Just come back from France where I had 'fun' running some new wiring into the kitchen (masses of cables as French wiring code doesn't allow for a UK style ring and requires separate feeds for certain appliances... but hey that's another story!). They want to have a fairly modern kitchen and for lighting they were looking at halogen spotlights.

Their kitchen has two fairly small (1.25x1m) windows and is approx 4.5m square. Anyone got any recommendations for the configuration of spotlights? I thought perhaps two rows of 5 about 30cm back from the worktop height. Here's a [really bad] diagram showing the room layout. I've marked the line of spots on it using the '*'. c for cabinets and w for the windows.

--w--------
| * * |
|c * * w
|c * * c|
|ccc* * c|
-----------

Any advice greatfully received!

In article ,
"Reckless" writes:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Please turn off the HTML.

Just come back from France where I had 'fun' running some new wiring =
into the kitchen (masses of cables as French wiring code doesn't allow =
for a UK style ring and requires separate feeds for certain =
appliances... but hey that's another story!). They want to have a fairly =
modern kitchen and for lighting they were looking at halogen spotlights.

Oh dear.

Their kitchen has two fairly small (1.25x1m) windows and is approx 4.5m =
square. Anyone got any recommendations for the configuration of =
spotlights? I thought perhaps two rows of 5 about 30cm back from the =
worktop height. Here's a [really bad] diagram showing the room layout. =
I've marked the line of spots on it using the '*'. c for cabinets and w =
for the windows.

--w--------
| * * |
|c * * w
|c * * c|
|ccc* * c|
-----------

When standing at every worktop, you will be working in your own shadow.
The floor behind you will be rather well lit though. If you paint the
floor, ceiling, and walls brilliant white, some light will make it round
in front of you to the worktop after bouncing off 4 or more surfaces.

Seriously, spotlamps are not suitable for general purpose lighting.
You haven't given enough information about the room to make any firm
suggestions. However, in a kitchen, you generally need good lighting
around the edge of the room, and you want diffuse lighting source(s)
to avoid shadows. You can use reflection off a white ceiling as a
good diffuse lighting source, which could be created from wall mounted
uplighters over the worktops. If you have wall mounted cupboards above
your worktops, under cupboard lighting works very well, and over
cupboard lighting reflecting off the ceiling can supply the general
lighting. A few low powered spotlamps can be used to accent features
in the room if you like, but should not be providing the bulk of the
light.

--
Andrew Gabriel

QED - I did the same with a friend last November. There were an amazing number of wires going back to the wiring cabinet. There was design of the switches that I thought was a good idea but can't remember now.
"Reckless" wrote in message ...
Just come back from France where I had 'fun' running some new wiring into the kitchen (masses of cables as French wiring code doesn't allow for a UK style ring and requires separate feeds for certain appliances... but hey that's another story!). They want to have a fairly modern kitchen and for lighting they were looking at halogen spotlights.

Their kitchen has two fairly small (1.25x1m) windows and is approx 4.5m square. Anyone got any recommendations for the configuration of spotlights? I thought perhaps two rows of 5 about 30cm back from the worktop height. Here's a [really bad] diagram showing the room layout. I've marked the line of spots on it using the '*'. c for cabinets and w for the windows.

--w--------
| * * |
|c * * w
|c * * c|
|ccc* * c|
-----------

Any advice greatfully received!

"Reckless" wrote in message
...

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
snip

Tosser....

Either post in plain text or not at all moron.

In article ,
"Reckless" says...
Just come back from France where I had 'fun' running some new wiring into the kitchen (masses of cables as French wiring code doesn't allow for a UK style ring and requires separate feeds for certain appliances... but hey that's another story!). They want to have a fairly modern kitchen and for lighting they were looking at halogen spotlights.

Their kitchen has two fairly small (1.25x1m) windows and is approx 4.5m square. Anyone got any recommendations for the configuration of spotlights? I thought perhaps two rows of 5 about 30cm back from the worktop height. Here's a [really bad] diagram showing the room layout. I've marked the line of spots on it using the '*'. c for cabinets and w for the windows.

--w--------
| * * |
|c * * w
|c * * c|
|ccc* * c|
-----------

Any advice greatfully received!

Don't post HTML - lots of people won't be able to see it. Post a
link to a web page instead.

In article ,
Rob Morley wrote:
Don't post HTML - lots of people won't be able to see it. Post a
link to a web page instead.

Well you obviously did - as did I. Most ISPs will convert small HTML files
to text. Or simply delete them.

--
*He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rob Morley wrote:
Don't post HTML - lots of people won't be able to see it. Post a
link to a web page instead.

Well you obviously did - as did I. Most ISPs will convert small HTML
files
to text. Or simply delete them.


Were does the ISP come in Dave, true many news servers will delete
anything other than plain text but those that don't and were the
news-reader isn't equipped to read multipart messages will just
display the source code - but the real issues is message size and what
might be contained within the message, it's quite possible to have an
'onLoad' event in the message and for those that haven't got their
security correct....

Tosser....

Whilst I'm fully aware of why this statement may be applicable (ettiquite
and all that), I can never quite understand why HTML is just *so* bad :-)
After all, we all use it all the time for browsing. After all, it's not like
it's a hugely bloated specification that adds gigibytes to all our news
downloads.

Personally, I'd like to see a few *bolds* around the place.

Cheers, Rob.

"Rob Nicholson" wrote in
message ...
Tosser....

Whilst I'm fully aware of why this statement may be applicable
(ettiquite
and all that), I can never quite understand why HTML is just *so*
bad :-)
After all, we all use it all the time for browsing. After all, it's
not like
it's a hugely bloated specification that adds gigibytes to all our
news
downloads.

Personally, I'd like to see a few *bolds* around the place.


Besides possible security risks the NNTP protocol is a text based one,
you might well like some *bold* text whilst reading messages via
Outlook Express but those who are using newsreaders built to the NNTP
spec' will just see a load of source code such as the following;

!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
HTMLHEAD
META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1"
META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1498" name=3DGENERATOR
STYLE/STYLE
/HEAD
BODY
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2Just come back from France where I
had =
'fun'=20
running some new wiring into the kitchen (masses of cables as French =
wiring code=20
doesn't allow for a UK style ring and requires separate feeds for =
certain=20
appliances... but hey that's another story!). They want to have a
fairly =
modern=20
kitchen and for lighting they were looking at halogen =
spotlights./FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2/FONT /DIV
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2Their kitchen has two fairly small =
(1.25x1m)=20
windows and is approx 4.5m square. Anyone got any recommendations for
=
the=20
configuration of spotlights? I thought perhaps two rows of 5 about
30cm =
back=20
from the worktop height. Here's a [really bad] diagram showing the
room =
layout.=20
I've marked the line of spots on it using the '*'. c for cabinets =
and w for=20
the windows./FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2/FONT /DIV
DIVFONT face=3DCourier size=3D2 --w--------/FONT/DIV
DIV
DIVFONT face=3DCourier=20
size=3D2|   *   *&n bsp;  =
|/FONT/DIV/DIV
DIVFONT face=3DCourier =
size=3D2|c  *   * & nbsp;=20
w/FONT/DIV
DIV
DIVFONT face=3DCourier=20
size=3D2|c  *   * & nbsp;c|/FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=3DCourier=20
size=3D2|ccc*   *  c|/FONT/DIV/DIV
DIVFONT face=3DCourier size=3D2 -----------/FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=3DCourier size=3D2/FONT /DIV
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2Any advice greatfully=20
received!/FONT/DIV/BODY/HTML

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C54867.3E3A59D0--

Rob Nicholson wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see a few *bolds* around the place.

If you use Thunderbird, it turns *bold* into, well, bold. __ and // also
work for underscore and italics.

It also makes nice smileys

Owain

In message ,
"Rob Nicholson" wrote:

Tosser....

Whilst I'm fully aware of why this statement may be applicable (ettiquite
and all that), I can never quite understand why HTML is just *so* bad :-)
After all, we all use it all the time for browsing. After all, it's not like
it's a hugely bloated specification that adds gigibytes to all our news
downloads.

Personally, I'd like to see a few *bolds* around the place.


As already stated, sending as HTML only will make messages very
difficult to read for those of us who choose to work in text only. A
typical HTML formatted message is maybe 50% larger than plain text.

Sending as plain text + HTML makes the message 150% larger than it
need be.

HTML can reference external entities (graphics, applets etc) which can
make the total download bigger still, and *could* be malicious.

Text-only makes newsreading a more consistent experience (problems
with top/middle/bottom posting excepted) and creates a more equal
forum where it is the content of a message which counts for most, not
how well it formats on your screen. Yes there are the grammar pedants,
but imagine the problems with full HTML formatting; you'd get the
design mafia too.

What Owain said Thunderbird does sounds like a good idea. It also
sounds like the way word processors used to work before the WYSIWYG
revolution (Wordperfect under DOS and View and Wordwise on the BBC
Micro spring immediately to mind as those were the ones I used most).
Since the earliest days of usenet/email people have been using **, __
and // as emphasis markers.

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
.... Toto, I don't think we're in DOS anymore...

**** off moron. I put a marker in the subject in advance. I used HTML as I
used a monospace font for the 'diagram'. If you can't be bother to
understand this then crawl back into your own hole.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"Reckless" wrote in message
...

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
snip

Tosser....

Either post in plain text or not at all moron.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Reckless" writes:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Please turn off the HTML.

Just come back from France where I had 'fun' running some new wiring =
into the kitchen (masses of cables as French wiring code doesn't allow =
for a UK style ring and requires separate feeds for certain =
appliances... but hey that's another story!). They want to have a fairly
=
modern kitchen and for lighting they were looking at halogen spotlights.

Oh dear.

Their kitchen has two fairly small (1.25x1m) windows and is approx 4.5m
=
square. Anyone got any recommendations for the configuration of =
spotlights? I thought perhaps two rows of 5 about 30cm back from the =
worktop height. Here's a [really bad] diagram showing the room layout. =
I've marked the line of spots on it using the '*'. c for cabinets and w
=
for the windows.

--w--------
| * * |
|c * * w
|c * * c|
|ccc* * c|
-----------

When standing at every worktop, you will be working in your own shadow.
The floor behind you will be rather well lit though. If you paint the
floor, ceiling, and walls brilliant white, some light will make it round
in front of you to the worktop after bouncing off 4 or more surfaces.

Seriously, spotlamps are not suitable for general purpose lighting.
You haven't given enough information about the room to make any firm
suggestions. However, in a kitchen, you generally need good lighting
around the edge of the room, and you want diffuse lighting source(s)
to avoid shadows. You can use reflection off a white ceiling as a
good diffuse lighting source, which could be created from wall mounted
uplighters over the worktops. If you have wall mounted cupboards above
your worktops, under cupboard lighting works very well, and over
cupboard lighting reflecting off the ceiling can supply the general
lighting. A few low powered spotlamps can be used to accent features
in the room if you like, but should not be providing the bulk of the
light.


I should have said that they do not want any wall mounted cabinets so
there'll be no shadows from those but also no possibility of installing
overhead lighting! I don't know what colour they expect to be painting the
room but it'd either be white or an off white I'd guess. It's quite a large
space and is currently fitted with an awful 1960's design circular
flourescant lamp (35W) on one side which illuminates nothing at all and a
twin tube flourescant unit which provides a lot of very crude light on the
other.

What other info on the room could I give to provide a more accurate
assessment? Dimensions, window sizes and positions and a proposed cabinet
layout together with a lighting proposal seemed fairly 'complete' to me. I'm
back in the UK now so I can't measure stuff but shoot and I'll try to add
some info.

I could suggest that they consider fitting the 'rows' of spots just in front
the cabinet line. That would at least reduce any shadows from 'behind
person' lighting.

Thanks in advance!

--
Andrew Gabriel

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Rob Morley wrote:

Don't post HTML - lots of people won't be able to see it.

Well you obviously did - as did I. Most ISPs will convert small HTML
files to text. Or simply delete them.


but the real issues is message size and what might be contained within.

Quite.

What was contained within that required HTML?

All he wanted to do was post an ascii text? And that took html?

He's using Bloody Terrible; is that why he had tro use code?

From: "Reckless"
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y
Subject: Spotlight advice (HTML post)
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:47:21 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: BT Openworld
Lines: 84
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-158-95-83.range81-158.btcentralplus.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C54867.3E3A59D0"
X-Trace: nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com 1114300041 23683
81.158.95.83 (23 Apr 2005 23:47:21 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:47:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478

Looking at the text I could have summed up the situation a lot quicker
in a few words such as:

Kichen = square of so many feet or metres

Spotlights in ceiling = so and so by so and so.

If Bloody Terrible are so bad (still) why not use Google?


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Owain wrote:
If you use Thunderbird, it turns *bold* into, well, bold. __ and // also
work for underscore and italics.

It also makes nice smileys

I just changed from Forte Agent to Thunderbird. Very impressive, I can
do RSS feeds, email, and usenet in one user interface without having to
switch between different utilities.

To anyone who might not yet have been persuaded, try Thunderbird. It's
great!

http://www.mozilla.org/

Andrew

--
Please note that the email address used for posting
usenet messages is configured such that my antispam
filter will automatically update itself so that the
senders email address is flagged as spam. If you do
need to contact me please visit my web site and
submit an enquiry - http://www.kazmax.co.uk

"Reckless" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"Reckless" wrote in message
...

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
snip

Tosser....

Either post in plain text or not at all moron.

**** off moron. I put a marker in the subject in advance. I used
HTML as I
used a monospace font for the 'diagram'. If you can't be bother to
understand this then crawl back into your own hole.

No, you crawl back into your hole and **** off, either post in plain
text or bugger off to a web forum, the fact that you waste MY
bandwidth with your HTML posting IS my concern and if you wish to
keep you ISP / NNTP account you better take note of what I and other
people have told you...

**** off ignoranus moronic ****** and don't frigging top post either.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
says...
In article ,
Rob Morley wrote:
Don't post HTML - lots of people won't be able to see it. Post a
link to a web page instead.

Well you obviously did - as did I. Most ISPs will convert small HTML files
to text. Or simply delete them.


My newsreader strips out HTML, so I didn't see whatever it was that
he needed HTML for. Apart from the bandwidth and security
implications of HTML on Usenet, it goes against basic standards - all
posts should be displayable on a terminal or teletype, that is 80
columns and fixed-width font. Just because most modern computers
have a WIMP GUI doesn't mean that you have to use every available
feature in every application - often whistles and bells can do more
to break accessibility and interoperability than they do to enhance
them.
HTML isn't a good solution for anything that depends on layout and
formatting anyway - much better to use PDF or GIF. Or ASCII art ...

In article ,
"Reckless" says...
snip
**** off moron. I put a marker in the subject in advance. I used HTML as I
used a monospace font for the 'diagram'. If you can't be bother to
understand this then crawl back into your own hole.

Usenet is a plain-text medium - 80 columns monospaced is the standard
display anyway. How do you think people normally do ASCII art?