Talk:Blowtorch

US vs UK meaning
I never heard of this being called a "blow lamp" my father had what he referred to as a "blow torch"; this was similar to the one shown in the photo. I would like to describe how this thing worked. The tank was brass and was filled with gasoline. Once pressurized gasoline was forced out into a small reservoir under a tube-like affair which had holes in the sides; this was accomplished by opening a valve. Once the reservoir was full of gasoline the valve was closed and the gasoline in the reservoir was lit; this heated the tube. Once the tube was hot the valve was reopened and gasoline then sprayed into the tube creating a very hot flame, as oxygen was drawn through the holes in the tube. This was used to heat items like soldering irons and to melt lead for fishing sinkers and it was considered a very dangerous tool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Genet4601 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 24 June 2006.
 * The above was originally posted in the article in this edit.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Born and raised in the United States, I have never in my life ever heard the term blowlamp applied to this device. It has always been referred to as a blowtorch by everyone with whom I have come into contact, from my father to contractors, plumbers, and so forth. I suspect that things are a little mixed up, and that the US term is blowtorch/blow torch and the UK term is blowlamp. This article needs to be researched better and rewritten.  I'd do it myself, but I have too many other irons in the fire right now. Glacierman 00:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes three of us who have never heard it called blowlamp-suggest moving to blow torch. Chris 08:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I only just came across this article. Why on Earth should it have been moved? That is in violation of Wikipedia's rule on national varieties of English. I am English, and I call it a blow lamp: I have done so all my life. If this article started life as "blow lamp" then it should not have been moved unless there was very good reason to do so. I will wait for any replies here before I initiate any action. EuroSong talk 21:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has never been moved. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Blow+torch&year=&month=-1&hide_patrol_log=1. Wizard191 (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've lived in England for 20 years and have never heard it called anything but a blowtorch, I'm guessing blowlamp was the original British English term but the American loan has eclipsed it. Either way I don't see any argument for having blowlamp as anything but a British alternative. I would also say that, due to the sheer ubiquity of the term in Britain, blowtorch should be listed as both American and British. 90.197.42.69 (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Blowlamp

 * I can confirm this is a US/UK language difference. In the UK, an LPG-fuelled one is called a blowtorch but a kerosene-fuelled one is called a blowlamp. I agree the article needs a re-write. Biscuittin 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have restored the British English usage. Please leave it in. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

 * [[Image:Old blowtorch 01.jpg|thumb|Blowtorch?]]The article is a bit unclear about how old the tool has to be to be properly a "blowtorch" instead of a "cutting torch", etc., and I have no expertise at all, but I believe Commons:Image:Old blowtorch 01.jpg would be an appropriate illustration. If someone more knowledgable agrees, please add it to the article. If not, then there are probably distinctions that should be made clearer. - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This image shows what I here in England, and my parents before me, always called a blowlamp. The propane variety was not around in England in the 1950's when I was a boy, but a device similar to what is in the image but propane-powered would likely be called a blowlamp here in England; a blowtorch has big gas cylinders. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite for the UK usage of blow torch, cylinders are various size, from the large H tanks you are thinking of to small tanks that only hold a few liters for small jobs and high portability. To an American, we find the term lamp curious, as in US view of the language, a lamp illuminates, an oxy-acetylene torch doesn't provide very much illumination, save when welding steel. THAT said, the image to the right is a blow torch in the US, a blow lamp in the UK.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, that's a petrol blowlamp in the picture, not a paraffin one. These were more common in the US, relatively rare in Europe. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Operation

 * I have direct experience of using an older domestic type UK paraffin/kerosene type blow lamp/blow torch, having been shown how to operate one by my father as a boy, and being given the privilege of starting it up for him, ahead of it's use in domestic light soldering type plumbing repairs and similar. The main lamp body also acted as the main fuel tank (and, like most blow lamps), and this had a small dish shaped concave depression on the top, located underneath the burner assembly. The starting procedure involved first ensuring the tank was filled (but not completely) with paraffin/kerosene. The small depression was then filled with methylated spirits, which was ignited with a match or lighter (though I'm sure best practice would dictate use of a taper or similar for safety). The methylated spirits was allowed to burn until (I presume) sufficient paraffin/kerosene vapour pressure was available to to sustain the rate of fuel supply required for sustained burner operation (I don't recall how we knew when it was ready to go, but think the burner was lit when all the meths had been burned off). The burner was ignited by first closing a pressure relief valve and then operating the pump, which allowed the pressurised paraffin to be expelled via the burner, with a taper or match held at the burner outlet to ignite the paraffin vapour.
 * While writing this section I came across this good web source: which explains the different varieties of pump and their operation much better than I'm able to.Treagle (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The link is http://medlem.spray.se/blowlamp/Function/function.htm . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know why that small spirit flame was used, it warmed the upper assembly, where the upper part would now be called (at least, in the US) a generator tube, to vaporize the fuel before it departed the nozzle. The same principle is used in kerosene camp stoves and kerosene/gasoline lanterns still.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

US vs UK meaning rev.

 * I have never herd of the term "blow lamp"; I live in the UK and I have never seen any UK local shops or chain stores call them "blow lamps" only blow torches. I feel "Blow torch (USA) / Blow lamp (UK)" appeared to often in this article. I have made some minor changes and I hope they will be agreed with. 02:38, 7 April 2011 User:91.110.75.182
 * I live in England. I was born in 1942. The first event that I remember was in the end of 1947. I have heard and seen this device called a blowlamp, and an oxy-gas torch called a blowtorch, countless times down the years. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * True. As far as I have ever known - as an Englishman - a blow lamp is the device pictured within the article. It is used to melt solder/flux when joining pipe-work. A blow torch, however, is a much hotter, higher-powered tool which is used for cutting through metal. A blow lamp is not powerful enough to cut through anything. Therefore in the UK we make the difference between the two tools by giving them different names. In the USA, they just use the same word for both tools. EuroSong talk 15:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite true, I live in the US and have never heard of an oxy-(various fuels, but most often acetylene) torch called a blow torch. I HAVE heard some refer to a propane torch as a blow torch, but that is fairly infrequent and typically used in the sense that what the UK English speakers would refer to as a blow lamp, as the propane units have replaced the old pump operated blow torch. England has only itself for the divergence of the language, as English wasn't documented as a language until after the Revolutionary War. ;)  Wzrd1 (talk) 04:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed some example links
They didn't go to any image, only redirected to a UK hardware store.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether to keep CGI image?

 * Should this image be kept? Here follow the edit comments in this controversy so far:
 * Propane flameguns this shape DO exist: I saw one in a catalog. To avoid copyright problem I used a CGI model of one. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, where shall we start? First off, it's unsourced. You "saw it in a catalogue".  So which one? Where?
 * Let alone the COI issue of someone arguing so much to keep their own image not looking terribly good.
 * Firstly, for technical aspects, the nozzle design looks like no propane burner I've ever seen - it's a small nozzle, clearly indicated for a dense fluid such as a liquid, not a gas. There is no shroud or air mixer, a necessary part of propane burner on this scale. All in all, it looks more like a military liquid-fuelled flamethrower than a propane torch - oh look, what else have you been drawing images of?
 * Could it be an injector nozzle for propane? Possibly, it's just about big enough and with almost enough mixer air for that, even though it's too short for adequate mixing - except it's about twice the size of the Ron Reil propane injector nozzle I have running my blacksmithing forge.
 * Maybe it's just a really big propane burner. There's a couple of feet of stable blue flame out of the nozzle after all. What's it for? It's bigger than my forge. It's hotter than anything you need for weed burning or tar laying. It's longer than any sensible burner flame needs to be. This seems to mostly be a device for throwing waste heat sideways by radiation.
 * Then look at the tank. That's a paraffin (kerosene) tank, not a propane tank. It's bottom draught, so it's feeding liquid propane, down a pipe that will empty the tank in seconds. It's not impossible that someone, somewhere has a burner that consumes liquid propane at that rate, but it's not something I want to be standing anywhere near.
 * What does this burner run on? Gas or liquid? You don't burn liquid propane like this (you use oxy-propane instead, like my ship-cleaning line nozzle - it's big, but at least it puts the heat somewhere useful). That huge fuel tap is a paraffin tap, big bore for liquids under gravity pressure, not gases under pressure that already flow faster. Then there's the tilting issue - as a general rule, propane tanks stay level on the ground and don't get tilted around during carry, so they keep feeding either gas or liquid, but not a random mix.
 * Then there's tank weight. Propane is under pressure, so it needs a hefty tank. I don't want to have to carry a propane tank that big all day, I put it on the ground and run a hose instead.
 * Finally this is a fixed tank. Propane is refilled by propane dealers, not on-site. So this blowtorch (even if credible) would be a pain to refill. Of course such things aren't refilled - they use interchangeable standard tanks instead, with hoses.


 * So all in all, this isn't a propane burner, but a redrawn paraffin burner with a flame thrower nozzle. Being used by a "workman" equipped for a bit of light weedburning, with the sort of heat output that belongs in a steelworks. Like I said, it's nonsense - or in WP-speak, WP:OR WP:COI.   Andy Dingley (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, OK, thanks for the explanation in detail, I've deleted the link again. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

UK vs US revisited
Before I start, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Andy Dingley for an excellent expansion of the lead.

I created this section because I believe in adhering to a one-revert rule when making changes to a page, but I strongly dispute the need for (US) and (UK) in the very first sentence of the lead.

We should not make such definitive statements when there is reasonable doubt, and there is in this case. The implication of "blowtorch (US) or blowlamp (UK)" is that blowlamp is overwhelmingly used in the UK. Cambridge University Press define blowlamp as "a blowtorch", while Oxford define it as a "British term for blowtorch"; both give blowtorch a more thorough definition in their British English sections. By convention, this indicates that both consider blowlamp to be a synonym of blowtorch, and consider blowtorch to be a more common term. —WFC— 16:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I'd agree with you. "Blowtorch" shouldn't be qualified with "(US)", as it's widely used in both. Blowlamp in the UK is still used, but it's getting rare: just with old geezers who grew up using liquid-fuelled torches, or etymology anoraks using it to distinguish liquid from gas.
 * We still need to describe vapourisers, and the difference between paraffin (kerosene) and petrol (naphtha) torches. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This looks like a fine place to put this...


 * When I attempted to fix the spelling to use the US spelling someone (I'll let them come forward and identify themselves if they choose to) came along and reverted the spelling changes that I had made. I am not sure why they'd want to do this, perhaps nationalistic price or something, but it appears to go against the stated goals of Wikipedia. Having one lonely article with spelling that doesn't match the rest is, well, confusing and pointless. I'm pretty sure that the person who reverted surely had a better reason than nationalism - I hope. However, my attempts to investigate to see if there is some sort of rule that makes blowtorches need a specific spelling, perhaps out of tradition, failed to turn up anything.


 * I'm trying to give them the benefit of doubt here. I suppose I can put it up for resolution which (simply to ensure that the spelling is consistent across the site) will most likely side with me but I'd really rather resolve it here. Additionally, I really hate that phrase, "...side with me..." I don't actually have anything personal invested in the page so it isn't siding with me, it's ensuring the site is consistent from page to page to avoid confusion for the readers and those looking to Wikipedia as a source of information.


 * If nobody has any ideas then I'll leave this here for a day or two and then I'll re-do the changes and see where it goes from there. Perhaps they'll take a minute to explain? It could well be that tradition dictates that blowtorch references are spelled with "fuelled" and "pressurised" and I'm just unaware of this and unable to find any supporting evidence for this online. Wikipedia could also have some obscure policy that I'm unaware of (I've looked and I'm not seeing anything) and it could be that it is perfectly normal to have one article use spelling that isn't the same as the rest of the site? I could be, in other words, mistaken in this but, after doing a lot of looking, I don't think I am. Just in case I am mistaken I will leave this here and wait a couple of days before re-correcting the spelling. &#34;So long and thanks for all the fish.&#34; (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "to fix the spelling to use the US spelling" implies that non-US spelling is broken – it isn't.
 * You've been told once already: WP:ENGVAR.
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

German inventor August von Marquardt
In 1797 or in 1799 German inventor August von Marquardt invented a blowlamp in Eberswalde. 188.96.231.24 (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Blow torch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214062312/http://homepage.ntlworld.com:80/munwai/homepage.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/munwai/homepage.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091118185739/http://medlem.spray.se:80/blowlamp/History/history.htm to http://medlem.spray.se/blowlamp/History/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. The SandDoctor Talk 16:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Blow torch → Blowtorch – I request that this page be moved to Blowtorch, because the article consistently uses "blowtorch" more than "blow torch". Also, I don't think as two words is really fashionable anymore. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 22:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Both Webster's and OED list it as one word. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per Google Ngrams. -- Netoholic @ 07:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The dictionary and google ngram are usually good indicators, and are good here again.  The word has evolved from its origins, with the evolution of the device.  Originally a torch (or lamp) that was blown, this is no longer the case technically, and so it is a new word, compounded into one new word.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When this goes through, the old history at Blowtorch should be retained and merged to Blowtorch (disambiguation), since there is an old cut-and-paste move from 2007. Dekimasu よ! 20:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- The SandDoctor Talk 16:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.