Can woes

[George Stolz]

Re: Can woes

I will write it tonight!

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Can woes

Is there an installation/use standard for the IC-rated QL1QP 6" recessed can? I recently had an experience where the thermal sensor malfunctioned, melted through it's insulation and shorted itself to the can casing. I am trying to isolate what went wrong, and am attempting to eliminate the way we install the cans and trims.

The trim in question was an RM30WOV, with a 65W R-30 lamp installed. The excessive heat allowed by the defective thermal sensor melted the informational label on the interior of the can housing, and deformed the trim.

The can was installed in a cellulose-insulated ceiling.

I appreciate your attention to this matter.
George Stolz
Residential Electrician

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Can woes

Originally posted by davedottcom:
1)The stops are the reason the can is IC listed.
2)The space above the bulb at the IC "stop" level IS the difference in heat decipation.
3)The can's design "Allows" the bulb to be pushed up past the "stop" level but only for Non-IC situations.
4)If you have these "Pushed up bulbs" installed & buried under insulation, removing the insulation should make it a non-IC situation again.

Well, we were barking up the right tree. I just got off the phone with a rep with Capri, and he stated that the listing is only good for the plate in it's shipped location. It is adjustable for other can trims such as shower trims, which use a lower wattage bulb and have to be adjusted to work.

We have been using the wrong holes to mount the trim to, which resulted in the can trim sagging off the ceiling. There are hooks (the stops) on the housing, at or just above the plate, which are to be used.

Another thing I discovered, is that we have been using NORA can trims, not Capri's, for some time. These aren't UL listed, despite their similarity to the listed trim. Big deal, but they have a point.

As for the thermal sensor, there was a bad batch, that used a type of insulation that didn't withstand the temperatures involved. It is a mylar-type insulation, and one of the factories used a sub-standard type for three to four months. Given the nature of what would occur when the thermal sensors insulation melted, a recall probably wasn't really necessary. The compromised sensor would ground itself out to the can housing, requiring the replacement of the can.

 

[celtic]

Re: Can woes

Originally posted by georgestolz:
As for the thermal sensor, ...Given the nature of what would occur when the thermal sensors insulation melted, a recall probably wasn't really necessary. The compromised sensor would ground itself out to the can housing, requiring the replacement of the can.

...

...leaving the EC to sort out Capri's mistake at their own expense.
A recall IS in order...at least to the extent that Capri should offer a no charge replacement can with submission of a melted sensor.

[ April 23, 2005, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: celtic ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Can woes

He did offer to send me some sensors. I declined. I'd lose them before I had a chance to use them anyway. I just butcher a can to get one, not a big deal in the long run.