Tilley and similar designs - Vapouriser failures

Hi Peter, I suppose if I decide it is scrap anyway then maybe I should do that.
But then, why was there no carbon deposit on the pricker wire and I could remove it so easily? Perfectly normal with no resistance at all.

If that was the cause then it would have been tight and there should be deposits to see. Absolutely none to be found.

I just took a look down it and I can see straight through to daylight. Just now I tapped the base of it on the bench a few times, one very tiny soot particle came out.

 

There's almost no carbon deposit at the pricker wire because the "sh.t" always happens quickly at the inner surface of the vaporizer tube, where the heat is at its maximum. The pricker wire to some extent is isolated by the fuel vapors from the hot tube surface.
And it is not soot that slowly builds up, but crystals of black and hard carbon (coke) that can do so even within only a few hours of operation. Those carbon crystals really appear to "grow" and thus are able to build up lots of force to the tube wall so that it will deformate, and in extreme cases even completely break the vaporizer and spigot open. We have many threads in the German Hytta forum about this matter. At first we thought that it would have to do with the "continental" fuel quality, but now it seems that in UK the same problems happen. That effect seems to occur particularly at (steel) surfaces with alkanes at high temperatures (e.g. >800°C for Methane).

Source: "Feuerfeste Werkstoffe", herausgegeben von Gerald Routschka

 

Thanks @Martin K. I need to brush up my Deutsch now! It used to be OK but now I am out of practice.

I will read the Hytta forum with interest. It seems to me that the pictured split open spigot and vapouriser are again having very small dimensions.
They could be even smaller than the X246B one maybe and with only two air inlet tubes?

 

Hi @JonD
this particular one is a small one, but it happened to various different types, most of them operating flawlessly before.
You can simply use "Google Translate" and put the link adress in the box. This way it will translate the whole website acting as a proxy (unfortunately it translates all terms, including these which it shouldn't).
Happy reading... you also may have to follow several links and maybe use the German keywords: "Schwanger", "Platzen", "Kohle", Ölköhle", "Druck", "Kristallisationsdruck", "englisches Leiden" etc.

 

Danke sehr! @Martin K. Ganz gut. Schwanger. Ausgezeichnet!

 

I will struggle on with my X246B, because that is all I have!!!
I have tested it without a mantle, and the blue flames look OK, but I have messed up the brand new mantle. The beast will have to wait for another new one, and I have the time.

I have ordered an oil transfer pump, so I can get some oil out of my AGA tank, as I think that is good stuff. (....and I thought oil was oil!!)

 

Hello @Alan Gale , is all oil the same? We wait to see. Best of luck with your X246B.
It is strange that the question "is an X246B burner smaller than the rest or not?? X246/A PL53, FL6, AL21 + VL + etc etc" still lingers here.

It must be we don't know ( I really doubt that - so why does nobody want to say?)

 

@JonD

I’m not quite sure what you meant when you said:

“It is strange that the question "is an X246B burner smaller than the rest or not?? X246/A PL53, FL6, AL21 + VL + etc etc" still lingers here.”

But let’s leave aside non-X246-series lanterns for the time being.

1. There are different configurations of X246 burners through the years, and at least the top of the burner (part 211, mixing tube) is smaller than the original Tilley burners with the patent number stamped on the top.

2. Other parts changed also such as the way the burner connected to the hood (a circular knurled nut on a threaded air tube (part 709) was the first version).

3. I also have at least two different X246A/B burner variations.

4. I have one that has steel air tubes and a brass injector tube (part 212).

When I get some time later in the week, I’ll photograph these variations for you.

5. I have a bunch on X246Bs that I bought for spare parts. They were used in Antarctica; all had bulged bottoms from overpressurising, and would have seen hard service. Note: none had vapouriser problems - that’s why I bought them.

Tony

 

@JonD

I used to run all my kero lamps off central heating oil at one time, no fuss, no smell, no pregnant vapourisers, no bother. Ever ! ! But then again, other than test burns, I've never run either of my X246Bs for any length of time.

The body of an X246 burner is the same size as for older models but the mixing tube (211) and injector tube (212) are most definitely shorter, I can't say by how much though.

Henry.

 

Thanks @Henry Plews and @Tony Press. That is exactly the sort of "meat" in the subject I was trying to discover. I have not found comparisons of the burners mentioned
elsewhere on the site in any of my reading so it was a plea for help. Just like @Alan Gale it is tantalising when all you have is more of the same and nothing to make comparisons.
No hard facts are possible then just conjecture. If anyone knows the location of any photographs that would be excellent.

I don't think I can trust the vapouriser I just removed, there is no way of telling what the wall thickness is now after squashing and filing off high spots to remove it from the
spigot. I might as well section it to see what it is like inside. That won't happen for a few days. If it is still clean inside then I stick with my idea that it softened. I have had another
where the pricker managed to punch through the jet, again I suspect softening due to high operating temperature was behind that one too.

I don't just do 1/2 hour of running and shut down, I let them run 4 or more hours so they will get as hot as they will ever get. It might be a factor that the air was still on the
night the latest bulge happened so there was no cooling breeze over hood/burner.

Thanks for info.

 

@JonD

I’ll post photos of vapourisers tomorrow.

But I should point out that I run some of my camping X246s (1950-1955) on the “modern” Tilley burners: they often burn for hours at a time. I’ve not had the problems you seem to be having.

Tony

 

haha - yes I am beginning to feel rather unlucky that's for sure.
But then I also hear stories from people who used these for real in the 1970s and 80s for night hikes and such. Oh yes they say - that was always happening - so we really hated them but it
is all we had.... I wonder if the parts were cheap and plentiful so maybe they just replaced failed parts as required?

Now thinking on all sorts of possibilities. Years ago, in winter, the greengrocer at the end of my road lit his stall with an X246A or a Guardsman for hours on end.
It was bright but a bit yellow thinking back on it. Mine was running at what the airmen would call Peak Exhaust Gas Temperature and very bright white. Whiter than I ever saw from his.

With a burner of large surface area maybe that is OK to do, with the small one maybe not. In hindsight I wish I had run it a bit less hard. I did think at one point the hiss is a bit loud
and I backed it off. Could be this happened when I was "caning it" a bit too much. Had it been running rich - then it would have been not so hot.

Live and learn - which is what I am trying to do. The damned parts bill is mounting up though.

 

personally, I have had much better success with older Tilley vaporizers such as the ones with the brass thread. they seem to just work. I've only had one lantern to have a "sticky" hood and it was a PL 53. It turned out to be a damaged burner spigot (?), Replaced the spigot from an x246b unit along with the mixing tube and dome. I always notice that the Burners of 246bs are more "worn" out then that of there older counterparts look like they run hot. Put a new vaporizer on my pl53 today (an older new stock item) and the only problem I had with the lamp was it ran out of fuel. Next time I replace the mantle I will examine the burner to see if there are signs of melting etc.

 

@1956LD1 I agree with you the brass threaded vapouriser is best.

May I suggest you look at the top (jet) end of it? The brass ended ones usually have a neat and flat top - no idea how they formed it in production but it is a very flat and regular circle.
Look at later ones (steel thread parts) and you can see a quite irregular top weld seam (electric maybe?) - all lumps and bumps. Not good IMHO.

Interesting about the PL53 spigot.
If you have had no "over burn" - flame burning up inside the dome instead of down in the mantle - then I doubt you have any worries about the burner melting.

Although a word of warning - if you allow the lamp to run out of fuel and you are not there to turn it off - overburn happens as the flame dies down due to lack of fuel pressure.
It is bad - I shut it off as soon as I detect it. You can hear it happen if you release tank pressure by unscrewing the pump - a pop and then a roar. Flame going from under the burner
to up inside the dome instead. I close the fuel cock to raise the pricker at that point - it stops it in only a couple of seconds and before any damage can be done.

Best wishes!

 

@JonD

Are you using the term “over burn” to mean the same as the more commonly used “underburn”?

Tony

 

Yes exactly @Tony Press .

Lamps work upside down compared stoves. Or the right way up where you are maybe ..

Later edit ^^ Tilley and related lamps^^

 

Tilley burners:



The one on the left is from an X246 (1950-1955) (with the patent number on the top);
The one in the middle is from an X246B;
The one on the right is from an X246A.

On each I measured the spigot;


the burner body;


and the mixing tube.



From left to right the measurements are (not precise, and to the nearest mm):

Spigot: 27;27;26mm

Burner body: 40;36;37

Mixing tube: 36; 30; 29.

The older burner is bigger in the parts above the spigot.


I make no claim that this sorts out any issues that @JonD has because I've not had any problems using the X246B burners in an older Tilley.


Cheers

Tony

 

@Tony Press Wow- You are the man! Great photos and it is so much help. Thank you very much.

I knew as soon as I saw them I have the tiddler which sits in the middle. As you say X246B. My 1964 and 1973 ones were both like that.

I would also say I immediately recognised the one on the left, that looks just like what is now in my 1964 one.
That is one from juliands, obviously much bigger than the original but it fits the hood fine.

It has worked well but the spigot does bind with the vapouriser in a minor way. So far I think that is just a metal/metal reaction effect - no bulging at all - just some reaction
between clean & shiny (= reactive) steel and brass surfaces. I part them before every lighting and gradually it improves with time. Each lighting their parting becomes a little easier than the last.

Great to have the dimensions too - excellent. I have no time tonight but I'm going to do some calculation work with them. I want to know the difference in total surface area.
I also didn't have any idea there was one size in-between on the X246A.

You have done us a great service.

 

@JonD

Before you get too excited, here’s some more info:

The one on the left is the old Tilley patent burner; theone on the right a Juliands reproduction.


The measurements got the Juliands repel is (in same order as above: 24.5; 37; 27mm.

I wouldn’t call this one (below) an X246A burner. It’s an oddity (so far) and I’ve only seen one of them. Because of that, I replaced it with an X246B burner and it works well. But, my other X246A has the old Tilley patent burner.



Weight of the Tilley patent burner is 196g; the X246 is 164g; Juliands repro is 205g.

Some of the finish on the Juliands repro is a bit rough (not too bad, though). I would get some 600 or 800 grain sandpaper and twirl the spigot over it for a while to smooth out the tooling marks.

Tony

 

@Tony Press thanks - more very nice photos. That one very good to show differences between X246 and juliands.

They are quite a near match - in the surface area, which I am thinking about, there can't be much difference. Flat top dome which could affect the mixing behaviour I suppose

I also had just a few pits in the dome of my juliands one but I don't recall any marks on the spigot. I think they are a good job at a fair price. Shipping to you could make them
a bit expensive there though.

Cheers. Jon

 

@JonD

Well, here’s the thing:

don’t ever think that what you see is what the rest of the world sees.

The inside of my Juliands’ spigot has a spiral tooling scar about 1/32 inch deep. Big enough to be a problem.

I’ve got no idea why your vapourisers keep f&@king up.

But are you looking in the right place?

Tony

 

Just like to throw a cat among the pigeons here is my different lot of burners .
This is a brand new one I picked up
Spigot 26mm burner body 37mm dome top 40mm.
Enjoy Bob .

This is the new one against an odd one I have.
The spigot is 28mm body is 48mm dome unknown.

One on left standard size / centre odd one /right one new one

Another one I found had this size injector tube been reduced to fit ?
Only found this after removing dome.
What I did find that all air tubes are approx 15mm from top edge of burner

 

@Lamp_Doctor

Good cat!

Cheers

Tony

 

Just throwing an idea out there. Could it be a Kayen burner?

 

@Nils Stephenson & @Lamp_Doctor

Bob,

Does it have anything besides size to separate it between Tilley and Kayen?

Tony

 

@Nils Stephenson @Lamp_Doctor @Tony Press
Whoa now becoming quite complicated? But all good stuff so interested in these developments. Thank you all.

My latest swollen vapouriser I tried to fettle and re-use. If it is junk so be it and I begin to think it is. Not enough time in the workshop to be sure just yet.
Busy on other fronts.

 

The indications are that vapouriser is junk. As it was suspect anyway after bulging and being squashed back in to shape I had no great expectations for it.

It seemed to me the outer rim of it had a sharp outer edge and therefore only a small contact area - not much heat transfer.
I hit upon the idea to try to increase that. I gave it a going over with a fine diamond knife sharpener (eek! wife must not find out!)

I failed but I think it was down to a clumsy operator. I thought that the jet orifice was sitting under the rim. Then I could flatten the rim a bit with no effect on the jet.
Mmm- wrong. So don't try this - bad news. I managed a nice flat on the rim but it also enlarged the jet. I have created an orange flamer which blackens everything.
Picture of it is lost for the moment.

It is not much oversize but enough to matter. Some attempts were made to peen the jet down to size but no success so far. Working on it.
If it is scrap I wonder what next. KKN4602 one maybe? I also have a Dunmurray one but these have not been the best experience for me so far.

One thing I do know - it is absolutely free of carbon. It did not bulge from that cause. I am certain it weakened through heat.
Bigger burners - as pictured from many others above - more heat dissipation. Better contact between burner and vapouriser/burner they run closer in temperature - but I still reckon X246B burner too small.

X246B as standard -is a money sink. Cheap to buy today (2nd hand) - but it eats parts. The bad reputation is very well deserved. They don't work for long.

The tank can't be to blame - even if it is weaker than it's predecessors. It doesn't need the pressure which bulges the bottom.
The big problem is up top somewhere.

 

The " Dark arts " of Tilley vapourisers ... has anyone ever conquered this exact science .. ?

 

We have taken a good year and a bit off from this subject - last post was Apr 2018.
I haven't changed my mind about anything - a "dark art" as you suggest.
I'm still of the opinion that it does not take much to allow the vapouriser to overheat and that starts all the problems.

I don't think it matters much if it is an original or a brass/steel replacement. Allow it to get near red heat and it will fail.

In the bright white mantle glow you don't know if it is getting red or not - until it is too late.

What is the wall thickness and material and how heat leaves from the top or down the main tube wall are all factors. The end is the same. Red hot spot >>fail.

 

It has been a while that this thread has rested...so do we have any new ideas?

I still have that very nice JulianDS burner which had a melt down due to "up and under" burn (Thanks to Rugby's Eddy Waring for that term - is the spelling OK?
We couldn't agree between UK and Oz about over and under so perhaps a generic Up and Under sorts it)?

I reckon I have another burner (Original Tilley) that is showing signs of air tube droop. I think it can only be it ran too hot and the brass got to the "plastic" phase.
I'm as sure as I can be it was burning right with nothing happening up in the dome.

Very strange.

I came here today looking for pictures of my Korean Tilley 606 Vap copy and the wonderful coloured heat rings it made on first fire up. I'm still looking for those.