wrote in message
...
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.

Well, I posted where I thought I read it. Why don't you look it up? At the
very least you'll learn something about the hazards of old wiring in homes
and there are some nifty pictures too. But remember that UL is a
non-government organization started by insurance companies ("underwriters"),
so the UL sticker is an indication of what they think is safe according to
their own standards. In an argument - or court case -between a home owner
and an insurance company about any electrical product that electrocuted
someone or started a fire, who do you think would have the best chances of
winning if the product didn't have a UL sticker?

Tomsic