Article View: sci.electronics
Article #9016Re: incandescent light bulb life extender
From: Larry Lippman
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 1990 05:40
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 1990 05:40
47 lines
3090 bytes
3090 bytes
In article <160@dalek.UUCP>, sjb@dalek.UUCP (Seth J. Bradley) writes:
> Just to add another data point, two of the diode buttons I tried
> also burned up (though 6 others worked fine for years).
If people are experiencing failures where these lamp extender
buttons are burning up, then *please* report this to various appropriate
organizations - which are *not* aware of this being any serious problem!
I have listed telephone numbers and contact persons in my previous article.
Also, under the circumstances, I will disclose the name of the engineer I
spoke with at UL: Bruce Bohren.
Please bear in mind that for your report to be useful, you *must*
provide some vendor or manufacturer identification for the device that has
failed.
> On one
> lamp I tried putting a 3 amp 400 PIV diode in series in the lamp's
> cord (this was a lamp which was on most of the time and which one
> of the buttons had burned up on). I know that this would not be
> UL approved, but is it inherently unsafe?
Lighting appliances which are "portable", i.e., which have a cord
and plug and not permanently attached to a structure, are generally exempt
from electrical inspection requirements. The use of a non-UL approved
device in such an application is far less serious (from a regulatory and
insurance standpoint) than modification of permanently-wired lighting
fixtures as advocated by Mr. DeArmond. This does not mean that modification
of a table lamp that voids UL approval is any less of a fire hazard, it
just means that it is probably not a local building code violation.
The addition of a 2 amp fuse (say, wire lead type) to the 3 amp
400 PIV rectifier would make such a modification "reasonably safe".
Such components should be enclosed in flame-retardant insulating sleeving
(readily available), and installed so that: (1) the insulation will
permit heat dissipation of the forward voltage drop of the diode times the
RMS current under maximum load; (2) the fuse and diode will not be subject
to any mechanical wear and tear; and (3) the fuse and diode cannot come
in contact with any exposed metal portions of the lighting appliance.
I do *NOT* recommend that you make the above modifcations, but
if you are bound and determined to do so, at least consider the above
guidelines. I would suggest that instead you consider rough duty or
130 volt lamps.
Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?"
VOICE: 716/688-1231 {boulder, rutgers, watmath}!ub!kitty!larry
FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo, uunet}!/ \aerion!larry
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4253@kitty.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ub!kitty!larryReferences:
<4247@kitty.UUCP> <5297@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> <160@dalek.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ub!kitty!larry From: larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) Newsgroups: sci.electronics Subject: Re: incandescent light bulb life extender Summary: Report device failures & lamp appliance modifications Message-ID: <4253@kitty.UUCP> Date: 17 Dec 90 05:40:17 GMT References: <4247@kitty.UUCP> <5297@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> <160@dalek.UUCP> Organization: Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, NY Lines: 47