Here are some pictures of an EBU and the battery that goes with it.





I am interested in what others think here.

I do not believe the use of a proper size replacement battery from another maker voids anything.

I do notice that the sticker placed on the battery conveniently covers the voltage and amp hour rating.

While on the subject of voltage can anyone tell me the output voltage and wattage of this unit?

Bob

Looks like it's 16W / 6V.
http://niles4.ebiz.grainger.com/images/catalog/395/756.pdf

And why on earth couldn't Lithonia have stuck their label on the back on the battery so it doesn't obscure the markings?

Paul that is my point.

Lithonia intentionally covered the markings and left the units label vague except for some warnings about voiding the listing and warranty as a sales tool.

I know I can get that battery cheaper from a local battery shop than from Lithonia.

It is obvious that battery was not 'custom made' for that unit so to say the listing and warranty will be void is a load of ....

Notice the second caution on the units label.

Than look for the units rated output.

What a bunch of garbage. So apparently it's output is Operating-Lamps? Is that an English or SI unit of measure? Is it going to replace the Watt?

-John

Yep think thats a load of you know what.. I have NEVER had anyone when I worked at the supplier want a battery for an emergi-pack from the factory...
Just for kicks though " warrenty" is spelled wrong... is it not spelled
"Warranty"?

The label covering the factory markings is not important for operation. As long as you match the voltage, either 6 or 12, a new battery will have at least the same AH rating. A voltmeter on the battery will tell you the voltage.

The UL and warranty concerns matter only as far as they matter to whom they matter. On a warranty claim, Lithonia has the edge, as it's their nickel. Between us, I'd use a cheaper replacement if it was my nickel.

I can't imagine the warrantee lasting longer than the battery!!!!
Don

Don I had not thought of that angle but I am sure you are correct.

My real problem with this is using the UL listing as a bat.

They did not even tell us the wattage and voltage of the installed lamps, their part number.

Iwire, I agree. One thing we must all understand: ONLY UL gets to speak for UL. Not you, me, the AHJ, Lithonia, or anyone else.

A listing will not be voided if listed, or classified, or recognised, components are used. Whetehr the part is called one thing or another depends on the specifice of the part.

Even if a differing part is used, according to UL, the listing is not actually "voided." It simply enters the "we don't know" category. That is, UL cannot itself say the listing was voided without evaluating the modification.

If it is being used as an emergency luminaire as required by the building code, then I would require a replacement part as spec'd by manufacturer.

I understand your point Bob, and practically I agree. My job requires I look down the road to "what if someone can't see to get out of a building?"

I would not want my name on the permit approving something other than a spec'd replacement part.Especially when the forensics team finds out and it goes to court.

Then again, we don't require permits to replace luminaire batteries.

The key word is specced, not labeled, so if one does peel off the label from the battery, read the OEM model, and gets an equivalent replacement, that would likely suffice.

The whole thing is covered under a US law called the "Magnuson Moss Warranty Act", which in this case, the clause which prohibits tie-ins essentially prohibits warranty terms to require a particular source of replacemrnt components be used to maintain warranty.

[This message has been edited by classicsat (edited 01-23-2006).]

Hmmm... Good point. O.K., so the unit comes supplied with 16W of lights, but that's still a very unhelpful label, and the way it's worded in conjunction with the Lithonia sticker on the battery certainly seems like more of a sales trick than anything else.

Even the input rating is vague -- Is that 0.17A at 120V or at 277V?



[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 01-23-2006).]

Fellows, could it be that the battery, and only the battery has this sticker?

If you mess with a sealed battery, the battery would lose it's UL listing, not the housing, the charger, or the lights, just the battery...


Dnk....

I do not think there such a thing as a UL listed battery.

iwire wrote:
I do not think there such a thing as a UL listed battery.

Oh there is, but you have to use UL Classified Distilled Water.

Classicat,

I was interested in your mention of the 'Magnuson Moss Warranty Act'. At the FTC site I read that 'the Act does not apply to warranties on products sold for resale or for COMMERCIAL purposes'.

I was happy to see our government working for us but now I'm curious how warranties for commercial stuff is enforced. I'm guessing the lighting system is being used in a commercial environment. Do you know anything more about the legal portion?

I actually knowingly voided the warranty on some APC UPS that I used in an industrial application to power up a PLC control system. But at $500 a piece who really cares... when the system is handling $50 million a week in finished goods.

Oh yeah... and APC has the same deal on their batteries. They say 'use ours or else'....but they are just using the same ones that you can buy for half price from Battery Technologies. Anyone that's searched CDW for UPS batteries knows that the half price units are the same mfg.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's the same battery. (for those that don't speak duck....if volts, Amps, Temp ratings, size, charge times and amp/hr etc....all match use the third party battery.) In the end use the third party you'll have something that's probably not been sitting on a shelf forever.

Light bulb companies make lights. Battery companies make batteries. The reason the light bulbs company's batteries cost more is because they have to buy them and resell/relabel them to/for us....


RSLater,
RSmike

[This message has been edited by RSmike (edited 01-23-2006).]

It can matter. Batteries are called out by specific manufacturer and model number in safety listing reports. There are single-fault tests that are conducted in the charging circuit and in the load circuit. The battery must not become a fire/explosion hazard when subjected to these faults. A replacement battery may not have the same performance as the device in the listing report. Here is a good example of what might typically be driving this sort of product labeling - the following is from information technology standard IEC/ANSI/UL 60950:

4.3.8 Batteries
NOTE 1 Requirements for markings or instructions are given in 1.7.15.
Equipment containing batteries shall be designed to reduce the risk of fire, explosion and
chemical leaks under normal conditions and after a single fault in the equipment (see 1.4.14),
including a fault in circuitry within the equipment battery pack. For USER-replaceable batteries, the
design shall reduce the likelihood of reverse polarity installation if this would create a hazard.
Battery circuits shall be designed so that:
– the output characteristics of a battery charging circuit are compatible with its
rechargeable battery; and
– for non-rechargeable batteries, discharging at a rate exceeding the battery
manufacturer’s recommendations, and unintentional charging, are prevented; and
– for rechargeable batteries, charging and discharging at a rate exceeding the battery
manufacturer’s recommendations, and reversed charging, are prevented.
NOTE 2 Reversed charging of a rechargeable battery occurs when the polarity of the charging circuit is reversed, aiding the discharge
of the battery.
Compliance is checked by inspection and by evaluation of the data provided by the equipment
manufacturer and battery manufacturer for charging and discharging rates.
When appropriate data is not available, compliance is checked by test. However, batteries that
are inherently safe for the conditions given are not tested under those conditions. Consumer
grade, non-rechargeable carbon-zinc or alkaline batteries are considered safe under
short-circuiting conditions and therefore are not tested for discharge; nor are such batteries
tested for leakage under storage conditions.
A new non-rechargeable battery or fully charged rechargeable battery provided with, or
recommended by the manufacturer for use with, the equipment shall be used for each of the
following tests:
– for evaluating the overcharging of a rechargeable battery, a battery is charged for a
period of 7 h under each of the following conditions in turn:
• with the battery charging circuit adjusted for its maximum charging rate (if
such an adjustment exists); followed by
• any single component failure that is likely to occur in the charging circuit and
which would result in overcharging of the battery; and
– for evaluating the unintentional charging of a non-rechargeable battery, a battery is
charged for 7 h with any single component failure that is likely to occur and which
would result in unintentional charging of the battery; and
APRIL 1, 2003 CAN/CSA-C22.2 NO. 60950-1-03 ¨ UL 60950-1 156
P.1
– for evaluating the reversed charging of a rechargeable battery, a battery is charged
for 7 h with any single component failure that is likely to occur and which would result
in reversed charging of the battery; and
– for evaluating an excessive discharging rate for any battery, a battery is subjected
to rapid discharge by open-circuiting or short-circuiting any current-limiting or voltagelimiting
components in the load circuit of the battery under test.
NOTE 3 Some of the tests specified can be hazardous to the persons carrying them out; all appropriate measures to protect personnel
against possible chemical or explosive hazards should be taken.
These tests shall not result in any of the following:
– chemical leaks caused by cracking, rupturing or bursting of the battery jacket, if
such leakage could adversely affect required insulation; or
– explosion of the battery, if such explosion could result in injury to a USER; or
– emission of flame or expulsion of molten metal to the outside of the equipment
ENCLOSURE.
After completion of the tests, the equipment is subjected to the electric strength tests of 5.3.8.2.

I was installing an EBU many years ago, and had to move some components to use a (factory) KO.

The light developed some problems afterwards,and I called tech support to troubleshoot it. The rep told me I had "voided the UL listing" by using the KO, but he couldn't exactly explain why.

Well sice there's no such thing as a "warrenty" I don't think that replacing this battery with an equivelent would void the warranty

But I'll warrant that Lithonia's attorneys might try to argue otherwise!

Better be careful which battery you use, or someone may come looking for you with a warrant...

I didn't know that UL doesn't list batteries......

From lithonia:

You can use anyones battery in the above unit, as long as it meets or exceeds the spec's of the original. Because of charging currents and such, lithonia can not guarentee that the lights would run for their expected time with another manufacturers battery if this replacement battery does not meet the origninal specs that the unit was produced for.

Because the unit was produced to meet UL listings for 90 minutes of emergency lighting, using a different battery that does not meet the specs of the original, there is no way for Lithonia to guarentee 90 min. It may only run for 10 minutes with a smaller battery. This is why the UL listing would be voided.
In a way it makes sense..


Dnk...

So here is another thought....

If you install this unit, and it comes with 2 heads. And you install a 3rd for outside the exit doors as some guys do, this should also void the UL listing and warranty.

But what if you remove one head off the unit, and move it to another location. Same load right?

But then you just modified the unit....

That should void the UL listing and warranty as well.....

Dnk....