Could someone please explain pro's and cons of both Halogen and Florescent
lights.And which is prefered.
Thanks

shepro wrote:

Could someone please explain pro's and cons of both Halogen and Florescent
lights.And which is prefered.

Halogens have a warmer, more natural light but run very hot, especially on high
intensity. Think those old torch floor lamps, especially before they cut the
bulb back from 500w to 300w.

Fluorescents have a much cooler light and use less electricity, hence they run
cooler but don't look as well with natural wood cabinetry. You can't dim these
either.

Halogens in a bar type fixture can address some of the heat concerns that the
puck style lights have. Xenon lights have similar color to halogen but run a bit
cooler.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:51:06 GMT, shepro wrote:

Could someone please explain pro's and cons of both Halogen and Florescent
lights.And which is prefered.
Thanks

On the plus side, fluorescents are more energy efficient, cooler
running and provide much longer service life. They're also available
in a wide range of colour temperatures (e.g., 3000K, 4,100K, 5000K,
etc.) which, depending upon your decor and personal tastes, could be
another plus. Linear fluorescents distribute light over a wider area
and this light is soft and diffuse, so there are no harsh shadows (an
important consideration when you're working with knives and other
potentially dangerous instruments). And if you prefer a lot of light,
they're the only game in town.

Halogens offer a pleasant, warm light and superior colour rendering.
They also provide more punch and sparkle, and a little more visual
interest due to their higher contrast ratios (shadowing).

I opted for low profile T4 fluorescents because they're four to five
times more energy efficient and because I prefer a lot of working
light. These particular lamps have a high CRI (colour rendering
index) of 86 and a colour temperature of 3,200K (just slighting above
that of halogen); Overall, I'm pleased with my choice.

There is, however, one notable drawback. I have highly polished
granite countertops and the bright reflections given off by these
lamps detract from its overall appearance. My sense is that the
reflections generated by smaller halogen pucks wouldn't be quite as
noticeable (or objectionable).

Cheers,
Paul

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:51:06 GMT, shepro wrote:

Could someone please explain pro's and cons of both Halogen and Florescent
lights.And which is prefered.
Thanks



Halogens are small, bright, hot, and slightly more efficient than
regular incadescants.

Florescents are larger, cooler, dimmer and a lot more efficient
than regular incadescents.

Preferred for what?

On Apr 20, 10:52 pm, Goedjn wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:51:06 GMT, shepro wrote:
Could someone please explain pro's and cons of both Halogen and Florescent
lights.And which is prefered.
Thanks

Halogens are small, bright, hot, and slightly more efficient than
regular incadescants.

Florescents are larger, cooler, dimmer and a lot more efficient
than regular incadescents.

Preferred for what?

Halogen are hot and 75%-90% less efficient than T8 flourescent, unless
electricity is of no concern its obvious what is best. Warm white
bulbs have a pleasing color.

ransley writes:

On Apr 20, 10:52 pm, Goedjn wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:51:06 GMT, shepro wrote:
Could someone please explain pro's and cons of both Halogen and Florescent
lights.And which is prefered.
Thanks

Halogens are small, bright, hot, and slightly more efficient than
regular incadescants.

Florescents are larger, cooler, dimmer and a lot more efficient
than regular incadescents.

Preferred for what?

Halogen are hot and 75%-90% less efficient than T8 flourescent, unless
electricity is of no concern its obvious what is best. Warm white
bulbs have a pleasing color.

I have halogens after having flourescent for many years.
I agree with the previous posters, halogens look better but are hot.
I was surprised that they actually heat up the cabinet they are
under. There are some things you may not want to store right
above the lights, for example, candy bars.

I have ours on a dimmer and the kitchen looks great at night
with the under cabinet lights on low.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:51:06 GMT, shepro wrote:

Could someone please explain pro's and cons of both Halogen and Florescent
lights.And which is prefered.
Thanks

You want to triple your electric cost, then go with halogen. Halogen
should be outlawed as the power use is destroying our planet.

You need to look into the new led lights. They use less power than
florescent.

deke wrote:

You need to look into the new led lights. They use less power than
florescent.

And put out just as ugly a color light...

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:05:27 -0600, Rick Blaine
wrote:

deke wrote:

You need to look into the new led lights. They use less power than
florescent.

And put out just as ugly a color light...

Wrong again.

They come in all colors and some will approximate halogen.

On Apr 20, 9:51 pm, shepro wrote:
Could someone please explain pro's and cons of both Halogen and Florescent
lights.And which is prefered.
Thanks

I'm facing the same problem on these types of lights, what kind to
use.
I saw a This Old House epsode recently where they used LED's for under
cabinet use.
Does any one have any idea on cost or experience with their use?

Rick Blaine wrote:
deke wrote:

You need to look into the new led lights. They use less power than
florescent.

And put out just as ugly a color light...

Interestingly, my city (Houston) is replacing its traffic lights (Red,
Green, Yellow) with LEDs. They last longer (much longer, way longer, like
forever) than incandescents and use less power.

On Apr 21, 5:42 pm, deke wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:51:06 GMT, shepro wrote:
Could someone please explain pro's and cons of both Halogen and Florescent
lights.And which is prefered.
Thanks

You want to triple your electric cost, then go with halogen. Halogen
should be outlawed as the power use is destroying our planet.

You need to look into the new led lights. They use less power than
florescent.

That would be triple the cost of electricity used only for lighting;
right?
Well; maybe. but since some of us use electricity for heating and in
our area just about every month of the year requires some heating
especially during cool evenings and nights, the so called 'energy
saving' of low consumption lamps is, for us, maybe a bit of a myth. We
never need AC by the way.
As an example; once gain, we have six plain ordinary 40 watt el cheapo
bulbs (about 25 cents apiece) above our bathroom vanity. Bathroom is
quite small about 6 by 8 feet. The 40 watt bulbs are electrically
'inefficient'; most of their input is converted to heat. But as a
result the 500 watt baseboard bathroom heater hardly cuts in at all
even when the ceiling exhaust fan is running to get rid of moisture.
From an electrical equipment or wiring point of view our house
equipped with a typical 200 amp 115/230 service entrance would not be
any cheaper if we installed 'energy conserving' lamps, so no savings
there!
My electric utility tells me, IIRC, that 8% of a typical family's
electrical consumption, in our Canadian province is for lighting. So
if I reduced my lighting consumption to one third 1/3 x 8 = 2.6% I
would save about 5.4% or roughly 8 (maybe $10? )dollars per month? say
around $100 per year? But that, minus the extra heating electricity
and an annual cost based on the difference in purchase and replacement
costs of CFL/LED lamps or whatever lamps leaves me unconvinced.
probably more energy savings to be obtained from turning down/off the
thermostats in unused rooms and adding insulation and better caulking?
Finally is it just what lighting we are accustomed to or are the
'newer' forms of lighting really more objectionable to humans?
For example there are fluorescents, CFLs, LEDs, HIDs (High Intensity
for cars), 'Sodium' lamps, Mercury vapour etc. none of which seem to
be 'as good' as what this 70+ year old is accustomed to. Or is it just
me refusing to change?
One thing small (non CFLs that is) are good for is less breakable
inspection (auto etc.) lamps. Much safer lest the hot bulb and
filament shatter in the presence of gasoline/petrol fumes and can (and
have) started fatal fires.
PS. Inside house have one of those open top halogen lamps sans the
later version wire mesh for safety! Nothing else protects from the
tubular halogen bulb which gets VERY, VERY hot. We use it with extreme
caution away from anything that could hang down! And away from
vertical wall. Must get round to adding a wire screen but will still
locate and use it with caution.
Cheers.

On Apr 22, 6:42 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Rick Blaine wrote:
deke wrote:

You need to look into the new led lights. They use less power than
florescent.

And put out just as ugly a color light...

Interestingly, my city (Houston) is replacing its traffic lights (Red,
Green, Yellow) with LEDs. They last longer (much longer, way longer, like
forever) than incandescents and use less power.

Yes our city is using the multiple LEDs for traffic lights, they apear
brighter and are very directional (which is good and bad)!

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:51:06 GMT, shepro wrote:

Could someone please explain pro's and cons of both Halogen and Florescent
lights.And which is prefered.
Thanks


Other than the energy effiencies, the length of bulb life comes to
mind.

tom @ www.FindMeShelter.com

On Apr 21, 9:48 am, Dan Espen
wrote:
ransley writes:
On Apr 20, 10:52 pm, Goedjn wrote:
I have halogens after having flourescent for many years.
I agree with the previous posters, halogens look better but are hot.
I was surprised that they actually heat up the cabinet they are
under. There are some things you may not want to store right
above the lights, for example, candy bars.


I am getting ready to redo our kitchen and was looking at under-
cabinet lights. I was also concerned about the heat. Any chance they
could warp or otherwise damage the bottom shelf???

--Jeff

JB wrote:


I am getting ready to redo our kitchen and was looking at under-
cabinet lights. I was also concerned about the heat. Any chance they
could warp or otherwise damage the bottom shelf???

Assuming you get UL listed lights, there should not be a danger from fire or
even scorching. The ones I installed most recently are vented above the light.
That said, you wouldn't want to store chocolate or butter on the shelf right
above the light. You might consider installing them on a dimmer (frequently
included with the mulilight sets) and using them on a less than full intensity
setting. I wouldn't leave any halogen light on if the house wasn't inhabited.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever."

JB writes:

On Apr 21, 9:48 am, Dan Espen
wrote:
ransley writes:
On Apr 20, 10:52 pm, Goedjn wrote:
I have halogens after having flourescent for many years.
I agree with the previous posters, halogens look better but are hot.
I was surprised that they actually heat up the cabinet they are
under. There are some things you may not want to store right
above the lights, for example, candy bars.


I am getting ready to redo our kitchen and was looking at under-
cabinet lights. I was also concerned about the heat. Any chance they
could warp or otherwise damage the bottom shelf???

No I don't see how.

They're warm but not that warm.

In article ,
Dan Espen wrote:

JB writes:

On Apr 21, 9:48 am, Dan Espen
wrote:
ransley writes:
On Apr 20, 10:52 pm, Goedjn wrote:
I have halogens after having flourescent for many years.
I agree with the previous posters, halogens look better but are hot.
I was surprised that they actually heat up the cabinet they are
under. There are some things you may not want to store right
above the lights, for example, candy bars.


I am getting ready to redo our kitchen and was looking at under-
cabinet lights. I was also concerned about the heat. Any chance they
could warp or otherwise damage the bottom shelf???

No I don't see how.

They're warm but not that warm.

I agree too, as I had the hockey puck halogens. 3 on one circuit and two
on another. Must have had a bad run tho, as I had to replace eventually
all three of the 3 set which ore used most often. I replaced with same
(not same vendor) hockey puck design. The same vendor models on the less
used set of 2 are still working fine, leading to the heat issue
suspicion for cause of failure. Must just have been a bad design or
lemon.

They do run hot. All mine had a spacer that allowed air circulation
between underside of overhead cabinet and the puck frame. But one on
replacement, had a brown heat discoloration in the paint finish of the
cabinet. I wonder about fire hazzard.

I had to replace the 3 due to intermittent (after about 5-6 years use)
increased flickering and bulbs burn out. My guess is heat damaged the
mounts the pins inserted to and made poor contact. No way to fix but
replace. I had warning as the flickering increased.

I eventually (after 12 years use) had to replace the low voltage power
supply as well. This was a bit of a hassle as the wiring had been all
installed through the walls with power supple in an under the kitchen
counter cabinet. It had been hidden under the cabinet by electrician who
wired the house inside a standard outlet box a metal one. I expected to
find a transformer but found an electronic low voltage power supply. I
had to replace it as it has no output. I suspected heat failure (because
it starting failing if lights left on for extended time of 15 minutes or
so and came back on if left off for hour or so) or voltage transient
damage. The new one was similar same rating for running multiple hockey
pucks (4-5) as I was running 3 on that circuit.

Other wise satisfied with units and chose to replace with same.

Morenuf
--
lid