In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article ,
GB wrote:
There's quite a bit of hype about LED replacement tubes. They cost about
£30 but you don't need a ballast, so I was quite tempted. As the lights
are on quite a bit, one of these would pay for itself in around 3 years
in saved electricity, plus saving the planet for future generations!

I've not heard of those, but I'd treat such claims with caution.
Fluorescent lighting (properly done) is already pretty efficient. With a
known life of components. LEDs aren't long lasting when you push the
efficiency up.

I've seen a couple. They have a row of LEDs, so of course they can't
afford to use the ones with efficiency near that of a fluorescent
lamp, and they are a bilious blue-white colour in order to be able
to quote a half-way reasonable light output. I assumed it was running
with the ballast in the fitting - can't see any point in them if you
have to change the fitting - might as will install a proper LED light,
if that's what you wanted.

LEDs all face the same way, which might be useful if you would have
been better of using a reflector or aperture tube in the first place,
but not it you really wanted the widespread output of a tube.
But really, I struggle to see the point.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]