On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:51:27 -0500, 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...
What will NOT happen is the manufacturer of the lamp being found
responsible for the fire due to a faulty product. Use the product
other than as directed and there is no warranty - and no liability on
the part of the manufacturer / seller.