On Jan 25, 1:51*pm, Dan Espen wrote:
" writes:
On Jan 25, 12:38*pm, Dan Espen wrote:
Joe Mastroianni writes:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:15:46 -0800, Art Harris wrote:

How much do you think 125% over the maximum matters?

I'd say it's 25% over the recommended maximun.

You are correct. I phrased it incorrectly.

75 Watts is 25% over the maximum of 60 Watts, or,
125% of the maximum.

Seems to me, 25% is within the safety zone of ????
(what is the safety zone).

I find it hard to believe the safety zone is zero.

I suspect it's more like double the rating (i.e., it's
probably more like 60 x 2 = 120 Watts) but I'm just
guessing.

That's why I asked.

A couple of posters shared their experience.

I find fixtures even with the correct bulb age over time,
parts get brittle and start to fall apart.

I definitely would not put a 75W incandescent in a 60W fixture.
The risk is no where near the gain. *The risk is that your
house burns down and the insurance company denies your claim.

Oh, good grief, here we go again. *The insurance
scare stories at it again. *Every time this comes up, I've
asked where all the examples of this kind of thing
happening are. *Where are those denied claims?
There are what 100 million homes
in the USA? * *If insurance companies were actually
denying claims for things like that, it should be easy
to come up with examples. *I mean if they are gonna
deny that, then they might as well deny a claim for
the house burning down because you left a pot burning
on the stove. *Or because you smoked in bed.

So, example please?

Right, so trader says the insurance company *won't deny your
claim.

Nothing to worry about except the fire then...

--
Dan Espen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I take that to mean you have no examples of an insurance
company denying a claim because someone put in a bulb
that was too large and you were just spreading FUD.