On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 15:02:19 -0000, "Uncle Peter" wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:54:16 -0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Uncle Peter wrote:
I've stopped using fluorescent tubes, they're very inefficient. As the
tubes died, I replaced the fittings to take LEDs.

You'd need an awful lot of LEDs to replace a 6ft tube...

I replaced two 5ft tubes with two triple BC fittings. I only put some
40W equivalents in there (which I had lying around) and it's just as
bright. So that's 3x40W to replace a 5ft tube. So I'd replace your
6ft tube with say 3x60W or 2x100W.

And what makes you think they are more efficent?

They are 10 times as efficient as an incandescant.

That explains your misconception then.

Ballast fluorescents are 4 times as efficient, and
electronic fluorescents are 5 times as efficient.

That looks pretty close to the truth of the matter. However, The
reality is that inductively ballasted tubes are a quite few percent
more efficient than even the best CFLs (they don't need a mercury
amalgam to optimize for the higher running temperatures of CFLs at a
slight reduction of efficiency compared to the lower temperature
conditions that normally apply to linear tubes).

When you equalise the benefit of HF electronic ballasting in a linear
fitting to that of a modern CFL, the improvement in luminous efficacy
is even greater.

As things stand, there isn't anything more efficient than an
electronically ballasted linear tube for GLS.
--
Regards, J B Good