Led lamps

[weressl]

Really, UL does not seem to think so.


Straight from UL to you.


[/size][/font][/size][/font]

It seems "It is the responsibility of the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) to determine the
acceptability of the modification"

you're correct, but......

This will last until the first lawsuit.

Why would anyone want to be involved in an event where UL had clealry relinquished their responsibility. What does the UL listing worth if virtually anybody - there are no uniform rules and qualifications for 'AHJ" - can over-rule it?

 

[weressl]

EXACTLY! There are a lot of startup companies selling high priced LED lamps and it is doubtful that those companies will have the funds to support their products if they have issues in 5-10 years. I have talked with GE people about their LED lamp offerings and the fact that they have very few should be taken as a sign - they aren't willing to put their name on something without a certain amount of testing and confidence in the product. The one company I would probably trust is Cree, they have been in the LED business longer than many other companies and have an R&D department, they aren't just marketing some junk.

Crouse-Hinds also has some hazardous location LED fixtures that I would trust since a legitimate company is standing behind the product. They're just pricey enough that it's hard to justify them unless it's in a location that costs $200+ in labor to change a bulb.

They may last long but other aspects of the installation needs to be considered. Most of the elements employ acrylics or polycarbonate optics and if they become milky, yellow or dirty your fixture or bulb is shot. (Dirt seem to embed itself into the substrate.) In chemical plants, where C-H is targeting a lot of other chemical attack would need to be considered.

 

[iwire]

This will last until the first lawsuit.

]

I am sure there already has been, there are a few lawyers in the US.

What does the UL listing worth if virtually anybody - there are no uniform rules and qualifications for 'AHJ" - can over-rule it?

Just my own guess, they see a need for an AHJ to make judgment calls for small issues. If there was no give at all I could not do such straight forward tasks as replacing a cord cap on an appliance.

 

[weressl]

]

I am sure there already has been, there are a few lawyers in the US.



Just my own guess, they see a need for an AHJ to make judgment calls for small issues. If there was no give at all I could not do such straight forward tasks as replacing a cord cap on an appliance.

Sure. Let's say you have a hairdryer with a GFCI integrated plug on it. You replace it with a regular plug because it plugs into a GFCI receptacle. Fine & dandy? How about you go on a trip and the rinky-dink motel has no GFCI in tha bathrooms?

Like-for-like repair replacement should not be an issue, but whenever you ALTER the functionality of a piece of equipment should be prohibited.

Another scenario. You haver altered a piece of equipment that was deternied to be perfectly fine for the aplication and the AHJ blessed it. The factory is dismantled. The equipment is re-installed somewhere else where the altered functionality is vital for the equipment's safety. There is NO externally visible sign that the equipment was altered so the AHJ passes it. Take the argument from here......:smile:

 

[LarryFine]

The equipment is re-installed somewhere else where the altered functionality is vital for the equipment's safety.

Vital in a good way or a bad way? I.e., is the modification required for or detrimental to the re-installation?

You're making a great argument for a requirement that the modification be documented permanently within the equipment.

Obviously, replacement of a bad plug with a functionally-equivalent new one doesn't alter the functionality of the cord.

 

[ka6chp]

LED Lamps

LED Lamps

If it isn't made in NA or EU.. I won't buy it !! Same goes for approvals: it MUST have a CSA UL or CE mark on it, or I won't touch it.

 

[weressl]

Vital in a good way or a bad way? I.e., is the modification required for or detrimental to the re-installation?

You're making a great argument for a requirement that the modification be documented permanently within the equipment.

Obviously, replacement of a bad plug with a functionally-equivalent new one doesn't alter the functionality of the cord.

My hypothetic was attemtping to describe a scenario where the modification may leave the equipment suitable for the present application but may make it unsuitable for a different one.

Not only that the equipment modification is undocumented but it also opens WIDE and without prequalifications who can judge the equipment's suitability for the application. IMO the NRTL labels should identify the equipments modes of use and the labeling should also mean that the installation instructions are integrap part of the label. The AHJ's role should be to verify the the equipment is installed in accordance with labels provisions for use and that the installation instructions were followed.
The NRTL labeled instructions should be part of the installation documentation and should be permament part of the documentation that is required to be retained as part of the installations operating permit. I think that the NRTL label indicates that the equipment is built according to National Standards and restrictions on the acceptibility of those should be specifically overridden by local written codes ONLY if it offers a suitable and detailed technical alternative. The NEC should require minimum documentation to aid the AHJ's in their work.(It already does in certain aspects, but should go further.)

 

[weressl]

If it isn't made in NA or EU.. I won't buy it !! Same goes for approvals: it MUST have a CSA UL or CE mark on it, or I won't touch it.

IMO US Customs should be enforcing that no equipment shuld enter the US without valid labeling.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If it isn't made in NA or EU.. I won't buy it !! Same goes for approvals: it MUST have a CSA UL or CE mark on it, or I won't touch it.

In no way do I see the CE mark as even remotely equivalent to CSA or UL. It is my understanding that the CE mark is a self evaluation mark and there is no third party testing like there is with CSA and UL. I do agree with the first part of your statement.

 

[weressl]

In no way do I see the CE mark as even remotely equivalent to CSA or UL. It is my understanding that the CE mark is a self evaluation mark and there is no third party testing like there is with CSA and UL. I do agree with the first part of your statement.

The self evaluation has to adhere to severly enforced detailed standards and their violation isn't just a suit initiated by the listing agency. You're right it is not equivalent to UL or CSA, it is much more stringent and restrictive.

 

[eric7379]

why not just replace the cap?

In order to find the bad capacitor, the bulb had to be destroyed. Besides that and despite assurances from the manufacturer, we wanted to get a good look at the inside of these bulbs. The bulbs were installed in an area that has moderate, but continuous vibration and the manufacturer said that they would last. There are a lot of solder points inside the bulb that can go bad when subjected to continuous vibration.