ARCHIVED RESEARCH INQUIRIES and RESPONSES

Inqy.2: Burner w/ 2 flat wicks making a round wick by Fil Graff (fgraff@comcast.net)
Posted: May 25, 1998 @ 13:35.

Posted: June 25, 1998 @ 13:22
Submitted by: Fil Graff, March 18, 1998

I have been trying to identify the burner pictured below. The wick knob identifies maker as Plume and Atwood, and it shows "Pat. Jan 17, 1871, Pat. Applied for". The listed Patent is evidently #111,074,issued to Rufus Merrill for a (single) flat wick formed round burner with a distinctive inner wick tube and 2 shafted wick drive mechanism controlled by a single external knob. The burner I have has TWO drive knobs, with a THIRD shaft used to change rotation direction of the gear on the left-side knob so turning both knobs to the right raises the (half-round) wick, and turning them left (counter-clockwise) lowers it. Herb Leflet points out that there might be an advantage seen to using only 1/2 the available wicking at one time, should less light be desired, or pennies were being pinched. "My" burner is obviously related to the Merrill Patents' center draft tube arrangement, but has TWO vents and TWO separator fins (appropriate for the double independent wicks).

My questions: Is anybody familiar with "my" burner? Was the burner shown in Merrill Patent 111,074 ever produced?
Can "my" burner safely be called "a Merrill burner" (Rufus Merrill did patent several chimneyless burners)?
Does anyone know if the other "Pat. Appl'd For" was ever issued to P & A? I feel that "my" burner has "commercial failure" written all over it, as it seems overly complex and likely very (comparitively) expensive to make. I welcome comments, opinions and particularly identification!

On May 25, 1998 @ 15:19, Heinz Baumann (baumann@sc3101.med.buffalo.edu) wrote:
"What you have is an early version of an "Electric Argand" burner. My example does not have the third shaft [hence the wicks would not raise by turning the knobs in the SAME direction?], but otherwise is identical to the burner shown [above]. The wick raiser knob reads :" The P & A Mfg. Co Pat Sept 27, 89". I know the date Sept 27 doesn't fit into the patent date schedules. I guess the date should have been Sept.24, 1889, referring to L.J. Atwoods Patent #411517 [for a wick raiser]. I do not subscribe to Mr. Leflets' idea about one-wick use for cost saving purpose. Uneven heating of the chimney invites the risk of breakage. Cost for replacing the chimney probably is greater than thesavings for fuel consumed by an additional wick. I see the reason for having two separate wick raisers so: the transport of a single [flat wick formed round] folded wick of the size required for this burner would have been troublesome.

The large diameter of the wick also demands a flame spreader. Apparently, your burner is missing it [Yes, and I see no indication of a "seat" for one...it would burn MUCH better if it had one!]. The original flame spreader is readily identified by the embossed inscription on top "Electric Argand". See attached image of your burner complete as advertised in a mailed flierdated 1887 [Heinz: This is TWO years before the patent you show!]. I does not look like the "Electric Argand" was the commercial failure you predicted!

Merrill's Jan 17, 1871 Patent refers to the mode of wick raiser mechanism, and does not specify whether used for one or more wicks. A prominent application of this particular Merrill Patent is the common Moehring burner. The date "Jan 17, 1871" appears prominently on the wick raiser knob of the Moehring [Heinz: my "H.G. Moehring" image says May 18, 1875", a patent for a wick tube, and my "P & A Moehring" has NO Patent info on the knob]

Image from envelope of 1887 Plume and Atwood mailing

Copy from ad: "ELECTRIC ARGAND BURNER. Takes a No.1 Sun Bulb Chimney and can be used on any lamp having a No. 2 or No. 3 Collar. This burner has been thoroughly introduced in the larger cities of the United States, and wherever placed it has proven entirely satisfactory, and is acknowledged to be the only Centre Draft burner that is a success."

Follow-ups from Heinz Baumann on italicized notes above, posted Mar. 23, 1998

RE: "...two years before..." Don't forget that "your" burner appears to be an earlier version that predates the issue date of the Patent (accounting for the use of "Pat. Applied For"). RE: Moehring patent on knob: Each of my four Moehring burners (perhaps not a representative selection) shows the Jan 17., 1871 date in the inner circle of the wick raiser knob."

Image from Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co. ca 1895 catalogue

Question from Fil: Was the burner pictured above produced? Or do they "all" have 1871 Merrill Patent on wick knob? Note this burner PRECEDES the P & A "Moehring".
- On May 25, 1998 @ 20:12, Herb Leflet via Snailmail (fgraff@comcast.net) wrote:
  
  Posted Apr. 14, 1998, 14:15 EST by Fil Graff
  
  Herb enclosed the following Patent Drawing, No. 370,516, dated Sept.27, 1887 (application date Mar. 6 1886) to Lewis Atwood and William Lewis. I believe it answers my question about "was the Patent pending ever issued?", as this certainly appears to be the burner in question. It does not answer the "early" (as shown here with THREE shafts) versus "late" as Heinz Baumann's example is confirmed to be, with only TWO (visible) shafts. [Note: I agree with heinz that his example is a later version, somewhat simplified by the reomval of the shaft that changes the direction of the "left hand" gear shaft, to make the burner cheaper to make,]
  And, lo, here is the flame spreader on a "post", with a "foraminous" (I had to look this word up...it means "full of holes"! Precision at the expense of clarity!) skirt on the top disk, and an inverted conical air distributor that holds the post upright, as well aiming the airflow into the skirt, and thus to the inside of the flame. [I WAS thinking of trying to fabricate a flame spreader...lots of luck! But I've since bought a second burner WITH at least the cone and shaft...that only leaves the top disk and skirt to fabricate.]
  
  I note in the patent Drawing that this burner has two tubes joining and supporting the inner and outer wick tubes (visible [no.5] in the top view between the two wicks). "My" burnerdoes not seem to have these tubes, but fins like that shown in the Merrill Patent drawing.
  
  This leaves the related question of the Patent on the Moehring burner open. Herb also sent a copy of Patent 411,517, of September 24, 1889 by Atwood [Heinz mentioned in his response that this could be the missing "Pat. pending", as it is also for a wick raiser.] But 411,517 is for the raiser mechanism on a Solar-type font for a hanging lamp, and doesn't appear (without examining the Patent Claims) to apply to "The Electric Argand". Thanks EVERYBODY for the responses! Fil
  - On May 25, 1998 @ 20:22, Heinz Baumann (baumann@sc3101.med.buffalo.edu) wrote:
    More info from Heinz Baumann. Posted April 27, 1998 2300 EDT
    
    "My burner DOES NOT have a third shaft, and the wick raising is by turning the knobs in opposite directions to each other. This same principle is in the Huthchinson Patent (for a chimney-less burner) of Jan. 3, 1865.
    "My burner is also missing the interior flame spreader holder that has a center rod into which you stick the flame spreader. The spreader itself is a somewhat complex construction; it has a small diameter center tube for placing onto the rod in the burner.The top is as wide as the diameter of the outer wich tube. It has a screen skirt the same as is shown in the drawings. The top has the embosssed inscription "Electric Argand". I have two different size spreaders with identical construction. One has the embossing "Banner Electric Argand", and is a bit too large to fit on the burner I have.
    "And the patent date is DEFINATELY Sept 27, 1889!" Signed: Heinz
    - On May 25, 1998 @ 20:32, Fil Graff (fgraff@comcast.net) wrote:
      
      From Fil Graff: Heinz: I also hope to go to the Whaley auction in May. Can we assemble ALL the variations and have a nice guessing session as to what we have? This gets more complicated with each new bit of info! I'm finding it difficult to believe all the variations of this burner! Ain't Lampin' FUN?
      Added after viewing Heinz's burner at Neopolis: As I noted above, the example Heinz owns is likely a late (or later) version, simplified to bring manufacturing cost down. I sure was way off base when I commented "Looks like the burner has commercial failure written all over it!" Maybe not a very well known burner today, but certainly long-lived enough to go through three distinct phases (Pat. Applied For, two patents and loss of third shaft). Might be a lesson here for one who likes to jump to conclusions! As Herb Leflet told me after a particularly off-the-wall conclusion was caught: "Don't make conclusions based on assumptions until AFTER you have exhaused all the pertinant Patent CLAIM information" [just looking at the picture is often NOT enough!].