MLU FORUM - Shell stamped P.O.W. cans and some other stuff

MLU FORUM (http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/index.php)

- The Sergeants' Mess (http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=13)

- - Shell stamped P.O.W. cans and some other stuff (http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10022)

Shell stamped P.O.W. cans and some other stuff

Graham Sellers the owner of the Company Resicast which produces British and Canadian 1/35 models has asked for some help on so items. if anyone can please email me at sdunnage@rogers.com with the info. and i'll pass it on to him.
I appreciate the help and hope that the resouces that you gentleman have can help with these projects.
The first item is this P.O.W. can with the Shell stampings on it. Here is Grahams request.
"Precise measurements and info (are the other sides identical? Are the markings on the ends?) for the type of oil can as shown. "

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...e/Shellcan.jpg

Next question.

"Info on infantry cable reels (there is some sort of wooden frame around the cable reel) "

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...oseupframe.jpg

And the last.

"Precise measurements for the S shaped wheel for the T-16 "

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...age/swheel.jpg

Thanks in advance gents.
sean

Wishing I had a 1:1 toy of my own

Re: Shell stamped P.O.W. cans and some other stuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Sean Dunnage
The first item is this P.O.W. can with the Shell stampings on it. Here is Grahams request.
"Precise measurements and info (are the other sides identical? Are the markings on the ends?) for the type of oil can as shown. "

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...e/Shellcan.jpg

Sean,

The can shown would have only been stamped "SHELL MOTOR SPIRIT" on both large sides, the narrow sides are blank, the top has the usual "petroleum spirit warning", which I cannot quote at this time.

The Shell fuel can is a civillian pattern that was common from about the late 20's well into the 50's and 60's, and were produced for just about EVERY petrol and oil company. The multitude of variations on these cans is a sufficient to be a field of collecting and recording in it's own right. These Shell cans come in upward of a dozen variations and have been made with SHELL written vertically on the sides.

The design (and dimensions) were eventually adopted to become the 2 Gal POL can used by Commonwealth armies.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony Smith
These Shell cans come in upward of a dozen variations and have been made with SHELL written vertically on the sides.

My mistake......... on walking in to my garage this morning, I spied a Shell can, and as Tony says, "SHELL" written vertically down the sides. :doh: I use a Redline can for petrol and that has blank sides, must have been thinking of that. Most of the prewar cans in UK were made by Valor, who were famous for paraffin stoves. It was a standardised item and there were numerous different company names on them.

There is a slight difference

in the dimensions of the base of these cans.

I found that civvie cans won't fit in the POL can holder of my C8AX, whereas all the military ones I have do:- W^D, C^ and D^D

The base is about 1/16 inch narrower, (I guess that won't show in 1/35 scale)

On the top of those civvie cans in raised pressed lettering it states:
under the handle:- "Petroleum Spirit"
and below that:- "Highly Inflammable"

The War Department cans also have the "W^D" and the date and the same as above.

There are no markings on the top of the canadian cans except for the C around the broad arrow

I'm sure someone will post pics, also showing the stamping of the base

Rob

Looks a bit like this Auzzie 1

Can someone please explain to me the difference between flammable and inflammable?

Flammable - Inflammable

You asked for it. Found it on write101.com

If something is "flammable" it means it will burn readily ... right? So ... if it's "inflammable" that should mean it doesn't burn ... right?

Wrong. Both words mean the same.

Visitors to the Apostrophe Forum have been addressing this problem of flammable and inflammable materials. Richard Tinsley did some investigating and found the following satisfactory explanation at the Word Detective site: http://www.word-detective.com/120398.html

Quote:

Blame it on Latin and its tricky prefixes. In the beginning, there was "inflammable," a perfectly nice English word based on the Latin "inflammare," meaning "to kindle," from "in" (in) plus "flamma" (flame). "Inflammable" became standard English in the 16th century. So far, so good.

Comes the 19th century, and some well-meaning soul dreamt up the word "flammable," basing it on a slightly different Latin word, "flammare," meaning "to set on fire." There was nothing terribly wrong with "flammable," but it never really caught on. After all, we already had "inflammable," so "flammable" pretty much died out in the 1800's.

"But wait," you say, "I saw 'flammable' just the other day." Indeed you did. "Flammable" came back, one of the few successful instances of social engineering of language.

The Latin prefix "in," while it sometimes means just "in" (as in "inflammable"), more often turns up in English words meaning "not" (as in "invisible" -- "not visible"). After World War Two, safety officials on both sides of the Atlantic decided that folks were too likely to see "inflammable" and decide that the word meant "fireproof," so various agencies set about encouraging the revival of "flammable" as a substitute. The campaign seems to have worked, and "inflammable" has all but disappeared.

That left what to call something that was not likely to burst into flames, but here the process of linguistic renovation was easier. "Non-flammable" is a nice, comforting word, and besides, it's far easier on the tongue than its now thankfully obsolete precursor, "non-inflammable."

The Oxford English Dictionary adds this usage note: Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means "not flammable" or "noncombustible." The prefix -in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.

:teach: Bob

Re: There is a slight difference

Quote:

Originally posted by Rob Beale

There are no markings on the top of the canadian cans except for the C around the broad arrow

Rob

The early Canadian cans had the "mineral spirits highly inflammable" phrase on the tops. I have one or two examples in my collection. All the cans are out in the shed right now, and at -37 today with the windchill, I'm not heading out to photograph them.

Re: There is a slight difference

I hereby coin a new word (UNFLAMMABLE) will not burn no matter how hot it gets. Anyone have a better version.

I have one of those wooden framed cable reels.

What about a fire retardant on water - Unflamboyant.
:D Bob

So....Thats a young male ant, that may or maynot be combustable?????

Somebody say the word 'bust'? Is that kinda like 'deep vee'? Oh dear, I think I'm about to burst into flames here... :eek: