Mapp Gas Cylinder goes boom

Found this while going around the internet.

Seems to be some issues with Mapp Gas Cylinders..

so.. FWIW.. http://www.bernzomaticinjuries.com/index.html

Looks Scary, anyway, be safe out there..

scary... very scary

That's why I don't drop MAPP gas cylinders.

well, I can't say I ever planned to drop one.. except maybe from a high bridge onto concrete below

mad_machine wrote: well, I can't say I ever planned to drop one.. except maybe from a high bridge onto concrete below

Hmmm, I wonder if the torch would stay lit.

I can't imagine having a MAPP cylinder rupture if you knock it over. I wonder if they are having similar problems with the propane cylinders. I use them a lot more than MAPP.

holy crap. that is scary.

Designed to fail, but an 8ft flame!!!!! Forwarded this to all I know who use the stuff. Big thanks for the heads up, not-so-"ignorant." I use mapp gas much more than propane; good thing I use the old style burner without a built-in igniter. I'm holding the tank when using it, not putting stress on the screw fitting. Still, made me pause.

We believe the trigger locking mechanism is also a design defect, because it allows the user to hold the cylinder rather than the torch handle, which can stress the vulnerable portion of the cylinder.

Why does this statement seem backwards to me? Doesn't it make more sense to hold the cylinder? OR am I reading this incorrectly?

The only way that could make sense is if the igniter top is LOTS heavier than the bottle, which doesn't seem right, but......for me, I'll hold the cylinder.

vwcorvette wrote:

We believe the trigger locking mechanism is also a design defect, because it allows the user to hold the cylinder rather than the torch handle, which can stress the vulnerable portion of the cylinder.

Why does this statement seem backwards to me? Doesn't it make more sense to hold the cylinder? OR am I reading this incorrectly?

yeah.. some of the "investigative work" is fairly thin on that site. But it made me stop and think, can't be too careful, especially with 3 mouths now depending on me.

ignorant wrote:

vwcorvette wrote:

We believe the trigger locking mechanism is also a design defect, because it allows the user to hold the cylinder rather than the torch handle, which can stress the vulnerable portion of the cylinder.

Why does this statement seem backwards to me? Doesn't it make more sense to hold the cylinder? OR am I reading this incorrectly?

yeah.. some of the "investigative work" is fairly thin on that site. But it made me stop and think, can't be too careful, especially with 3 mouths now depending on me.

It reads to me like if you were holding the torch head and hit something with the tip all the load is on the torch not the tank. If you are holding the tank and hit something with the torch not only is the load transferred to the tank but there it a lot more leverage.

It appears to me that what they are saying is this:

The torch is designed to snap off above the valve if it is dropped or otherwise hit by something. If you are using one and holding it by the tank (or set it down and it falls over), rather than the torch snapping above the valve, it will snap the top off the tank like in the pictures. For it to become an issue you will have already had an accident, its just that the designed in safety feature fails to work.

i use it all the time doing plumbing work and it bounces around in my truck/van/trailer. have had the same bottle for over a year.

If it had an 8 ft flame coming out of it then don;t you think the paint on the bottle would be burned. I see no evidnece of an flame. Looks like an ambulance chasing lawyer trying to get a class action suit going.

RandyS wrote: If it had an 8 ft flame coming out of it then don;t you think the paint on the bottle would be burned. I see no evidnece of an flame. Looks like an ambulance chasing lawyer trying to get a class action suit going.

I dunno. At that pressure, the tank might vent gas so quickly that the flame doesn't extend all the way back to the location of the rupture. My can of starter fluid doesn't melt when I use it as a flamethrower.

paanta wrote:

RandyS wrote: If it had an 8 ft flame coming out of it then don;t you think the paint on the bottle would be burned. I see no evidnece of an flame. Looks like an ambulance chasing lawyer trying to get a class action suit going.

I dunno. At that pressure, the tank might vent gas so quickly that the flame doesn't extend all the way back to the location of the rupture. My can of starter fluid doesn't melt when I use it as a flamethrower.

Exactly. When a propane bottle is shot next to a lit road flare there is not any scorching of the bottle. Or so I have heard.

pilotbraden wrote:

paanta wrote:

RandyS wrote: If it had an 8 ft flame coming out of it then don;t you think the paint on the bottle would be burned. I see no evidnece of an flame. Looks like an ambulance chasing lawyer trying to get a class action suit going.

I dunno. At that pressure, the tank might vent gas so quickly that the flame doesn't extend all the way back to the location of the rupture. My can of starter fluid doesn't melt when I use it as a flamethrower.

Exactly. When a propane bottle is shot next to a lit road flare there is not any scorching of the bottle. Or so I have heard.

We need to do a test!

mad_machine wrote:

pilotbraden wrote:

paanta wrote:

RandyS wrote: If it had an 8 ft flame coming out of it then don;t you think the paint on the bottle would be burned. I see no evidnece of an flame. Looks like an ambulance chasing lawyer trying to get a class action suit going.

I dunno. At that pressure, the tank might vent gas so quickly that the flame doesn't extend all the way back to the location of the rupture. My can of starter fluid doesn't melt when I use it as a flamethrower.

Exactly. When a propane bottle is shot next to a lit road flare there is not any scorching of the bottle. Or so I have heard.

We need to do a test!

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/33060-mythbusters-exploding-propane-tank-video.htm

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-propane-rocket.html

they do fun stuff on that program.

Referenced site is clearly class-action attorneys.

I used Mapp Gas in our potato gun.

dropped a bottle of mapp gas off the tailgate of my bronco. The cylinder shot itself about 30 yards down the driveway and across the street. Flame was off at the time.

I'll believe it when you show me the rest of the cylinder and the torch that was used on it. I've used those things for years, with occasional abuse, without fail.

I just store mine with the tank and nozzle separated, ever since my dad just about beat my ass because I knocked over his torch and the fracture grooves on the nozzle worked as intended.

Class action lawyer bullE36 M3. You should be embarrassed for posting that link. Working on anything with open flame and a compressed flammable gas cylinder has inherent risks. Damage to the cylinder is just one of them. Do your torch tanks have tip-over caps on them at all times? Thought so.

93gsxturbo wrote: You should be embarrassed for posting that link.

I do believe that is the dumbest thing ever said on this board.

I had a whole response written, but that doesn't deserve one. Have a nice day mr. curmudgeon.

I originally found this on the smokstak.

http://www.smokstak.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81169

One of the guys on there has a defective tank. Looks like something went bad in their process. Maybe this info is helpful to someone.

hotlinked for pleasure