"Tom" <do...@sendmeanything.com> wrote in message
news:raOak.15577$LL4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
I can understand the safety rational but it does seem a bit awkward since
that switch is anything but easy to operate. I would guess that most would
forget about it or simply ignore it altogether given its PITA factor.
"BruceR" <bru...@SPAMwhoever.com> wrote in message
news:1K6dnQU4T4FgKPbV...@comcast.com...
"Tom" <do...@sendmeanything.com> wrote in message
news:_SOak.8701$1I....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
While I was waiting, I called Leviton and asked the same thing. It was your
answers that helped me understand theirs. The rep vacillated on the point
about protecting the switch while emphasising the "safety" aspect. It didn't
take a rocket scientist to realize that he"had" to state the party line
about protecting the switch. It just irks me that features like this are
added because of our litigative society that believes that caution and
common sense are someone elses responsibility.
"BruceR" <bru...@SPAMwhoever.com> wrote in message
news:VtednYr1rPNEXfbV...@comcast.com...
"Tom" <do...@sendmeanything.com> wrote in message
news:OHPak.8725$1I....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Just think that a driver of a Winnebago did hurt himself and won in court
after placing his RV in autopilot (cruise control) and started making his
next meal in the back of the RV...
Like someone here like to say, it's not rocket science, but it's still more
then crushing a skull with a club...
"BruceR" <bru...@SPAMwhoever.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : CI-dnddvrLtcf_bV...@comcast.com...
"Petem" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MkXak.6619$fk2....@weber.videotron.net...
"Petem" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MkXak.6619$fk2....@weber.videotron.net...
> While it seem to some that such stuff is totally not useful, we have to
> keep in mind that some user of such device could in fact have difficulty
> understanding the risk they take while changing a light bulb...
>
> Just think that a driver of a Winnebago did hurt himself and won in court
> after placing his RV in autopilot (cruise control) and started making his
> next meal in the back of the RV...
>
> Like someone here like to say, it's not rocket science, but it's still
> more then crushing a skull with a club...
>
>
I think that the Winnebago/cruise control incident is an urban legend that
has been around in various forms for decades.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/14/business/fi-tortmyths14
http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp
Doug
I would say there's probably more to the addition of the cutoff switch than
that. If a bulb is going to fail dramatically, it's likely to do so the
first time it's turned on. The normal expectation of someone changing a
bulb is that if it's off, it will stay off.
With X-10's current sensing feature, installing a new bulb without the
safety slide switch means that your hands and face are probably going to be
very close to the bulb when it lights up for the first time. That increases
the chances that any serious failure (like a bad vacuum seal) will cause
personal injury. It's probably always a good idea to fire a new light bulb
remotely. I'd venture that even the startle reaction from a flare type
burnout could knock someone off a ladder.
Another reason for the slide cutoff is so that if you're going away for a
while and have torchiere lamps or other devices connected to the wall switch
that you don't want coming on for any reason you can manually prevent them
from activating via powerline commands, phantom or real, until you return.
IIRC, those slide switches appeared when X-10 changed from the flip paddle
to the push-button design and were necessary to retain all the functionality
of the previous paddle version. Those older switches could be set in the
OFF position where they would not respond to X-10 commands. The downside,
of course, was that if they were remotely turned off by X-10 powerline
commands when in the ON position, they had to be double flipped to get the
light to come on.
I also imagine, as was stated before, that positive manual shut-off was
probably a condition of UL approval.
--
Bobby G.