The fire in the grate...

[bolo]

Just wanted to add some kettle and solder-related stuff to this thread -

I guess Mary used wood for the fire, coal or coke must have been too expensive for her and probably was useless for her open fireplace anyway.

The normal flame temperature of a wood fire (like a campfire) is about 600C - 700C (1100F - 1300F), which is not far away from or even coincides with the melting point of the sprout's tin/lead solder spots, depending on the type of solder. Cheaper kettles contained more lead than tin which has a lower melting point.

IMHO, it took less than an hour for the solder to melt if the kettle was empty and the fire on the peak of its temperature. This is based on the assumption that the kettle hung about 0.5m (1.6 feet) over the tips of the flames.

This leads me to believe that the fire must have been quite large and kept like that at least for an hour or two, so I definitely agree with Abberline here.

[paul emmett]

Whilst I'm sure Abberline deserves plaudits in many areas, I'm not sure where, in his career as a watch-maker then policeman, he'd have needed to have learned Newton's Law of Cooling,

Hi, Sam.

From what I hear Newton's law weren't rocket science, and although it is no longer used--I would imagine that it isn't used because of some of the variables Michael touched on that the "law" couldn't take into account--in 1888 it was SOP when there was a question of fire intensity.

Light, Michael? I don't think so--not from damp clothes. I think that, as has already been noted, you'd get more smoke than light. And that in turn is one more reason why I feel that Abberline, or an associate, did apply Newton's Law. Indeed, I think that the fire actually wasn't hot, and that Newton and the belief that the fire was earlier than it actually was caused Abberline to miscalculate the temperature of the fire.

[tji]

Hi Tom

Okay no probs.

tj

[Tom_Wescott]

TJI,

My good friend, you did not enter my mind when I wrote that statement. You listed all the reasons you think Liz was not a Ripper victim. 90% of those reasons were based on misinformation, old myths, or a misunderstanding of the facts. I stronly believe that when you know all the facts you will change your mind. Others, such as Glenn and Perry, know the facts but choose to ignore them for whatever reason. That is their choice, of course, but it can become frustrating when they choose to dominate entire threads.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Paul,

I think we should give Abberline even more credit. The Physics Prof here says that in 1888 Abberline would have used Newton's Law of Cooling to judge how hot the fire had been.

Whilst I'm sure Abberline deserves plaudits in many areas, I'm not sure where, in his career as a watch-maker then policeman, he'd have needed to have learned Newton's Law of Cooling, still less that he'd have used it in any practical sense. Abberline only noted that there were "traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off". He gives no impression that he used anything other than his observation of the detached spout to gauge, qualitatively rather than quantitatively, the likely magnitude of the fire.

[tji]

Hi Tom

I'm wounded


For some reason, the handful of people who adamantly claim Liz Stride was not a Ripper victim are also the same who think the investigators were a bunch of blind idiots.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I don't believe I have ever stated that the Police were idiots, in fact I have some admiration for them in the face of adversity.

While I shouldn't really talk for the others I think I am safe in saying just because we question things that aren't conclusive doesn't mean we think people are idiots.

tj

[Tom_Wescott]

Abberline made the remark based upon the assumption that the fire melted that kettle spout that night, and that the killer must have needed light. The fact is we dont know when the spout was melted

I'm with Don and Paul on giving Abberline more credit. Let's not forget he and his subordinates interviewed all of Mary's close associates. Since the fire and the kettle were key pieces of evidence, it seems reasonable to assume that he reached his conclusion based upon inquiry as to the state of Mary's kettle in the days and hours prior to her murder. Do we have an affidavit to this effect? No, but we have the investigating officer's firm conclusion, so we can infer from that. For some reason, the handful of people who adamantly claim Liz Stride was not a Ripper victim are also the same who think the investigators were a bunch of blind idiots.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

A a large fire in the fireplace left unattended would cover the hot ash in cooled ash, as it is exposed to the ambient air....and theres no way Abberline could know how large or hot that fire was at murder time...only that the ashes were warm after 1:30pm.

For all we know Mary could have stoked it all day, to boil water for the clothes that Maria brought over, and left it to simmer when she retired. She may have melted the solder at that time...or it may have been like that all week for all we know.

Abberline concluded the fire was for light....is that an accepted opinion as well? Because if so,...then the killer certainly didnt spark the bonfire until after Mary Ann Cox came in for the night at around 3. No light was seen by anyone in her room from 1:30 to 3:00 at least. 3 witnesses at different times. Seeya A Man.

Forgive me if I take credit from the opinions of Policeman on hearth fires and cooling times.

Cheers.

[paul emmett]

Finally, give Abberline credit for some intelligence and observational powers. If he he deduced the spout and kettle had separated that night he probably had good reasons for saying that.

Hello, all.

I think we should give Abberline even more credit. The Physics Prof here says that in 1888 Abberline would have used Newton's Law of Cooling to judge how hot the fire had been. Since this law relates temp of fire, temp of ashes, and time since fire, Abberline would have thought the fire was hotter than it actually had been IF he misjudged the time of the fire.

I would say then that this is another reason for the fire to be going, say, in the early morning.

[Supe]

Michael,


The fact is we dont know when the spout was melted,

No, Michael, we dont. But, remember that first, the spout was not melted, simply the solder holding spout to kettle. Secondly, while a spoutless kettle is of some utility, keeping spout and kettle together for anything but decorative purposes is rather pointless.

Finally, give Abberline credit for some intelligence and observational powers. If he he deduced the spout and kettle had separated that night he probably had good reasons for saying that. Like the spout being in just the right place it would be had it separated from the kettle during its last use, remains of solder (which would have long disappeared after repeated spoutless usage) running down from the join and so on.

We don't know when spout and kettle separated, but if the police on the scene were sure it had happened that night there is really no reason to doubt their deduction.

Don.

There never was any proof that the fire that was in Marys fireplace was large, that it was giving off much heat, or much light, at the time the killer must have been there. Abberline made the remark based upon the assumption that the fire melted that kettle spout that night, and that the killer must have needed light. The fact is we dont know when the spout was melted, neither do we know that he needed light.

Since there are remains of fabric found, it could not have been that intense, so it was likely smouldering when the hat and dress fabric were placed on the fire.

As far as a fire to draw attention to the rooms contents.....certainly doesnt jive with locking the door to prevent access to the body, and the curtains were closed...Bowyer needed to move them aside.

Abberline, Reid and some others sieved again Saturday morning, my feeling is to be sure that traces of the the heart that was discovered missing later Friday afternoon during the Volte Face...re-assembling? of Mary Jane....werent still in there.

IF Mary Jane never left after arriving home at 11:45 on the 8th, then it is certainly possible she slept from the time Prater walks the stairs until at least after Mary Ann comes in for the night, at around 3am. Any fire left unattended that long would be essentially useless as a light source.

Cheers all.

[Supe]

This question keeps popping up every few months and the same misconceptions are regularly applied, Perhaps not enough of us still actually burn wood or coal in fireplaces (though anyone who barbecues in their backyard should understand as well).

Whatever, a "roaring fire" was not needed. The heat from the glowing embers of a fire is more than enough to bake potatoes, grill a steak or nelt the solder in a cheap and empty kettle. And the key there is the word empty. So long as there water in a kettle it can boil away with no problems, but once the water is exhausted a good conductor of heat (like a metal kettle) will quickly become as hot as the embers (remember, quite hot enough to cook with) and any solder used to join spout to kettle body whose melting point is lower than the fire's retained temperature will immediately glaze and run and the pieces it had joined fall asunder.

And the remaining ashes from a fire will retain considerable heat many hours after all seems safe. That is why you are advised to bury the ashes from last night's fire before breaking camp when hiking in the woods.

Don.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Ben,

I suppose an alternative scenario, of which there are too bloody many, is that the fire was barely alight when he entered, but that there was some fuel left by the side of the grate, which he used initially, (this fitting in with Abberline's suggestion) but that ran out (possible knowing how skint Mary was) and he started using the other bits gradually to keep it going. The only thing I can think of against this is the statement that the fire seemed to have been raging at some point, enough to melt the spout of the kettle, which would suggest a sudden influx of fuel that got out of control. That doesn't seem to tie in with someone just trying to keep warm and get some light.

Okay, got a brain ache now. This discussion tends to turn into a 'How big is the universe' very quickly.

Oh and Bob I'm just going to Amazon to buy your book. I've been meaning to for ages and keep forgetting. It does look like a terrific read. I don't even have to pay postage because I've got Amazon Prime!

Much Love

Jane

xxxxx

[Bob Hinton]

How Long?

. I guess the only way to answer that question would be determination of how long the fire had been going. I am not sure anyone has any clue on that.



--J.D.

I hazard a guess at that in my book.

[Ben]

Hi Jane,

Long time to chat!

I think any fire-feeding on Kelly's part had more to do with a desire to keep warm on an miserable November night that anything else. If the killer fuelled it thereafter, it was probably for the same reason, although it's quite possible that some additional light aided the killer when mutilating Kelly. No client would have been "comfortable" squashed up with another person on a single bed in a Spitalfields hovel, regardless of whether or not Kelly advertised #13 as such...and she probably didn't!

Best wishes,
Ben