Unreliable Photocells

[Click-Sure]

Afternoon all,

Does anyone else have issue with the reliability of photocell heads these days? It seems it doesn’t matter where I get them from most are lucky to last a year!

All are within their recommended loading, some switching 400w MH, contactors, 6x 4w LED's.

Its got so bad the last time I fitted one as part of a new build for switching outside lights I gave the customer a spare and showed him how to change it!

Any thoughts?

 

[bernardgreen]

I have installed several Steinel PIRs and 10 years later they are still operating without fault.

They do cost more but at best you get what you pay for and at worst you don't even get waht you paid for.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

[Hope I'm not tempting fate]

I've had an IQ dusk/dawn unit outside for the last 5 years, despite what people have said about that make it's still going strong.

[/Hope]

 

[JohnW2]

I have installed several Steinel PIRs and 10 years later they are still operating without fault. They do cost more but at best you get what you pay for ...

Very similar experience here, but with (cheap) CED ones. I installed several 10 or more years ago and, fearing the worst, bought several spare heads at the time. However, every one of those spares is still sitting on my shelf.

Kind Regards, John

 

[333rocky333]

Look for royce thompson ones, they tended to last years, the rest seem to be cheaper copies.
There are also dearer ones that the council tend to use they are blue, but im not sure why there special

 

[securespark]

Yup. Royce Thompson the dogs nuts.

Steinel also fantastic. No worries with any of their kit.

IQ cheap. However, I too have had a 180 PIR outside my house switching a single porch coach lantern since 1999. I have neither had to change the lamp nor the passive!

If you don't put a high load on IQ stuff, it runs and runs. Put 3/500W on it and it'll pack up pronto.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Put 3/500W on it and it'll pack up pronto.

Which would serve you right.

 

[securespark]

No it wouldn't, because I've never done it.

But I've seen hundreds of customers who have either done it or had it done.

IQ stuff is generally rated at 500W.

However, if you're going off on an eco rant, please don't. We've heard it all before.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No it wouldn't, because I've never done it.

OK - it would serve whoever did it right.

What's the matter - never seen the word "you" used to mean "one", or the generic someone/whoever, not "you personally"?

 

[JohnW2]

What's the matter - never seen the word "you" used to mean "one", or the generic someone/whoever, not "you personally"?

Yes, we've all seen it, and many other things like it. Most of us don't make any fuss if we understand what was intended, even if the precise language or terminology is not strictly correct.

On the other hand, some people do sometimes make a fuss when the actual language or terminology is not strictly correct (even when they know fully well what meaning was intended) - and perhaps one wouldn't expect such people to themselves become a perpetrator of linguistic inaccuracy (pots and kettles?)!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Has anybody here done that?

 

[JohnW2]

Has anybody here done that?

It's been known

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You, I, Click-sure, bernardgreen, 333rocky333 and securespark have been the posters here, and I've not spotted any of us becoming perpetrators of linguistic inaccuracy and then making a fuss about others doing the same.

It would seem that you aren't paying attention.

 

[JohnW2]

You, I, Click-sure, bernardgreen, 333rocky333 and securespark have been the posters here, and I've not spotted any of us becoming perpetrators of linguistic inaccuracy and then making a fuss about others doing the same. It would seem that you aren't paying attention.

The "making a fuss about others doing the same" relates to issues far more general than this thread.

As for this thread, I thought you had admitted that you used the word "you" when you actually meant "one" (just as I did recently, when I wrote "less" when I meant "fewer" - and got found out!) - or did I misunderstand you?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I did use it in that way, but that's a perfectly correct usage.