting in the mining industry was still in use up to the 1930s. It was also used for navigation buoys by the US Lighthouse Service pre 1914. (Sounds risky to me)
Regards
Jim |
Author: Monty
Friday, 19 July 2002 - 09:12 am | |
Stewart,
Many thanks for carrying that experiment out and I apologise if I kept badgering you about it.
Im so relieved to hear that you are still with us....................and eyebrows still intact ???
Thanks again....I've always preferred you to Mr Begg
Monty
PS Robeer...are you out there ??? Does this give you any more thoughts on PC Harvey ?? |
Author: Monty
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 09:53 am | |
Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhh !
What is wrong with you people ???
Mr Evans has kindly executed an experiment to deduce how far a Bull's eye lantern beam reaches and there is nothing coming from out there with regards to PC Harvey and his use of....a Bull's eye lantern !!!
Was this test pointless ?? Am I reacting like this over nothing ? Doesnt anyone out there feel that this is an important piece of information when we are trying to ascertain of what Harvey saw or did not see..what Harvey did or did not do ?
PC Harvey is the crux in the timing of both Eddowes death and the timing of the mutilations.
I know that this ground has been trodden on more times than than a cheap French grape but with this information I am sure that there is something new to come out.
Monty
 |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 07:39 am | |
| Does anybody have the measurements for Mitre Square? How far would PC Harvey have to see with that thing to be aware of the Eddowes' body? Here's a scenario: I stick the lamp out in front of me at 1:30. I think I glimpse a shadow over in the corner by the hoarding, but I dismiss it. For 15 minutes I walk my beat and the thing nags at me. Maybe it wasn't my imagination after all. Next time I go back there I'm going to look more thoroughly. After he finds Eddowes he knows that he daren't mention the first sighting, in fact he convinces himself that he didn't really see anything the first time anyway. It explains why he seems to have searched more thoroughly the second time. If the range of the lamp was limited he would have had to actually go much further into the square to find Eddowes. |
Author: Graham Jay
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 08:29 am | |
| It would depend on how PC Harvey entered the square. If he came in through Mitre St, 30 feet would be more than adequate to see the body. Any other entrance, and it wouldn't be unless he actually came into the square instead of just poking his nose in. |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 10:40 am | |
| Does anybody know what entrance he used? |
Author: Graham Jay
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 10:50 am | |
Another question would be, how many lights would be left burning in warehouses etc late at night?
Would the lantern be the only source of illumination? |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 01:58 pm | |
Pc Harvey did not enter Mitre Square, he merely walked to the bottom of Church Passage and back up again (at 18 or 19 minutes to 2). Mitre Square was not on his beat, it was on Pc Watkins beat, and I can assure you that policemen do not check areas that do not fall on their own beat, when working a fixed beat system.
However, after the murder was discovered by Watkins, Harvey obviously did enter the Square as he was one of the officers who went to assist Watkins. |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 03:29 pm | |
Stewart,
I find that an interesting comment about PC's not checking areas that are not their 'patch'.
So would I be correct in saying that Harvey would be checking Church passage as opposed to the square ?
Another reason for not being that observant re the square ?
I know he didnt enter the square but he stated that he walked to its junction with the passage. I was curious how far the beam would have reached from that spot to where the body laid.
Monty
PS I wonder if you could help me, (you seem to be doing alot of that for me lately, sorry) but on a recent visit of mine to the square I notice on the East side of the square, roughly at the spot where Church passage may have opened into the square that the pavement stones have a distinct layout as if they formed the shape of a building (sorry if this is unclear).
Now, would I be correct in assuming that this is where the warehouse came to ? If so that it makes the square far bloody smaller than I first thought. |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 03:36 pm | |
Graham, Diana,
Firstly, just wanted to say thanks. You heeded my call and Im grateful.
In the light of what Stewart mentions above, Im really in two minds now.
I would have thought the beam not strong enough to locate Kate but, as I mention above, if Im correct in assuming that those paving stones are indeed where the exit of the passage came to then Harvey was a hell of alot closer than I first thought.
Monty
|
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 03:37 pm | |
Stewart,
Thanks for the testing og the lamp and for the information about the policeman on the beat. I knew the police were the same every where. I can remember arguing with homicide detectives from another district as to whose jurisdiction the murder fell.
Me: Not mine ( Thinking I got enough damn work)
Other Det: Not mine the body is in your jurisdiction.
Me: ( Slyly edging a bullet casing across the yellow stripe in the road) AHHHH but the shots were fired from your side. Bye-Bye.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 06:11 pm | |
| Here's another thing. We're all starting to wonder if PC Harvey looked closely enough. Jack could have been crouching in the dark next to the body of Eddowes and Harvey missed them altogether. If that is the case Dr. Ind was right. Jack was definitely a smash and grab artist. Because for him to be intelligently looking for specific organs he would have had to have a light. You can be the world's greatest surgeon and you still won't be able to operate in the dark. And if Jack had had a lantern or something Harvey would have spotted it. There would be a gleam off in the distance. If Jack was cutting up Eddowes under a street light Harvey would have spotted that too. If we can clearly establish that Harvey probably missed seeing Jack it will clear up the timeline which has always seemed a bit unrealistic and it will go a long way toward establishing Jack as a random dredger rather than an anatomically informed disector. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 06:22 am | |
Diana, there are two simple, logical explanations to the apron and JtR not being spotted in Mitre Square,-- Halse and Long missed it previous time, perhaps due to it resting on the wrong side side of the doorway to their approach. JtR couldn't have been seen by Harvey because Harvey didn't go down Church Passage to Mitre Square entrance, even though he said he did, (just guessing), cops are only human, as are we all.
P.C.Long was dismissed in July 89 for being drunk on duty. P.C.Harvey was dismissed July 89, reasons,-- unknown. Strange, don't you think?.
Yet Long was a man who had served twelve years in the army and four in the police force, Harvey was a man who had served twelve years in the police force, both men used to discipline and taking orders.
Rick |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 04:39 pm | |
Rick
Calling the testimony of a witness into question because they were 'let go' the following year is despicable.
Hey, have you contemplated on which side of the archway the graffito (graffiti?) was scribbled?
If it was written on the righthand (southerly) side then he was writing in the dark, but, if it was written on the lefthand (northerly) side then he was using the light from the streetlamp which would have been over his shoulder.
This is assuming the 'L.P.' marked on the 1873 O. S. map means 'lamp-post', and also, assuming it was still there in 1888.
Sorry, just trivia.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 06:30 pm | |
Hi Jon, maybe someone got at Long and Harvey seven months after the event. It seems odd to me that two very well qualified police constables should be dismissed from the same division?,in the same month?,-- one for being drunk on duty, the other,--reason unknown!!, it just makes me wonder, were they set up for some reason?.
Rick |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 06:52 pm | |
Hi, everyone
Maybe PC Long was just not a very good cop. The coroner at the Eddowes inquest seems to have been unimpressed with his powers of observation regarding the spelling in the graffito and his failure to search the surrounding premises upon finding the apron. Long also had to leave the inquest to get his notes about the case--I wonder why he didn't think to bring them along when he knew he had to testify.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 07:20 pm | |
| But if JTR was using light in any way to facilitate his operations, Harvey would have spotted him. When it is pitch dark and you see a building with the curtains undrawn and a light on you can easily see quite a lot of what is going on in that room. It was 1:30 AM on a rainy night. Mitre square must have been pitch dark. Even from a distance Harvey would have seen something if Jack had been using a light. |
Author: Mike Dallas
Sunday, 28 July 2002 - 02:03 pm | |
Mr Evans
Many thanks for posting the results of your experiment, I found it interesting. I assume that your lamp is fueled by kerosene, or what in many parts of the USA might be called coal oil. I think you are correct that kerosene is basically the same today. Still, I would expect that modern produced kerosene is probably much purer. Thus it may burn hotter and brighter than that of 19 century manufacture. This is speculation on my part; I have no data to support it but would just about bet that someone somewhere would know. Perhaps the engineering department of one of the large oil companies. |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Monday, 29 July 2002 - 03:58 am | |
Mike,
Modern paraffin certainly contains additives to make it more smokless. (Source; "Smoke gets in you're eyes" "Esso Blue" television advert.)
Jim |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 29 July 2002 - 07:02 am | |
They asked me how I noooooo
It was Esso Bloooooo
I of course replied
With other brands you find
Smoke gets in your eyes.
Ah, the memories come flooding back, Jim.
Love,
Caz
Altogether now - the Esso sign means happy motoring, call at the Esso sign.
(And my first job was with Shell!) |
Author: Mike Dallas
Monday, 29 July 2002 - 11:28 pm | |
Jim
Yes, modern kerosene (I assume this is what you mean by paraffin) produces very little smoke. I have an 80,000 BTU kerosene heater that I use in my garage. It burns with a bright yellow flame, fairly intense and appears to be very efficient; producing very little odor or other residue and it is not vented to the outside. Especially when compared to a similar one I remember my parents using when I was young. I recall that it was smelly, smoky, and did not have near the BTU output of it’s modern equivalent. While I’m sure there have been improvements in the design of the heater I think that most of this is due to the improved quality of the fuel. |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 05:50 am | |
Hi Mike,
Yes we call kerosene paraffin in the UK (for domestic use applications). My previous posting was incorrect when I said additives. The impovements in the quality of the fuel have mainly come about by the removal of impurities, most notably sulphur. Almost all kerosene used for domestic heaters and lamps is low sulphur. With regards to modern heaters the technology applied to burners (electronic fuel injection and mixing air to the gaseous fuel etc) have led to manufacturer's claims of 99.9 % efficiency.
I too remember the nauseus odour only to well. I'm afraid we're giving our age away here.
Regards
Hi Caz,
Memories indeed, I can't believe from your photo, that you're old enough to remember.
I knew someone at school who attempted to drink paraffin, (he'd moved on from eating firelighters)he was stopped, thankfully. Some wag mixed the ditties from the Esso Blue and the Opal Fruits adverts and sang "Esso Blue ! Made to make you're mouth water !"
Your obedient servant
Jim |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 07:25 am | |
Thanks Jim. But that photo is really old, I have been looking for a half-decent recent one. That one was taken back in the dark age of 2001!
What about: "One thousand and one cleans a big big carpet, for less than half a crown".
But who had big big carpets in those days? Ours were tiny tiny squares surrounded by acres of lino.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Mike Dallas
Tuesday, 30 July 2002 - 06:33 pm | |
Hi Jim
Yes, the kerosene here in the U.S.A. is also low sulfur to comply with pollution control laws. Over here kerosene is generally used to provide supplemental heating, small kerosene “space heaters” being common around homes and torpedo or jet heaters common in garages and construction sites. Most home heating is forced air natural gas systems, and propane in rural areas. The heater I was referring to is a canister type space heater that employs a wick and is very similar in design to those of years back. It is a somewhat cleaner design with better materials but the only real significant change is the electronic ignition and the safety features. I was skeptical of the manufactures claim of 80,000 BTU output and 99% efficiency but after operating it I became a believer. The only thing that I can attribute the design to is the improved quality of the fuel. Which is what led me to speculate on the performance of the Bull’s Eye Lantern using modern fuel.
By the way, I see that we share similar professions. |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 05:34 am | |
Caz,
I remember 1001 Dry Foam, and of course the mercurial Shake 'n Vac. Also "chair to chair" carpets. (Back in vogue, alledgedly).
Mike,
Nice to know there are a few of us left. For heating, modern kerosene improves efficiency, I'm not sure about the emission of light from lanterns. They are still manufactured, the British Army is supplied, exclusively, by Messrs Vapalux.
Regards
Jim |
Author: Timsta
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 11:52 am | |
"Ajax cleans like a white tornado."
Probably didn't do much for sales in Kansas.
timsta |
Author: Mike Dallas
Saturday, 03 August 2002 - 09:19 am | |
Hi Jim
To be honest I’m not sure either what the light emission of modern kerosene would be compared with the old. Though it’s easy to assume it would be better that may not be true. I have not seen a kerosene lantern over here in many years but kerosene lamps are still available. The modern made lamps are basically a decorative item but they will function. My wife has several and fuels them with a scented lamp oil. This oil appears to be a petroleum-based product and, in my opinion, it is considerable less volatile then kerosene. We also have around here somewhere a very old (100 years perhaps) lamp that still works quiet well. In fact, it’s quality is much better than it’s modern made counterpart. We do actually use these on occasion. Severe thunderstorms are not uncommon in our area and there are sometimes power outages as a result.
If I could reminisce a moment, I recall that after a thunderstorm years ago when I was much younger I was attempting to light a very old lamp that we had around the house. I was not having very good results, the flame was no better than that of a candle and produced lots of smoke and soot. My grandmother, born in 1915 in what is even today a very rural area of the US, showed me the trick to producing the correct flame. She trimmed the wick, and when lit turned the wick down, much lower than I would have dared as I regarded the lamp as little more than a Molotov Cocktail. The flame instantly changed becoming a small jet of fire, very hot and clean burning with no smoke or soot. I am sure that most of you find it odd that such a trivial little item as this should interest me so much and have stayed with me so long, and perhaps it is. But, it’s these little tidbits of knowledge like this, a daily life skill long forgotten by most that I find the most fascinating. I think that they are also valuable for anyone studying an incident of history, like JTR. When looking back we cannot help but view things within the context of our own time and often the actions of people seem odd and make little sense. Yet, often little items, like the above, can provide new meaning and we might find that actions we find odd were actually perfectly normal and rational in the context of that time. |
Author: Mike Dallas
Saturday, 03 August 2002 - 09:29 am | |
Jim
Something just occurred to me. Here in the US it is, or at least was 10 years ago, possible to buy different grades of kerosene. If I could devise an effective way of measuring it might be interesting to compare the light emission from the highest quality grade of fuel with that of the least quality. Could be an interesting experiment but I’m not sure that we would gain anything other then satisfying the intellectual curiosity of a couple old guys. |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 12 October 2002 - 08:38 am | |
My people,
A question has occured to me which is born out of this thread. Hence the reason Im posting it here.
We now know the rough distance a Bulls-eye lamp reaches. What I would like to know is what distance a Gaslight lamp would reach and how strong a light does it give ?
I guess this question goes out to the 'oldies' out there (Ivor knows who Im talking about, dont you ?) or those who have such knowledge of all things lamp.
The answer would help me.
Many thanks,
Monty
|
Author: Monty
Thursday, 17 October 2002 - 12:15 pm | |
My silent people,
Hello ??...anyone there ?.......anyone at all ??...hello ??
Ppppppppplllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssseeeeeeeeee help me with this one.
It means something to me.
I have searched everywhere about how far light reaches from a outside Victorian gaslamp.
No joy.
Help me please.
Monty
|
Author: Michael Raney
Thursday, 17 October 2002 - 03:54 pm | |
Monty,
In my town there is a square with some gaslights. I don't know how they would compare with Victorian Gaslights, but here goes - I could read normal size print up to 12 yards away. The light tended to spread out in a downward manner. The top cover is peaked and extends about 2 inches away from the glass. At about 20 yards the light is pretty much only on my lower body and by 30 yards, so dim as to be useless as far as a light source goes. I did these tests at about 10:00 in the evening. There was a light mist but no fog (I live in an area that has the absolute worst fog in the world).
Love ya!
Mikey |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 19 October 2002 - 08:13 am | |
Mikey,
I love you too....more than anyone now (apart from Divia who lures me with promises of Sausage rolls and pints of Tia Maria).
Seriously, thanks for going to the trouble mate,
Give it up for Mikey everyone, he goes to the top of the class. The rest of you hold your heads in shame.....
.......next weeks homework is biology. How do you silence a victim quickly with a sound being heard ?...whats that little Chris T ??....No you cannot experiment on Master Radka !
Grateful Monty
|
Author: Michael Raney
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 05:43 pm | |
Monty,
You know I'd do anything for you! Divia darling, I noticed you didn't make any attempt to answer this one for Monty...............::picture Mikey with a huge satisfied grin on his face::
Love ya! Later!
Mikey |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Tuesday, 22 October 2002 - 02:16 pm | |
Whatho Monty,
As suggested I have followed you down the road from the Goulston Street thread.
I have undertaken a search of boards of old and found the gas light experiment to which I have referred in the past. The brave man with the lamp and a cylinder of gas  was no less than Bob Hinton. He posted information about his experiment on the “Hutchinson, George (British)” board on 29/3/1999 at 1.41pm. He was, of course, writing about the dubious George Hutchinson’s sighting of the toff with the heavy watch chain (highly unbelievable).
He wrote:
”…Lamps in those days did not have a mantle just a gas flame. The
illumination they gave was roughly a three feet circle at the base of the
lamp and this only a dull glow, this is assuming the crystal is perfectly
clean and clear. The idea was not to illuminate the street as it is today, but
give circles of light which would mark out the pavement the idea being
you made your way from one circle of light to the next. This was one
reason prostitutes used to stand underneath lamps so they could be seen.
Lili Marlene wasn't daft…”
Bob goes on to say he believed Melvyn Harris had also carried out a similar experiment (so we are now in the company of the gods of Ripperania)  .
Therefore it appears my memory of the light from the lamps carrying six feet was incorrect. The situation is much worse. The Ripper could not write any graffiti at night unless, of course, he was using luminous chalk  .
I agree with you about the meaning of “Juwes”. If Jack didn’t write the graffiti, it doesn’t really matter what the cryptic wording meant. (But it is fun).
Cheers, Mark
our man in the Victoria, Hitchin, with a pint of Greene King IPA and a packet of smoky bacon crisps. |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 24 October 2002 - 12:54 pm | |
Mark
aaarrrgggghhhhh !
Just when I have sorted it all in my head with Mikeys figures you go and change the rules.
Back to the drawing board !!
Exactly, too dark at Goulston st, Too dark at Mitre Square, too bloody dark everywhere apart from underneath the bloody lamp !!!
Monty
PS Mike, She answered...in her own way |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Friday, 25 October 2002 - 08:06 am | |
Ahh Monty!
I have the answer. You may remember I suggested in the Posters' Pets board the Ripper was a cat. Well cats can see in the dark.
Cheers, Mark |
Author: Monty
Friday, 25 October 2002 - 12:22 pm | |
Mark
I give up !!!
Monty
PS We got F*#e$T tomorrow...Lord elp us ! |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Friday, 25 October 2002 - 03:24 pm | |
COME ON YOU FOXES!!!
Make a Magpie happy. |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Wednesday, 30 October 2002 - 11:48 am | |
Whatho Monty,
With Leicester letting in a last minute goal I am not surprised you are keeping a low profile.
The Foxes are not the men who will be blamed if the Reds get promotion.
Forest have always been lucky. Bogger it!
Cheers, unhappy Mark |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 30 October 2002 - 12:22 pm | |
Mark,
Where, in the name of God, did that ref get 5 mins extra time from ?????
Dont worry about the Tricky trees. They were playing flat out on Saturday, we had another 2 gears to move into. I would have took a draw before the game cos they are a decent side no matter what my opinions are.
Nice to stuff the Cov though !! We only played for 20 mins.
Ha ha ha
Monty
 |
