George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Ben]

Here's an interesting little review of a modern gas lamp by Malvern Council:

"However wonderful it is that the gas lamps don’t cause “light pollution", sadly they aren’t very good at illuminating uneven pavements at night. Anyone who walks along the Wells Road in the dark is wise to carry a torch to spot hazards under foot! In these energy conscious days, the gas lamps are woefully inefficient users of energy for street lighting. They give out as much heat as light and unfavourable comparisons with kitchen toasters have been made. Now that increases in gas and maintenance prices are accelerating, there are many residents who think the gas lamps are Carbon-Unfriendly, Parish-Council-Budget-Stretching, anachronisms."

Just for jolly.

[Fisherman]

Here is more for you, Ben: This tells us how much candle power a 1910 light bulb of 40 watts had:
"1910 Antique Replica Light Bulb, 40 Watt, 120 Volt, 28 Candle Power"

28 candle power, Ben! So when you light eighteen forty-watt electrical light bulbs, you have the equal of a Bray gas lamp.

You are looking increasingly ridiculous and desperate, Ben, I hope you realize that? I think it is high time for you to give up on this point.

The dull and dark streets of London, Ben, was what was provided by the citys own lamps. For all we know the lamp outside the Qeens head tavern may have been a Bray lamp. Unless you suggest that you "know" otherwise?? And the discussion we are having is based on the question "were there bright gas lamps around in 1888?". There were - it is emphatically and conclusively proven by now.

So, Ben, before you start posting away again, do me a favour: light eighteen forty watt bulbs in a dark room and THEN tell me it did not produce any bright light.

Cheers, Ben!

Fisherman

[Ben]

28 candle power, Ben! So when you light eighteen forty-watt electrical light bulbs, you have the equal of a Bray gas lamp.

Right, that'll be the same Bray gas lamp that we know for certain was not used on the streets of London in 1888, having been rejected as far too expensive by 1882?

You are looing increasingly ridiculous, Ben, I hope you realize that? I think it is high time for you to give up on this point.

Oh dear, do I continue to feed the troll?

That's what you've been getting me to do from the beginning, and are frustrated that you haven't succeeded in that regard. I'm sorry, but I don't like to see nonsense unassailed and will point it out where I see it. You are the one who appeared utterly ridiculous from the outset, dredging up Impressionist paintings of Van Gogh in a crass attempt to recreate 1888 Dorset Street.

If you recall correctly, I was not alone is considering that palpably desperate and absurd.

For all we know the lamp outside the Qeens head tavern may have been a Bray lamp, you know.

We do know that it could not have been a 500 "candle power" Bray lamp because they were rejected before 1882 as far too expensive, as your article bears out, unless of course the landlord of the pub was spectacularly wealthy and could fork out for such things (as though the patrons weren't going to come anyway)!

I believe a gas lamp still stands on the corner of Thrawl Street, where the Queens Head used to be.

And the discussion we are having is based on the question "were there bright gas lamps around in 1888?". There were - it is emphatically and conclusively proven by now

What do you mean "around"? In existence or in circulation?

So, Ben, before you start posting away again, do me a favour: light eighteen forty watt bulbs in a dark room and THEN tell me it did not produce any bright light.

The lamps that definitely weren't in use on the streets at the time?

Ok, I'll do that.

Just for fun.

[GregBaron]

Ramming Speed............

Gentlemen,

I think you two boys should call a truce. You're like 2 rams in the wilderness - bloodied but unbowed - backing up for 1 more slam before collapsing together just as the wily Ram appears from the bushes to claim the female reward..................

I think we should morph the discussion to other points. Why would Hutch follow these people? Did he really know, or was fond of, or was infatuated with, MJK? Did he really think she had hooked up with JTR? How many rich Jews were out and about? How long in reality til said Jew got mugged? If he thought the fellow was JTR why not alert a constable? A cop could have followed and perhaps broke in at the appropriate moment? I think we can at least cast great doubt on Hutch even if his eyewitness account occurred in Times Square.............

Sincerely,

Greg

[The Good Michael]

Yeah. What he said. Thank goodness most of us aren't stubborn.... Oops! Gotta go feed my pony before he shies.

Mike

[Ben]

Apologies, gents, this isn't usually the way I like to debate historical issues.

You're quite right, Greg, the questions you pose are far more worthy of level-headed discussion than getting hopelessly horn-locked in incessant battle of "Impossible versus unlikely". Unfortunately, Fisherman seems to have a history of resorting to any strategy to get the last word in a discussion, as though debating these issues were a battle of stamina and verbosity. The same can be said of some of the Stride threads that he has participated in.

More level heads than me would run out of patience long ago.

Best,

Ben

[halomanuk]

I must admit there seems to be a lot more arguements and aggro on here since i came back than there used to be in the old days.

[The Good Michael]

Halomanuk,

No. I think you're wrong. Your turn

Mike

[halomanuk]

Im not falling for that one Michael ..nice try

[Sam Flynn]

Spermaceti is found in the head of sperm whales, and once was used to make high quality candles.

...thank God they got that the right way round

[Sam Flynn]

despite the presence of gas lamps on a street littered with them (which Commerical Street wasn't) ... Kelly allegedly acountered the man between Flower and Dean Street and Thrawl Street, with Hutchinson ahead the whole time. With no gas lamps in that vicinity to speak of

Just out of interest, Ben, do we have any plans of Commercial Street that show where the lamps actually were?

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Unfotunately not. I'd hazard a guess that they would have been located on some, if not all, street corners. As I mentioned earler, I'm pretty sure that a gas lamp still stands at the Commercial/Thrawl Street junction.

Can anyone help out on that score?

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Ben - I only ask because Commercial Street, being a reasonably important thoroughfare, might have been reasonably well-lit (by 1888 standards, natch). I'd rather not speculate too much, however, if the definitive answer has a chance of being found.

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

"Right, that'll be the same Bray gas lamp that we know for certain was not used on the streets of London in 1888, having been rejected as far too expensive by 1882?"

Ehrm, not really. We know that it was rejected in 82 and that the streets were not lit by it in 84, when it comes to the lamps paid for by the city of London.
We do not, however, know that it had not been installed by the city in -88, but an educated guess is that it was not - since Leadenhall Street had been electrified, the city would in all probability have opted for that source of energy.

Two points remain to be made, though:
1. This discussion is NOT about what lamps were fitted on Dorset Street in 88 - it is about what kind of gas lamps MAY have been there. If I may remind you, you were dead certain some posts back that the Bray lamp was not a bright one, and that there were in fact no bright gas lamps available back then. You used that to bolster your assertion that Hutch could not have had much light to work by.
But he could - somewhere between 700 and 800 watts of light is an almighty blaze.

2. Even though the council of London would not pay for Bray lamps, we cannot be sure that the pub owners and boarding house keepers did not do just that. A man like McCarthy was probably a man of means and any pub owner would have been happy to become the talk of the town with such a lamp. Plus there were more fabricates around, as shown by my former post, ranging from around 150 watts upwards. Maybe there were brighter things around than the Bray lamp too, I don´t know. But it sure was bright enough to dispell any belief that gas lamps were bad distributors of light back in them days.

"You are the one who appeared utterly ridiculous from the outset, dredging up Impressionist paintings of Van Gogh in a crass attempt to recreate 1888 Dorset Street."

Nope. I have never stated that the Arles street in that painting resembled Dorset street. In fact, I pointed out that it was a street with cafés and such on it, and that it would therefore be better lit than Dorset street.
I brought it up to show that there was bright gas light to be had in -88, and you laughed at it. That was what brought you more than 700 watts of Bray lamp brightness as a consequence.

"We do know that it could not have been a 500 "candle power" Bray lamp because they were rejected before 1882 as far too expensive, as your article bears out, unless of course the landlord of the pub was spectacularly wealthy and could fork out for such things (as though the patrons weren't going to come anyway)!"

That, Ben, does in no way touch on the question of whether there were bright gas lamps available at the time. It seems that now that you have lost that question in a very emphatic manner, you are resorting to the tactics of "Oh, okay, they were around -but they could NOT have been around on these particular streets!"
But of course they could. Todays streets bathe in light, for the simple reason that light can be had, just as it could be had at that time. But speculation won´t lead us anywhere, just as any assertions won´t do the trick. The technology was there, and it was there decades before the Ripper slayings, and therefore I can firmly state that there is reasonable doubt attached to any assertion of the light not being bright enough to make the observation Hutch said he did.

"What do you mean "around"? In existence or in circulation?"

I mean they were around. You are around. I am around. Assertions that there were no bright gas lamps around in 1888 are around, though they ought not be.
I think that if that particular type of lamp had been on the market for +20 years - as shown by the lamp I poster earlier; it was from the 1860:s and had original Bray burners - they would have been attached to many a wall in London by the time Hutch needed them to make his observation.

"The lamps that definitely weren't in use on the streets at the time?"

We don´t know, Ben. They may not have burnt the tax money of the Londoners, but they may well have lit up many a public meetingplace and boardinghouse. And some of them may or may not have had the address Dorset Street or Commercial Street.

And, once again, the question we ARE debating here is not what lights there were on them streets - it´s what lights there COULD have been.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Fisherman seems to have a history of resorting to any strategy to get the last word in a discussion, as though debating these issues were a battle of stamina and verbosity. The same can be said of some of the Stride threads that he has participated in.
More level heads than me would run out of patience long ago."

It´s really good of you not to just dismiss me, Ben. May I just make a side remark here? On the Stride thread you mention, you stated emphatically that a cutaway jacket always had long tails on it, whereas I said it did not need to have any tails at all.
A hundred posts after that or so, you finally had to give in, since I had shoved a number of tailless cutaway jackets down your throat. That discussion could have been one post long if you had not obstructed and wriggled your way through it to the inevitable finish. You can change your mind, but you cannot change history. Normally it´s wiser to use the first approach.
On the debate of whether there were bright gas lamps around in the Ripper days, EXACTLY the same scenario has unfolded. You have obstructed and wriggled your way towards the same inevitable finish, only to be forced to see that you were wrong as I shoved the Bray lamp down your throat. That discussion could also have been one post long, Ben. You can change your mind, but you cannot change history. Normally it´s wiser to use the first approach.

And now, Ben, you state that it is only your patience and tolerance that has
kept you from running out of patience. It is deplorable.

The best,
Fisherman