The Red Handkerchief...

[Fisherman]

Out here, everything seems to go in circles.

Once again, we have a poster linking to a film of a Bray lamp and telling us that it was a lamp that emitted very little light.

That is as untrue as it was the last time over this was claimed.

The Bray lamp was produced to meet the threat of the new electric lamps. And it was manufactured years before 1888, so claiming that there were no bright gas lamps available at that time is false.

There were a number of manufacturers producing competitive gas lamps. There was the Sugg lamp, emitting 80 c.p (candlepower).

The use of candle term candlepower was originally defined in England by the Metropolitan Gas Act 1860 as the light produced by a pure spermaceti candle weighing one sixth of a pound and burning at a rate of 120 grains per hour. Spermaceti is found in the heads of sperm whales, and was once used to make high-quality candles. 80 c.p makes for a strong light.

There was furthermore the Siemens lamp, emitting a mighty 120-400 c.p!

And then there was the mightiest of them all, the lamp alluded to out here as a flickering, dim light: the Bray lamp. It produced 500 c.p.

Light 500 candles inside a room and it will get VERY bright!

However, the Bray lamp was too expensive, and so the London authorities did not invest in it. So, the lamps that were left to shine on the East End streets were of poorer quality. They did, however, produce enough light for the PC:s to make notes under them.

At any rate, claiming that the light produced was very low and exemplifying with a Bray lamp does not bring any correct light at all to the discussion, just as it is equally incorrect to say that there were no bright gas lamps available in 1888.

[Ben]

Don't pick seven-year-old fights again here, unless you want to be posting continually on this thread for the next seven.

If you remember the previous discussion, it was established that none of the lamps that you consider "bright" were in use on the streets of London in 1888. There was still no such thing as a "powerful" gas lamp until the invention of the mantle in 1891; until then the streets of London were lit using naked gas flames under glass.

Do you remember who first provided that YouTube clip of a Bray Burner gas lamp? You. You pointed out that the Bray lamp provided the brightest light of all gas lamps available in 1888, and yet when you provided that clip, it became obvious immediately just how "mighty" this lamp was - i.e. not remotely so, by anyone's standards.

But thanks awfully for reminding me that these lamps, patented in the 1870s, were rejected as being too expensive for mainstream use on London's streets. In other words, the lamp responsible for "illuminating" Astrakhan and his hanky would have been considerably weaker than the one in this video, which you describe as the "mightiest of them all".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EOxkgjHnDA

Not "bright" by any stretch of the imagination.

There was furthermore the Siemens lamp, emitting a mighty 120-400 c.p!

Half as "bright" as the lamp showed in the clip, then?

Here is another example of 500cp at work. Notice that the surrounding vegetation becomes more visible when the lamp is turned off!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWTyp5-j9Sg

CP stands for Candle Power, just in case anyone was in any doubt.

Should any doubt persist on the issue of the luminous intensity of the gas lamps available on London's streets in 1888, all anyone needs to do is consult these clips, use their eyes, halve the level of brightness, and then try to envisage objects positioned several feet below these mighty lights.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hutch could very easily have noticed this handkerchief sticking out of the top of one of his pockets as Astrachan passed under the lamp, before they walked down Dorset St.

Extremely unlikely, Jon.

Sticking a handkerchief in an overcoat pocket would have made as much sartorial sense as wearing underwear on your head, according to anyone living in Victorian England. If he wore a handkerchief, it would probably have been slipped inside his waiscoat pocket, and certainly not visible underneath two coats.

Also, the fact that the item did not appear in the "description" section of the statement - which the forwarded to the press - is another obvious indication that the handkerchief wasn't visible, or rather Hutchinson never claimed it was.

Just for the record, the Ordnance Survey Map gives 125 ft. approx. from Millers Court passage to the east end corner of Dorset St., south side, with Commercial St.

Thanks, Jon!

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Ben.
You talk about "not powerful", and "dim", yet this debate concerns a wall lamp within a few (4-6?) feet of anyone standing outside the Millers Court passage.

How powerful does the lamp need to be to cast sufficient light?
You can't answer that question, therefore, you have no idea how powerful the lamp needs to be.

Bottom line is, you are guessing again.

Extremely unlikely, Jon.

Opinion again.
It is quite likely - my opinion.
So now what?

[DJA]

Sticking a handkerchief in an overcoat pocket would have made as much sartorial sense as wearing underwear on your head
Ben

A compromise?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Gumbys-present-architects-sketch.jpg

[Wickerman]

Should any doubt persist on the issue of the luminous intensity of the gas lamps available on London's streets in 1888, all anyone needs to do is consult these clips, use their eyes, halve the level of brightness, and then try to envisage objects positioned several feet below these mighty lights.

But Ben, every instance of your imaginings will be on the lower side of reality, likewise, anyone viewing the lamp as brighter will imagine on the higher side.

The bottom line is, you cannot recreate the true scene. The best that you can do is replicate what you want the scene to look like.

No-one knew the lamp was there until I mentioned it, so now your efforts go into arguing that "even though a lamp was near, it wasn't bright enough".

You have no intention of accepting there was a light available within a few feet that "could" have helped Hutchinson see what he claimed to see.

[Fisherman]

Don't pick seven-year-old fights again here, unless you want to be posting continually on this thread for the next seven.

If you remember the previous discussion, it was established that none of the lamps that you consider "bright" were in use on the streets of London in 1888. There was still no such thing as a "powerful" gas lamp until the invention of the mantle in 1891; until then the streets of London were lit using naked gas flames under glass.

All the best,
Ben

There is no seven-year old fight, Ben. The issue was laid to rest seven years ago.

What you seem to think I don´t remember is exactly what I pointed out in my post - the Bray lamp was too expensive, and so the authorities did not buy it, or any other of the powerful gas lamps constructed to meet the threat from the electric lamps.

Did you not read that? Or did you forget that you had read it? Or what?

You produced the Youtube clip of a Bray lamp as an example of how poorly the gas lamps of the East End lighted the streets.

But the Bray lamp was not in existence on the East End streets of 1888.

So you provided an example that is not viable. It was historically faulty. And even more so since the Bray lamp was a quite powerful lamp - as opposed to your faulty claim. 500 c.p - that is a lot of light, and not some dim beacon. Fact.

Likewise, you claimed that there were no powerful gas lamps in existence in 1888.

That too was wrong. Fact.

I simply corrected you. Fact.

Since you were wrong. Fact.

There ends the discussion, as far as factualities go.

I have little doubt that the debate will go on nevertheless, not getting involved with simple matters like factualities.

I will not join it, however. You are at liberty to produce even more factual deficiencies, should you desire so.

You are even at liberty to claim that I cannot resist answering you.

Try it, Ben - and you will be factually incorrect again.

[Fisherman]

For completeness and since it has been stated that the gas mantle was invented in 1891, here´s the alternative truth:

"The first effective mantle was the Clamond basket in 1881, named after its inventor. This device was made from a cleverly produced matrix of magnesium oxide which did not need to be supported by a platinum wire cage, and was exhibited in the Crystal Palace exhibition of 1883.

The modern gas mantle was one of the many inventions of Carl Auer von Welsbach, a chemist who studied rare earth elements in the 1880s and who had been Robert Bunsen's student. Ignaz Kreidl worked with him on his early experiments to create the Welsbach mantle. His first process used a mixture of 60% magnesium oxide, 20% lanthanum oxide and 20% yttrium oxide, which he called Actinophor, and patented in 1885.

These original mantles gave off a green-tinted light and were not very successful. Carl Auer von Welsbach's first company established a factory in Atzgersdorf in 1887, but it failed in 1889. In 1890 he discovered that thorium was superior to magnesium and in 1891 he perfected a new mixture of 99% thorium dioxide and 1% cerium dioxide that gave off a much whiter light and produced a stronger mantle. After introducing this new mantle commercially in 1892 it quickly spread throughout Europe. The gas mantle remained an important part of street lighting until the widespread introduction of electric lighting in the early 1900s."

Clearly, somebody is having all sorts of trouble with history here. Some enlightenment seems much needed. Lucky, then, that it has been around in such wealth for such a long time.

I have nothing more to say on the subject.

[Sam Flynn]

For completeness and since it has been stated that the gas mantle was invented in 1891, here´s the alternative truth:

"The first effective mantle was the Clamond basket in 1881... exhibited in the Crystal Palace exhibition of 1883.

Well, electricity had been around for decades before most districts had it installed. Here's a lovely piece of social history, from just up the road from me: Electricity Comes to Ystradfellte

[Bridewell]

Incidentally,who changed the hotel in Hutchinson's Police statement from the Ten Bill (sic) to the Queens Head Public House without initialing it?

Hard to say. My guess would be that it was Hutchinson himself when he read through what had been written and realised that he had been misunderstood.

[DJA]

That would be me, a newbie.

Any old gas lamps without mantles left in the streets and lanes of N'Orleans?

You may well be able to cast some light on our dilemma.

[DJA]

You have no intention of accepting there was a light available within a few feet that "could" have helped Hutchinson see what he claimed to see.

Where was this lamp?

There was one across the road at 16 where Hutchinson purportedly waited.

Honestly never been able to locate the Millers Court lamp,except the one near Mary Ann Kelly's room.

[Rosemary]

Lamps

Any old gas lamps without mantles left in the streets and lanes of N'Orleans?

You may well be able to cast some light on our dilemma.

Still, mostly in the French Quarter, & they are not great at illuminating. We live 3 hours away now, & converted our gas lanterns to electric after Hurricane Rita. I consider them decorative & not much else.

I realize I've not read much, & I'll probably get reprimanded by posters with strong feelings & much more time invested than I have, but I asked my husband about the Eddowes' murder. He's a physician who began his residency in surgery & then switched to another field (he found surgery boring) & a friend who is an ER trauma surgeon, if, given the time & lighting constraints whether someone without training could have committed the Eddowes' murder, & both said they didn't see how anyone without training could have. I'll duck & cover now.

[Pcdunn]

Medical training or not?

Don't duck and cover, Rosemary, I have found it really doesn't help.

I think the idea that the Ripper was a doctor (and therefore of the educated classes) was pooh-poohed at the time by some of the medical examiners. One said a butcher or horse-slaughterer could have done the same thing. (This, of course led to a Casebook discussion on the differences between human and livestock anatomies.)

I have inquired how much human anatomy was taught in the LVP to most people, except for medical students. It seems not a lot, though many lower-class men might have served in the war, and have seen plenty of the insides of a human.

I am undecided about the question. I still lean a bit more to Jack having at least some basic anatomical and medical skill

[DJA]

Still, mostly in the French Quarter, & they are not great at illuminating. I consider them decorative & not much else.

I asked my husband about the Eddowes' murder. He's a physician who began his residency in surgery & then switched to another field (he found surgery boring) & a friend who is an ER trauma surgeon, if, given the time & lighting constraints whether someone without training could have committed the Eddowes' murder, & both said they didn't see how anyone without training could have. I'll duck & cover now.

Ask them how the facial cuts are connected.

Eyelids,Maxillary sinus,upper lip,nose,Infraorbital nerve,etc.