** Means the usage or action does not comply with relevant regulations and rules that are mandatory for such things. ** That would be something criminal, rather than merely illegal. ** If someone is injured or property damaged by the transgression - you are stuffed in court, since breaching safety regulations is NEGLIGENT by definition.
... Phil
Ooo errr .. very nasty! I had in mind that the worst that would happen would be a loud bang followed by violent emission of magic smoke.
I take your point.
-- Regards, Martin Brown
schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
As it looks like you want to kill someone you'd better label mothing at all. But even then nobody can guarantee succes. 110Vac is not always deadly so you may miss your chance for a Darwin award. Killing another cannot be guaranteed either so you may not be procecuted for murder but only for manslaugther. There's even a small chance nothing happens at all in the next few years to come. Guess you'd better give up killing at all and mount real low voltage connectors. If for nothing else the automotive line of business will have usefull ones. Trailers for instance use to be connected (electrically) by them.
petrus bitbyter
ns?
So what you're saying is: there has to be actual harm before some stranger decides to try to take you to task because they believe they can extract fi nancial advantage out of your stupidity??
I'll bet there are "slip and fall" professionals out there who just wait fo r that lone grape to roll around on the supermarket floor. And I can easil y envision someone claiming some sort of harm or damage that doesn't actual ly exist. Happens all the time. Why willingly put yourself in a defensele ss position? You may be right (no damage). Doesn't mean you're going to p revail.
"mpm"
So what you're saying is:
** Just exactly what I wrote.You asinine, context twisting f*****ad.
"petrus bitbyter"
** Kindly explain how that could happen.E27 lamps with low voltage ratings are on open sale and can be screwed into any E27 fitting by anyone.
Therefore they must fail safely in such a case and they do.
... Phil
The reality is that if someone plugged a lamp with a 12V bulb into a
120V socket then the bulb would burn out and that would be the end of it.No one would get someone's house in court as a result of a burned out bulb, LED or other.
In any case, the OP asked a simple question, unrelated to the wisdom of doing what he's doing.
Unless the bulb exploded, which is easily imagined. Your average 12V bulb has a lot of metal in it, and could probably sustain an arc for awhile. Blinding somebody by doing something that stupid could very easily cost you your house--even if you eventually won.
I don't think that's especially likely, but the cost/benefit argument for merely changing the connector is pretty compelling. (While doing that, upgrading to heavier gauge wire might be another good move.)
If nobody gets hurt, there are no ambulances to chase, but replacing the connector costs only a few dollars and a few minutes.
And we're giving him advice, just the way you're doing with us. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
The OPs question is exactly related to the wisdom of doing what he's doing.
So, the answer is YES, it is "illegal to retain the standard AC plug"
But, why did he ask if it was illegal, unless he wants to build a product based an a flawed design decision.
Now what the OP does in his own house behind closed doors is an altogether different matter.
Unless his 6 year old nephew tries to plug this into a standard wall outlet and burns down the house. The insurance company may just think this was just too suspicious to pay on.
hamilton
LED "bulbs" may include solid-state power regulation circuitry - current limiter, "bucking" or "boost" regulator, and so forth.
Are you *absolutely* certain that *all* such circuits used in lights like this, have overvoltage failure modes which won't overheat, start fires, or go BOOM and spew hot stuff around? Are you *absolutely* certain that such failures might not occur when (for example) the user actually flips a switch on the lamp itself to turn it on, and has their hand on or near the bulb and their face a foot or two away from it?
Really... choosing a connector that's very widely used for one voltage, in an application which has a completely incompatible voltage, is really poor engineering. It's not "Hey, I think the gas tank is empty... hand me a cigarette lighter so I can see down the filler tube and check" but it's still verging into Darwin Award territory.
IANAL but, I think, in the US, this is the case. I.e., you have to experience loss in order to seek compensation.
That doesn't mean "some stranger" can't take you to task *before* that! I just don't think they can press for "damages" where there haven't been any! I.e., you can bring code violations to the attention of an inspector and *hope* he acts on them (but you don't gain any "financial advantage")
E.g., there was a large hole adjacent to the sidewalk by our Trader Joe's. You *know* someone, sooner or later, was going to slip into that hole and twist an ankle (or, take a "header"). Bring it to the store's attention ("We're just tenants, here") who bring it to the landlord's attention ("Yikes! We don't need a lawsuit to tell us to put a couple shovelfulls of soil in that hole!"). Of course, doing things in *writing* doubles their effectiveness ("You were notified on that this hazzard existed. Why didn't you do anything about it before tripped and broke a leg?")
Any time you can get "eyes" on a problem, the "offender" is at risk.
You really shouldn't be using the common 117VAC plug for 12VDC. Someone is certain to plug it into a 117VAC, start a fire, and sue your company.
Dunno, but I doubt your floor lamp will pass UL, NFPA, etc safety and code requirements. For one thing, it probably doesn't have a fuse which is a good idea for 12V devices, that draw 10 times the current of an equivalent 117VAC device, and therefore have 100 times the heating possibilities (I^2*R).
I hate to admit it, but the defacto 12V connector is the common cigarette lighter plug. This is my nomination for the worst connector every designed. No other connector tries to push itself out of the receptacle, has no retainer, and tends to fail by melting. There are plenty of alternatives. Check with the RV and solar suppliers for what they favor and please, no banana jacks.
Incidentally, in about 1974, I decided that for solar power, DC to
117VAC inverters were not necessary. Since many appliances and lights can easily run on 117V DC as well as AC, I decided that Edison was right, and that DC power and solar were a good fit. Preliminary tinkering looked good, so I preceded to rewire a small cottage and equip it with a battery bank and charger (no solar yet), using the stock house wiring.At the time, mercury light switches were still common and possibly legal. You can draw an arc with AC and it will be fairly self extinguishing. Do the same with DC and you have a spot welder with the usual metal migration. Eventually, the resistance of the weld goes up, causing excessive heating. The mercury switches worked a few times before they exploded. Undaunted, I replace the mercury switches with something more conventional. That worked a little longer before the contacts welded themselves together. Solid state switches were science fiction at the time.
The wall plugs and receptacles were not much better. I could insert and remove the brass to brass connections quite nicely if the load was turned off. However, plug or unplug anything under load, and the brass connections would spot weld themselves together. I suspect something like this will happen with your AC power plug if someone pulled the plug under load.
Good luck and find a better connector.
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
If it is "illegal", then *someone* should be able to cite chapter and verse indicating where this behavior is disallowed. I've yet to see such a citation. (nearest I can imagine is that low voltage devices are supposed to be *listed* -- which conveniently sidesteps the issue of "rolling your own")
I don't read this as wanting to build/sell a product but, rather, outfit his motorhome, trailer, etc. with "moveable light fixtures".
Ah, not so! The reason there are building codes is to protect the homeowner (from sleazy builders) *and* his neighbors! Your house catching fire puts *mine* at risk! :-/
E.g., failure to have an antisiphon device on your irrigation system means the chemicals (fertilizers, herbicides, etc.) that you
*legally* used in your yard can now be drawn into the water supply that your neighbors also share.Most of the regulations in the codes actually have *some* basis in fact. They aren't *all* part of some grand consipracy by tradesmen to "create work" for their industries.
[Biggest problem with the codes is they tend to be ambiguous *despite* their verbosity! Couple that with the inability to challenge an inspector's decision in most municipalities...]"Phil Allison" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net...
I surely exaggerated the risks though I ever had to look after a failing
24Vdc appliance that mistakenly turned out to be connected to 220Vac. I can assure you 220Vac hits even harder then 120Vac.petrus bitbyter
Please cite the relevant law.
Read. He has a lamp that he wants to convert to 12V.
Read.
Utter nonsense.
Try not to confuse contributory negligence with just plain old negligence. If the OP uses his connector as he indicated, he assumes the responsibility . (Note: That would still be the case even if he selected a proper connect or!)
As to having to experience loss before you can sue for money damage.... I 'm not an attorney, but I would guess "loss" or "harm" can be pretty flexib le terms, able to include all sorts of ills on which you and I might reason ably disagree. But the thing is, our opinions won't matter since we're not the ones litigating the case. And for that reason alone, (i.e., lack of d irect control of an outcome), I personally would advise against the action suggested by the OP.
BTW: (good) legal representation is rarely inexpensive. So the money you spend defending your connector selection is pretty much the same as "money damages" for some loss, imagined or otherwise. Money is money? Right??
I'll second that nomination. But is it the plug or the sockets that are so damn bad? It's often hard to tell.
I was going to suggest that the "jaws" on a set of cheap import set of auto motive jumper cables was the worst connector of all time -- you know, the k ind with the rounded teeth that won't bite into anything except the opposit e battery post :) ....but I think your notion of the cigarette lighter act ually does have that beat.
Sure! But, we don't really know his intent. E.g., some folks seem to think he's looking to design a *product*. I tend to think he's trying to find a "cheap connector" that is readily available to him. Hard to beat the cost and availability of a duplex receptacle/plug! "Oh, and all the different styles/colors..." :>
Installing a 12V bulb in a COTS 120VAC light fixture isn't the problem. Nothing prevents you from screwing a BANANA into a light socket! :>
Plugging that fixture *into* something that SUPPLIES 12V on a receptacle typically used for 120VAC is where things go very wrong. Hard to explain why your house/business/trailer/etc. has 12V on those receptacles (whereas you can always argue the banana was just a prank/accident!)
Of course! Nor are we sure there ever *will* be litigation!
IMnsHO, it seems like a foolish "economy". What's being saved/gained here? The cost of a different set of connectors? The labor to cut the old connector off and replace it with a different one?
Contrast this with what's being *risked* -- even if the *only* risk is bulbs being burned out by fixtures being plugged into the wrong "outlet".
When I cabled this house, I was keenly aware of the possibility of "phones" being plugged into "network" jacks (they exist in a one-for-one relationship throughout the house). So, I opted to use *colored* (vs. "white") jack bodies for the network connectors. *And*, "fit" them with covers to discourage their casual use (in hindsight, it would have been wiser to cover the phone jacks! :< I need to look for something suitable... at least while *I* live here!).
Despite all this, the network fabric still tolerates the "appearance" of non-network devices on those connectors.
Cuz it's not a matter of *if* it will happen but *when* it will happen! And I don't want to have to deal with a phone (or network switch!) breaking as the result of one "silly" little mistake (by me or anyone else, here).
Yes -- but those are "damages" you inflict on yourself! :> I.e., ones the OP incurs if he heads down this road.
Actually, I think the USB connectors (A, B, mini, etc.) are the worst. Esp given how they *tend* to be used and how "new" their design (i.e., you *know* the sorts of people who will be using them... you can't complain the user base changed from the time the connector was designed, etc.)
[I would think the connector should have been designed to be much easier to mate *without* having to sort out which end is up, getting it perfectly aligned with its mate, etc. Something more like a 1/4" phone plug!! :> ]I think the problem lies in the *other* uses to which it has been applied. I.e., for cigarette lighters, it seemed to work pretty good -- despite the presence of a glowing coil within!
Again, not an attorney here, but for giggles I pulled my copy of "Product L iability Prevention" Randall L. Goodden, 2000. He provides some sample cou rt cases in the back.
Under "Design Defects" he describes a case involving injuries sustained by mounting a 16" tire on a 16.5" rim. The rim in question had a prominent wa rning to that effect, including pictures. The injured party sued under str ict liability claims for manufacturing and design defects. (Note: NOT under any claims that the warning was inadequate.)
The injured party sued, prevailed and then the case was appealed. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez, Tex., No 95-1159 (1988)
On appeal, the Texas Supreme Court rejected Goodrich's arguments that the t ire was not defective because an unambiguous and conspicuously visible warn ing about the dangers was present. Citing the Third Restatement of Torts, the Court ruled that "where a warning leaves risks in place that a safer de sign can correct, the safer design is required if it can be implemented rea sonably." The Court concluded that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evi dence to the jury that an alternative bead design would have been safer and prevented the accident.
So, not sure that is prevailing case law outside Texas (and may not even be the best analogy to the OP's situation), but it's close. Enjoy.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.