Talk:Lava lamp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] Trademark

Eek. Sorry to bust up this article, but there are some serious trademark issues here. First and foremost, there is no such thing (officially) as a "lava lamp". Actually, this page will explain better than I: http://www.lavaworld.com/cfm/legal/legal.cfm

Unless there's opposition, I'll move this page to 'Motion lamp' and fill in information from the page above. The picture should be fine; I can't believe they'd hold a copyright that extended that far, but what do I know? --Spikey 19:01, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lava Lamp trademark LauraOrganaSolo 17:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not move the page. Lava World International who bought the rights to the sell lava lamps in the United States from the original English company unwittingly trademarked the term Lava Brand Motion Lamp. This type of lamp has become known popularly as a lava lamp. There is no trademark on the phrase lava lamp. Lava World has tried and succeeded to protect the use of the word lava as related to other manufacturers, but can not control the popular use of the word lava; basically, they patented the wrong name. For more on the history see this site, http://oozinggoo.com (I'm the author.) -- user:fleabitten

Other places claim that they invented the lava lamp. eg [1]. Secretlondon 19:09, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't move the page. This is clearly the term they are known by. Besides we have many other articles on trademarked names: Coca Cola, New Coke, etc. Rmhermen 19:40, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
There would certainly be a redirect. It just seems more appropriate to title the article with the official name used by most (no?) manufacturers. Maybe things are different accross the pond, I don't know. --Spikey 00:22, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia's rule is to use the most common name. That would be lava lamp, I think. Rmhermen 20:05, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
Most common name is definively "lava lamp".
Google web/Google groups:
  • "motion lamp": 10k/315
  • "lava lamp": 180k/19k. Bogdan | Talk 20:12, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, you can't argue with Google. You're right, it should stay here. There's still a legal issue, though, which worries me. The page I've referenced above makes some pretty serious trademark claims and has very clear rules. What are we actually obligated to follow? --Spikey 23:15, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
If "lava lamp" causes problems because it is (or was) trademarked then you should have a chat with "kitty litter" which started as a trademarked brand name product but eventually became the generic term. Band-aid is on its way down the same path.

(I have no kind of legal knowledge of anything at all, whatsoever, nor even any interest in legal issues) "Lava" is a common english word. So is "lamp". The page appears to me to claim ownership of the term "LAVA", not the combination of "lava" and "lamp". "Lava lamp" means a lamp somehow related to lava, the word "lava" not used as if it's a brand name. I assume use of the word "lava" as a noun predates the creation of the company. (Volcanoes existed before the company was formed...) I find the claim that there is no such thing as a "lava lamp" about as sensible as I would find a claim that there is no such thing as a "frog lamp", if someone first showed me a lamp that looks like a frog. Κσυπ Cyp   00:26, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but a lamp that looks like a frog, well, looks like a frog. The inside of a lava lamp has never struck me as looking like lava, so the trademark made sense to me. But this is probably just me. --Spikey 13:34, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I suppose only the red ones (like mine) look like lava, with the light shining through the bottom... Can't really see it in the picture, the bottom looks white instead of white in the picture... Although I can't be sure without finding the box, I doubt my lava lamp has anything to do with Lava World, especially as the base looks nothing like the bases shown on the site. Κσυπ Cyp   18:51, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just mentioning the original subject, I think the title "Lava Lamp" should be kept. This is what they are most widely known as, and the legal page of "Lavaworld" is getting a bit beyond a joke, even in todays crazy, overactive legal world. Where will it stop? Besides, their legal bits would only be valid where they have trademarks & IP on their Lava name (& can try to ban the non-existant "lava lamp" phrase), which may not neccessarily be everywhere. --Chooky78 13:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please restore the article. There are no trademark issues here. Trademark does NOT prevent you from talking ABOUT someone or something. See http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/folder/NewKids.shtml


The wax motion inside the lamp has strong physical similarity to magma moving in magma chambers under a volcano. (The stuff from a volcano is called "magma" so long it is inside the Earth, and "lava" after it has come out.) Thus the relation to volcanos is definitely there, although the term "magma lamp" (which is used by some competitors) would be even more physically obvious than "lava lamp". (=CO=Windler) 89.51.18.167 00:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Contents of a Lava Lamp

  • Does anybody know what the liquid inside of a Lava Lamp is? Is it one type of liquid (like, just water) or does it vary. Bradley Elenbaas

Even though his question doesn't belong here I feel Bradley deserves an answer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A641224 It is not water.

Why are we calling the clear liquid "water"? It is not water and that is clear to anyone who has ever opened one up. There is information about this at Oozing Goo. This should be called "solution" or "matrix" or something more accurate than water.

The areticle, in contradiction to a patent it reffers to, states that the liquid in lava lamp is oil, while the solid that gets melted is wax. Oil and melted wax are miscible at any proportion when heated, and would not stay separated. The patent clearly states the device is based on immiscibility of the two liquids, and describes a combination of water as filling and oil as material for BLOBS - the part that stays down when cool. Also, it mentions that carboun tetrachloride - a heavy organic solvent immiscible with water but miscible with oil and wax, is used for tuning the blobs for right density, just a bit higher that the density of water. Please, if anybody wishes to revert the water filling back to oil filling, read first the patent [1] reffered by the article. -- 213.98.70.46 (talk • contribs • logs) 22:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The word 'subsbums' used in the article appears to be a typo. Is it 'subsumes' or something else? If any one has an idea, please correct it. Gjnyasa (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Links to sites that simply sell lava lamps should not be here - they are endless. Often someone will come and remove links to the patent and to Oozing Goo and replace those links with their shop (like Nichler lamps, etc.)

- I removed the USB-Lavalamp link as wiki is not here to promote your shop!

- I removed the lik to lavalamp.org because the contents on that site were removed.

- I think the link to the site about the giant lavalamp should be removed too as many sources call this project a hoax, which makes their collecting donations at least questionable. That shouldn't be supported through wiki and sure doesn't add to either the purpose of wikipedia or that of the article.

Above mentioned link is removed now.-80.135.188.238 16:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Googie architecture

The Googie architecture article says Lava lamps are an example for Googie design or Populuxe design. Do you think it is correct, so it can be added to the article? --Abdull 11:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] What about lava lamp spin-offs?

I own a glitter lamp, which uses the same technology that lava lamps use. The only difference is instead of wax being in it, there is peices of colored metallic confetti, as well as some glitter in the liquid itself. I noticed that there is a article here glitter lamp, about glitter lamps. Perhaps that article should be changed from a stub, and instead mentioned in this article about lava-lamps as a spin-off product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.219.137 (talk • contribs)

Actually a glitter lamp only uses thermal circulation, the glitter particles are light enough to be carried with it, that physical effect is way different from that in a lavalamp. Nonetheless, glitter lamps certainly belong to the product family of motion lamps and even were(are) sold by the inventors (Crestworth Ltd. who later became Mathmos). As the stub you mention only consists of - Quote:
A glitter lamp is a novelty item typically used for decoration rather than illumination. The stuff inside it suggests the flowing of glitter.
Unquote. I'd say there's no use in including that information in the lavalamp article. But what about an additional section mentioning a number of such "Novelty Items typically used for decoration rather than illumination" (Examples: Glitterlamp, Plasma Ball, Light-changing-objects, etc.)?
Another alternative would be adding further information to the original glitter lamp article and including it over here in a "See also" section just as the lavalamp is included in the plasma lamp article.-80.135.188.238 16:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Glitter lamp now redirects to Lava lamp... which has no mention of glitter lamps at all. They are different enough to deserve at least a section if not their own article... and if I was awake enough, I'd do it. Since I'm not, someone else, please? --StarChaser Tyger 08:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] source?

"Chaotic behaviour makes the movement of the wax unpredictable—hence lava lamps can aid in the generation of one-time pads for cryptographic use." How exactly? I'd love to see a link addressing this.Sorry, forgot to sign this.--{{SUBST:User:Coryma}} 08:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Then follow the lavarand link in the "see also" section. -80.135.188.238 16:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Hopefully this bit doesn't need linking/expansion, but just a clarification in the wording. I've altered it to reference a "Random Number Generator", which is the actual function that the lava lamp could fulfill, and has many other uses besides one-time pads. Hopefully this will give the relevant lava lamp properties to follow up further, without complicating things. If this is Ok, could someone close this thread, or discuss it further if it's not? --Chooky78 13:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heat Exchange?

Hi. The third paragraph "The light bulb heats the container at the bottom, and due to heat exchange with the atmosphere, the container eventually dissipates the introduced heat. This method of heat transfer is called convection." doesn't really make much sense, and isn't very well written. It also isn't technically correct, and is out of place in the page.

I've replaced it with "When the lava lamp is turned on, the light bulb heats the bottom of the glass bottle and the metallic wire coil, which in turn heats the contents of the glass bottle in this vicinity.", and made a few minor updates. I've also added a bit on "Convection" in the liquid phases in a later section, as this where convection really is related to lava lamps. --Chooky78 13:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mythbusters Section

"Lava lamps were also featured in an episode of the TV show MythBusters, in which it was proven that heating a lava lamp on a stove could cause the lamp to explode and injuries sustained from such an explosion could be fatal."

Couple of comments: 1) To use the word "proven" here implies that it was a conclusive scientific experiment, which it wasn't. I recommend "demonstrated" instead. 2) I don't think this is a core part of the history of the lava lamp, and therefore should go in a different section...perhaps one dealing with popular culture, for instance. Slayte1 17:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Slayte1

Kind of late, but, for anyone who comes across this...It's not terribly necessary to mention every possible stupid idea someone might come up with for a product, unless this one was especially notable (I'm aware of only one instance of someone actually doing this). Someguy1221 23:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why we shouldn't add it. While it was not "proven", many people will look to Wikipedia to see if lava lamps can explode. Rather than following each section literally, Wikipedia should host information that most people will find intriguing and useful. This fact is definably one of them. Holosoth 22:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


The claim in the article: "If too low or too high a wattage bulb is used in the base, the "lava" ceases to circulate, either remaining quiescent at the bottom (too cold) or all rising to the top (too hot)." is likely wrong. When the MythBusters overheated a lava lamp (yellowish blobs in blue/green liquid) until explosion, the blobs did non stay at the top, but some shredded into many smaller blobs and droplets those were rapidly(!) swirling up and down within the bottle before it blew up. (I have it on video.) A blue glitter(?) lamp in the test did not explode, but suddenly the plug popped off and then the entire superheated liquid rapidly steamed out of the bottle like an explosive volcano eruption, making the now empty bottle crack on the hotplate. (May it be that this was the genuine reason why the thing got its name "lava" lamp?) 89.51.23.16 22:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC) (=CO=Windler)

[edit] Mathmos

A re-drafted article should also include reference to Mathmos as the UK manufacturer of lava lamps (non-capitalised). One of the issues here, I feel, is that the title "lava lamp" has become a semi-generic in the way 'Hoover', 'Biro', et al have done in the past, and any article needs to clarify this. --AlisonW 18:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathmos and 'Lava Lamp' trademark issue

We at Mathmos want to weigh in here. We think it a mistake to move the Lava-lamp page as it is the name these lamps are popularly known as. The history of the trademark “Lava lamp” and who invented this type of lamp is a messy one. We would like to try and set the record straight.
What is commonly known as the “Lava lamp” was invented by Edward Craven-Walker in 1963. He adapted the design from an earlier invention for an egg timer invented by another Englishman Mr. Dunnet. Mr. Craven-Walker formed a company in Poole, Dorset UK called “Crestworth Ltd.” This company originally marketed the lamp under the name “Astro lamp”.
In 1966 Mr. Craven-Walker sold the rights for the USA and Canada to Haggerty Enterprises who marketed his invention under the name “Lava Lite”.
In 1989 I and my business partner David Mulley took over the day to day running of Mr. Craven-Walkers business. Initially we changed the company name to “Crestworth Trading” and later to “Mathmos”. Although the name changed the premises, machinery, staff, intellectual property rights etc were all the same. We in fact still manufacture the lamps on the same factory site today.
When we re-launched the lamps we retained the name “Astro Lamp” but as just the name for the original model. We used the name “Lava lamp” for the range as it seemed to us that this was the generic name for the products.
Haggerty disagreed and we fought a trademark battle with them in Germany on this issue. The result of that legal battle is that both Mathmos and Haggerty can use the trademark “Lava lamp” in the UK and Germany. In some other parts of the world Haggerty has trademark on the word “Lava” or “Motion Lamp” as far as I am aware.
So the long and short of this “Lava lamp” is the popular term. Haggerty in the US market themselves as The Original Lava Motion Lamp. They are aggressive about protecting this as the only thing they invented was the word “Lava” not the lamp itself.
Mathmos is the name of the company that makes these lamps on the original site in Poole, UK to a formula and design given by Mr. Walker and refined by him until his death in 2000. -- Thanks, Cressida Granger (CEO and owner of Mathmos Ltd.)

  • Cressida: Please email your information to info-en@wikimedia.org from your company email address. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Precursor

The lava lamp was certainly not invented in 1963. I remember a form of Christmas tree lighting in the 1950s consisting of glass tubes about 8mm across and 12 cm long mounted at one end in plastic shells each containing one of the bulbs in the string. Globs of coloured oil (or wax, but it was clear, as I remember) inside rose and fell just like the wax in a lava lamp. (I think they didn't catch on because they didn't stay upright on a tree.)--Hugh7 21:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

those were bubblelights turkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.66.97 (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct. The lava lamp was developed over a number of years from the late 1950s until its release in 1963. It was based on a simple egg timer, consisting of a blob of colored oil in a bottle of clear liquid, which was placed in the pot with the egg(s). When the water heated the liquid, the oil slowly lost density and rose as a single blob. When it reached the top, it indicated that your eggs were done. Supposedly, it had been fitted with an electric light so the blob rose and fell continually, and was on display in a pub Mr. Walker visited. Hugh7, what you are remembering are indeed a separate thing, known as bubble lights, which consist of a sealed glass tube containing a liquid (such as methylene chloride) with a low evaporation point. The tube has an air gap at the top. When heated, the fluid evaporates, and the pressure rising in the air gap forces air to suffuse into the fluid. It reforms at the base of the tube, where a glass pellet, salt granules, glass wool etc. has been placed to facilitate this, and the bubbles rise in the liquid. This technology was used for Christmas lights, signs, beer advertisements, and as decoration on Wurlitzer brand jukeboxes. NOMA held the bubble Christmas light patents. Trying to circumvent them, Peerless came up with what I think you're remembering, Hugh7: the Shooting Star. It contained two fluids, one floating atop the other, and the bubbles were lighter than the lower fluid and heavier than the upper, so they rose AND fell. But they were still only bubbles of gas. There were eventually some lava lamp-like bubble lights made, but they simply had colored oil at the bottom. The rising gas bubbles tossed bubbles of oil upwards as they went. But these, too, were not using the operating principle of the lava lamp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.119.240 (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

To further complicate the matter and as an interesting info on the side (also presented in the german WP article): You may want to look into the patent granted to Mr. Dunnet in the 1950ies. The text of which can be found here http://www.wikipatents.com/gb/703924.html or here (! including a drawing of the device!!!) http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB703924&F=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.166.49 (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just asking, re: interwikis...

Since I can't possibly read the OTRS ticket, could someone explain whether or not the interwiki links are controversial? (I can't believe I just needed to ask that. Someone please stop the planet, I want to hop to a bus going to the nearest sane universe.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Sheesh. Remember. 42. IvoShandor 09:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page has been mentioned in TheRegister

Apparently Wiki's OTRS are somewhat controversial, and TheRegister uses the LavaLamp page as an example [2] cojoco 00:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with them. There is no reason to delete a page of something that is as harmless as a lava lamp. God forbid they give a reason. Holosoth 22:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
How typical of the press to chase the wrong culprit just because Wikipedia is such an easy mark. The OTRS people are not the problem. The frivolous legal threats are. --Agamemnon2 23:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
"The frivolous legal threats are." <-- Please elucidate for those of us who recently read the The Register article and regularly read Wikipedia articles but are not familiar with the daily administrative goings-on of Wikipedia. --singe@ix.netcom.com 16:15, 8 July 2007 (PST)
What are OTRS? What are they doing? Lord Metroid 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The company that owns the North American rights to the lava lamp owns a trademark over the term Lava in connection with these type of lamps, and is trying to lay claim to the term Lava Lamp. I can certainly see how Wikipedia can get dragged into the middle of a controversial trademark dispute, and it makes sense that they would settle these things carefully - by removing the material until they have had time to think on it. The Register article, as usual, is simply based on the grievance of one person, and that turns into a story. Ultimately its up to courts to decide if they can own the term Lava Lamp given that everyone in the world calls them that in a generic sense. Whether it is or is not a valid trademark cannot be decided here. Scottjduffy 23:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it was basically a pretty silly legal thread, but which had to result in the offending material being redacted until the Foundations lawyers could put a stake into it. Oh, and PS -- it's not a "Lava lamp", it's a Lava-brand motion lamp (TM). That was the basis of their complaint. --Haemo 00:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well. Spam is also a trademarked term. I can't see why we can't write about it. Incredibly stupid. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone upset over this should refer to Wikimedia standards for editing which state you need to maintain a neutral point of view. Editing the article to put the TM name of your lava lamp brand is obviously violating this rule. --Bluesquareapple 13:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Register article was perfectly clear about the actual complaint, and it had nothing to do with the lamp, or this article specifically. The complaint is that OTRS operates outside of public view and does not explain its actions.

I'd have to agree with the article. There should be some explanation for the absence of the content. Wikipedia provides valuable information and when a user finds something amiss there should be a 'best effort' to say why. It's as simple as, 'due to a legal issue this page is unavailable. We are working to correct this and provide the article in a timely manner. If you are a Wikipedian you may add this to your watch page to keep track of the status of this article.' Hobophobe 01:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe Agamemnon2 seriously mischaracterizes the article; there is no doubt that frivolous legal actions are a problem, but the question is whether or not OTRS is a reasonable solution. Would it have been too much to ask for a post explaining the issue here on the talk page? Apparently so.

Suggestion: how about a template that states this article is under review by OTRS, please see the talk page. On the talk page there would be a concise description of the concern being investigated. That would have avoided all of this.

Maury 14:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read the talk page, you would see that a user, representing a firm, claimed copyright infringement. An admin then requested them to email OTRS about it. The page was then locked per an OTRS ticket. I think most people can see what happened here, and draw the correct conclusions. --Haemo 01:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, anyone could have guessed what was going on. Still, a concise explanation would have been polite so that people would not have had to be guessing.Punainen Nörtti 07:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Barberio left Wikipedia on 11:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC), in close proximity to this discussion. The Register article states that Barberio illustrated his OTRS point by citing to this Lava lamp article. The Lava lamp article was first edited via OTRS ticket on 18 June 2007 - five days after Barberio left Wikipedia. First, don't believe everything you read. Second, this talk page is for issues relating to Lava lamp article, not OTRS. Discussions related to OTRS should take place at OTRS talk, not here. It is acceptable to discuss here the Lava lamp trademark issues as it relates to the Lava lamp article. As for the trademark of Lava lamp, a search for "lava" and "lamp" using the 'and' operator in the "Structured Form Search (Boolean)" of the "Trademark Electronic Search System (Tess)" at trademark search may clarify the matter. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The Register piece looks pretty silly, implying that OTRS runs around willy-nilly. The thread on this talk page about trademark issues is a pretty clear indication of what was going on, and of course anyone who cared could check the page history and read a historical version of the article. Wikipedia operates under United States law, which is rife with litigation, and despite the site's prominence the Wikimedia Foundation is a small nonprofit organization that was hiring new legal counsel when this particular issue arose. So naturally there was some delay. The paper might have had a valid point that the OTRS volunteer could have made things clearer, but did anyone request more explanation? I really chuckle when I see this type of story - it reveals how little the journalism community understands about this site. DurovaCharge! 01:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Lava World's problem, it seems, is not that they own the trademark 'lava lamp', but rather that in their opinion there is not, and cannot, be any such thing. There is ONLY the 'Lava brand Motion Lamp'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.119.240 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Copper coach lava tt.jpg

This image comes from a user who has uploaded at least three other pictures which were copyright violations. While it could well be that this one (and its identical copy Image:200px-LavaLampDark1.JPG) are indeed self-created as claimed, there are enough other free lava lamp pictures available and there is no need to take a legal chances (especially considering the fact that the company who made the lamp on these photos has already intervened with regard to other legal issues in this article). Regards, High on a tree 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokie, good call. :-)
Seraphim Whipp 08:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the 200px one under CSD I1. hbdragon88 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)